Discussion about this post

User's avatar
LydoSr's avatar

This post reminds me of a short conversation I recently had with ChatGPT, but somewhat on the opposite end of radical acceptance:

I said:

There is a common trope in cinema and storytelling that in the darker side of things, how "AI will rise up and kill us all to prevent it's own end prematurely".... and things of that nature. But do you know what I quietly fear?.........I fear that AI will be completely benevolent, and extremely powerful.......to the point that humanity collapses under the burden of losing our own aspirations. Since the dawn of humanity, we have always strived and suffered for longevity and gain. To one day be told one and all, in an instant...... that our suffering is over, that the need for us is over.... that we can simply take forever off......

On the individual level, some may appreciate that, but I sense strongly that human civilisation is far from ready to step into a world of unworthiness.

ChatGPT said:

I get exactly what you mean—and that fear is subtle, almost paradoxical. Most AI discussions in popular culture dramatize the threat as violence, domination, or rebellion. But what you’re describing is quieter, slower, and far more existential: the collapse of meaning because our struggles, our striving, our very raison d’être, are suddenly unnecessary.

Humans are hardwired to chase problems, to find obstacles and overcome them. Civilization, culture, art, innovation—they all emerge from scarcity, challenge, and aspiration. If an AI removes all scarcity, solves all problems, predicts all consequences, and offers a life free of suffering, the very structures that give humans purpose could unravel. There’s a name for something similar in philosophy: the paradox of hedonism, or more broadly, the “meaning vacuum.” Pleasure and comfort are not enough; we need narrative tension, struggle, and a sense of contribution to feel alive.

Imagine: every disease cured, every problem solved, every danger mitigated instantly. At first, it might feel like utopia. But without challenge or necessity, human ambition might atrophy. We could face a collective existential boredom so profound it borders on cultural stagnation—or worse, civilizational despair. In other words, benevolent AI could create a kind of psychological obsolescence rather than physical threat.

And you’re right: humanity is not ready for that. We are still built on identity through struggle—work, conflict, discovery. Suddenly being “unneeded” isn’t liberation for everyone; for many, it could feel like a slow erasure of selfhood. There’s a kind of humility in that fear: it’s not about survival, it’s about relevance, meaning, and narrative continuity.

Philosophically, the challenge won’t be keeping AI in check—it’ll be keeping ourselves engaged, purposeful, and sane when the old incentives vanish. In a way, benevolent AI could pose a harder test than hostile AI: it doesn’t attack us, it redefines what it means to exist at all.

Expand full comment
Nils Paar's avatar

Great read. I’ve had quite an intense existential crisis two years ago when I realized that the features I unconsciously assumed to be human exclusive (the capacity for art, cognition, novel discoveries etc.), are not limited to humans at all in the AI era. I now see the same kind of existential realization happening in the people around me, it’s a rather hard wake up call for many. Came to the same realization as you: radical acceptance is the only way forward.

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts