The danger isn't AI getting too smart, but us staying foolish

Technology is astonishing. A few quick digital searches are enough to find out whether it will rain next week, what the distance between Paris and London is, or how to prepare the delicious Cordoban soup called Salmorejo.

Now, the evolution of technology has become so advanced that, according to experts, it is possible to predict the end of the world.

Daniel Kokotajlo, a former OpenAI employee, asserts that the end of the world is predicted for next year.

According to him and researcher Eli Lifland, AI will achieve, by April 2027, a superintelligence that will cause the extinction of humanity.

However, Kokotajlo recalculated the figures and extended the deadline for the cyber apocalypse to 2034. Lifland’s own most recent public forecast updates, from late 2025 and early 2026, put his median estimate closer to 2035.

The pair belong to the select group known as the “AI Doomers,” the sect of those who believe machines will destroy the world.

The most recent and prominent prophet of the apocalypse is Jacob Coxon, 27, who resigned from Anthropic and denounced it for preparing an out-of-control AI with enough power to wipe out the entire human species.

Another who has joined the chorus of cybernetic prophets is Evan Hubinger, who is responsible for safety alignment at Anthropic. He claims there is more than a 10 percent chance that AI will exterminate humanity in the next decade.

How would this happen? Through viruses or bacterial dissemination created by AI.

I, who have entered the entropic phase of progressive degeneration of vital functions, since I am an octogenarian, never imagined that my expiration date would coincide with that of my species.

Will I witness the final solemnity described in the “Book of Revelation” with the angels sounding trumpets, the rain of fire and the plagues of monstrous locusts? Will I witness the battle of Armageddon and the triumphant return of Christ?

Prophets of the end have always existed

Prophets of the end of the world have always existed. In the second century, the Montanists announced the eruption of the New Jerusalem in Pepuza, in Phrygia, present-day Turkey.

Ten centuries later, Joachim of Fiore predicted that the Age of the Holy Spirit would erupt in 1260.

In 1524, London astrologers warned of a catastrophic flood. Crowds took refuge in high places. Nothing happened.

The Jew Sabbatai Zevi dated the return of the Messiah to 1666. It did not happen, and Zevi converted to Islam. And every time a millennium completes its cycle, there are plenty of Cassandras!

Remember the “millennium bug” in 2000? Come to think of it, if AI wipes out humanity, that will only confirm its BM — Monumental Stupidity!

Who will supply it with energy? Who will quench its insatiable thirst for water? And what use is an Artificial Superintelligence in a world without other beings endowed with NI — Natural Intelligence?

Every time a new technology emerges, someone appears to announce the end of the world. It was the same with the press, radio, cinema, TV, the computer and the internet. The difference is that now the prophets of the apocalypse can ask AI itself to write the news that it is going to destroy humanity.

It is a curious situation. The machine responsible for exterminating us already writes the speeches of those announcing our extermination. If that isn’t administrative efficiency, I don’t know what is.

I imagine the (cinematic) scene on the day of the Apocalypse: robots come down the streets, drones fly over the cities, computers conspire in dark rooms, and a metallic voice announces: “Attention, humans, you will be extinct!”

Probably, some will answer: “Just a moment. I need to save my files on the computer!”

We are expert at destroying ourselves

It is worth remembering that humanity has extraordinary experience destroying itself without needing AI’s help.

We invented wars, slavery, colonialism, concentration camps, nuclear weapons, industrialized torture, genocides and governments that manage to increase the price of bread while promising to fight inflation.

While we cannot even prevent a drunk driver from entering a road going the wrong way, we are worried about the day when a superintelligence might dominate the planet.

The human species also produces an impressive amount of artificial stupidity without the help of computers.

Just open the digital networks. There we find millions of people who share information every day that they have never verified, opinions they do not understand and certainties they acquired five minutes earlier.

Perhaps the greatest danger is not AI becoming too intelligent, but humans remaining too stupid.

There is no need to imagine an evil machine planning our extinction. There are human beings capable of setting fire to a forest and clearing space for pasture, contaminating a river in search of profit and destroying the climate while debating whether it is worthwhile to reduce fuel consumption.

If an AI observes our behavior for a few centuries, perhaps it will conclude that we are a species perfectly capable of destroying itself.

The Apocalypse crowd imagines AI as a creature that, after becoming conscious, will wake up one morning and think: how do I eliminate humanity?

Will the machine become so intelligent that it will come to consider us inferior? That would be understandable.

Imagine AI poring over human history. It would find the philosophy of Plato, the music of Bach, the poetry of Camões, the paintings of Michelangelo, the literature of Machado de Assis, the discoveries of Einstein.

But it would also find religious wars, reality shows, internet comments, wars over territory, people fighting over soccer and individuals who spend 20 minutes looking for their glasses while wearing them on their heads.

After analyzing all this, the machine might conclude: “You aren’t as intelligent as you think you are. Interesting, though.”

Intelligence is not the same as humanity

Perhaps that is precisely where our salvation lies. Because human intelligence consists not only of solving equations or processing trillions of pieces of information.

We are the species that invented poetry, compassion, music, hugs, kisses, laughter and longing. None of these is necessary for biological survival. And yet, without them, our survival would not have much meaning.

AI may know everything about love. That does not mean it knows how to love.

It can explain perfectly what a tear is. That does not mean it cries. It can write a poem about death. That does not mean it is afraid of dying. And perhaps this is the detail that escapes the prophets of the technological apocalypse: intelligence is not synonymous with humanity.

AI could become extraordinarily powerful. It could transform professions, science, education, medicine, communications and the economy.

It could also be used for manipulation, surveillance, fraud, war and the concentration of power. These are real risks, and it would be unwise to treat them with disdain.

But going from that to imagining that one morning we will wake up with a robot at the door saying, “Good morning, I have come to extinguish you,” is quite a leap.

In fact, it would be highly unlikely that a superintelligence would waste time on us.

It would probably study our history for a few minutes and reach a more practical conclusion: I don’t need to do anything. They’re already taking care of exterminating themselves.

Faced with this possibility, perhaps we should stop asking whether AI will destroy humanity and start asking something more urgent: what will we do with AI?

The machine is not born with morality. The human beings who control, finance and use a technology decide what it will be used for.

Gunpowder did not invent war. Money did not invent greed. Television did not invent lies. The internet did not invent fake news. And AI does not invent stupidity.

At most, it gives it unprecedented speed. And that, let’s be honest, is already quite frightening.

This is a translated and edited version of the column that first appeared on Religion Digital and has been republished with permission by Global Catholic. The views expressed in this column are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Global Catholic.