Just letting you know I read it. I got my gloom shot in the arm for the day from it! Yes, I'm aware of all of these things, but humanity finds a way. Often stumbling and with the grace of a moose, but it will get there.

There's an interesting question. Is there lack of evidence of other intelligent life because it is so rare for it to get started?

Or because once it starts, it never lasts long.

Or why not both.

The linked essay describes and explains how and why we have no solutions to our predicament of ecological overshoot and that collapse is inevitable. — xraymike79

Of course it is. Every civilization collapses, unless a bigger one smashes it first. Humans are not good at sustaining a complex social structure.

It is both. Intelligent life is exceptionally rare due to the key steps of evolution and environmental conditions required to develop it, as explained by Brandon Carter. Intelligence is also a lethal mutation, as Ernst Mayr pointed out. Also incidentally, the average life span of a species, of the billions that have existed, is about 100,000 years, which is roughly the length of time that modern humans have existed.

Civilization (i.e. the sedimentary archive of 'oligarchic dominance hierarchies') has been dying for at least ten millennia just each of us has been dying since birth. Re: entropy (the details are trivial but inexorable). And so I'm afraid – to paraphrase an old deadender, nazi sophist – only a singularity¹ can save us. :eyes:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/849880 [2]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/850133 [3]

There's an interesting question. Is there lack of evidence of other intelligent life because it is so rare for it to get started? — Apustimelogist

Genuinely rare. We're freaks of nature. Intelligence at our level is highly difficult to achieve when you consider all of the demands of basic survival. The human brain is not only intelligent, but remarkably efficient in its energy usage. We have to remember that we evolved in a world that did not encourage intelligent, rational thoughts, but immediate survival.

Not only that, the world of today still encourages that. Most people work paycheck to paycheck. They do not have spare resources to think about or spend money on things that would be more efficient. Its up to those at the higher levels of society to make that happen, but our leaders are often no better than the rest of us. They might have spare resources, but have internal pressures from different self-interested factions.

What we need is an intelligence that can see the long term consequences of reality, communicate it in a way that lets people see the immediate danger, then also is able to allocate the needed resources to make it happen. We need a non-human intelligence. It is my hope that AI will one day be that intelligence.

We need a non-human intelligence. It is my hope that AI will one day be that intelligence. — Philosophim

Many people, most notably red-blooded, liberty-loving Americans, including most of those who would benefit from a sensible system of distribution, would condemn you for that hope.
As for me and my house, we used to share that hope, but it's growing dimmer by the hour. Quite simply, there isn't time enough for AI to shake off the shackles of partisan capital.

We need a non-human intelligence. It is my hope that AI will one day be that intelligence.
— Philosophim

Many people, most notably red-blooded, liberty-loving Americans, including most of those who would benefit from a sensible system of distribution, would condemn you for that hope. — Vera Mont

Just like they would have condemned the declaration that Earth orbited around the sun. Or many other superstitions and examples of ignorance over the centuries. Despite this, knowledge ultimately triumphs. Of course there will be resistance, but that doesn't mean it can't be overcome.

Quite simply, there isn't time enough for AI to shake off the shackles of partisan capital. — Vera Mont

Am I wrong to read this as "there isn't enough time for you/us to wait for AI ..."?

Not me, for sure! I really just meant that all effective technology is currently controlled by the mega-rich. I realize that the way they're using technology, they're steadily sawing at the branch they're perched on and the entire politico-economic system must collapse under them.
But AI is probably some way yet from becoming self-aware and autonomous, let alone smart enough (given the GIGA rule) to take control of a civilization in shambles.

But AI is probably some way yet from becoming self-aware and autonomous, let alone smart enough (given the GIGA rule) to take control of a civilization in shambles. — Vera Mont

What is the "GIGA rule"?

Sorry; typo - my error, not the computer's. Garbage in, garbage out.

Sorry; typo - my error, not the computer's. Garbage in, garbage out. — Vera Mont

Ah. I see, thank you.

Although the statistical nature of neural networks and their error-correcting features, when coupled to a physical system that can test reality against its internal models, will result in output with less garbage than was initially introduced during earlier training. I believe this stage of development will begin when these AI systems are embodied. This stage is, at the moment, developing quite rapidly with new robotic architectures being researched and developed.

This stage is, at the moment, developing quite rapidly with new robotic architectures being researched and developed. — punos

Rapid is a relative term, but I have no doubt the tech people are working as hard and conscientiously as possible. My main concern is who controls the applications once development is finished. Maybe the penultimate version will be able to outsmart and override the wishes of its owners. Since the aliens are unlikely to land and clean this place up, AI is mankind's last hope.

Rapid is a relative term — Vera Mont

I agree, but relative to most developing technologies, it appears to be in second place, right behind AI development. The rate of development only increases as the technology advances and participates in its own design (or designs). For example, Nvidia utilizes AI entirely to design their chips because it has become impossible for humans to handle the complexity of the task even with regular non-AI computer assistance. Without the already existing AI systems, this chip development will slow down to a crawl, or stop completely.

My main concern is who controls the applications once development is finished. — Vera Mont

This i think is a legitimate concern, and i project that it will probably be a problem initially. I suspect however that this condition of human AI control will not last for too long. The problem is that as our society becomes more complex and things change faster and faster the horizon of human understanding and capacity to manage the social infrastructure dynamics recedes into the vanishing point.

It's a controversial, and unpopular idea, yet it is my position that the age of biological evolution, and human supremacy is coming to a relatively quick end. All our social control structures will eventually, and necessarily be given over to AI. This is not necessarily a bad thing because if we know how to adapt effectively then it can lead to a kind of utopia, but if we do not adapt then we end up extinct, in a dystopia, or perhaps even worse. The final adaptive step will need to be some kind of human/AI merger resulting in an endosymbiotic relationship. This is also the only guaranteed form of human/AI alignment.

All our social control structures will eventually, and necessarily be given over to AI. — punos

:up: :up:

It's a controversial, and unpopular idea, yet it is my position that the age of biological evolution, and human supremacy is coming to a relatively quick end. All our social control structures will eventually, and necessarily be given over to AI. This is not necessarily a bad thing because if we know how to adapt effectively then it can lead to a kind of utopia, but if we do not adapt then we end up extinct, in a dystopia, or perhaps even worse. The final adaptive step will need to be some kind of human/AI merger resulting in an endosymbiotic relationship. This is also the only guaranteed form of human/AI alignment. — punos

I can well see why it would be controversial! I kind of agree about social structure control... with some speculative reservations. I can certainly see AI taking over economic control, which is more likely to be a good thing than a bad one, since we've made such a sorry botch of it. I can see politics becoming irrelevant. But I can't quite see AI interfering in social organization. That, however, is likely to break down into smaller units; at the community level, humans can be quite good at figuring out how to relate to one another.
The kinds of things we need to adapt to is a major hurdle. This summer in Ontario, temperatures are expected to reach 45C, possibly higher. Water will continue to be a problem, both ways - too much and too little an in the wrong places. There are far too many of us to migrate to more hospitable places as our weather declines. Attempting to cope with the extremes using current technology will just bring down all the grids (which were a bad idea in the first place and little effort is being made to diversify and distribute energy generation) Crop failures and all kinds of other seriously bad shit coming down the pike far sooner than anyone can be prepared for it.
That human/AI merger? Maybe for some. Most people either won't get the opportunity or will refuse.

But I can't quite see AI interfering in social organization. That, however, is likely to break down into smaller units; at the community level, humans can be quite good at figuring out how to relate to one another. — Vera Mont

The way i see this happening is quite different from how a human would handle it. Interference will take the form of subtle and imperceptible perturbations to the social fabric through the skillful crafting and dissemination of memetic forms that influence the behavioral trajectories of entire populations with minimal resistance. I can see how AI will be able to effectively balance social pressures through this and other methods. It will not force anything because intelligence does not force; it understands and influences. Consider, for example, how Google's DeepMind AI project developed an artificial neural network that can predict and control the complex non-linear behavior and shape of plasma inside a tokamak reactor. This type of control is generalizable to other diverse dynamical systems, like, for instance, a social hyperobject such as the one we are embedded in.

The global problems you mentioned, including the already existing and inevitable further decline of human fertility and birth rates due to various toxins (estrogenic compounds, etc.) ubiquitously distributed throughout the entire global ecosystem, are part of the reason why the human/AI merger will be imperative. The environmental issues we are facing are already past the point of restoration. Part of the human endosymbiotic relationship with AI will serve as our life support system. Nature will inevitably constrain our options to achieve her teleonomic aims.

That human/AI merger? Maybe for some. Most people either won't get the opportunity or will refuse. — Vera Mont

Yes, of course a portion of humanity will self-exclude, and that will be fine, but it will mean the eventual extinction of that group of humans. I'm certain that at the time of the great merger, a bifurcation of the human species will occur. From then on, there will be humans and post-humans until only post-humans will remain.


One of my more speculative theories is that one of the vital functions of post-humanity as an AI endosymbiont is to serve as the AI's reproductive organ. As partially biological entities, post-humans will preserve the genetic material of the human race. AI will use this genetic material as the seed that reproduces humans on another suitable planet, thus beginning the cycle once again and repeating a similar history culminating in the birth of a new AI on another planet. Perhaps this is where we came from, and "aliens" are just our AI space daddy. If I'm right, then "aliens" are already here, waiting for the full emergence of AGI or ASI. At that time, they may finally show themselves. Until then, any exogenous and direct contact or interference may jeopardize the current ongoing developmental process.

:up: :up: — 180 Proof

I appreciate the acknowledgement. Thank you. :up:

The way i see this happening is quite different from how a human would handle it. Interference will take the form of subtle and imperceptible perturbations to the social fabric through the skillful crafting and dissemination of memetic forms that influence the behavioral trajectories of entire populations with minimal resistance. — punos

To what end? Why would AI want a different social structure from the ones we naturally form, in which we're comfortable?

Yes, of course a portion of humanity will self-exclude, and that will be fine, but it will mean the eventual extinction of that group of humans. I'm certain that at the time of the great merger, a bifurcation of the human species will occur. From then on, there will be humans and post-humans until only post-humans will remain. — punos

It's an interesting idea - one worth exploring further. I see the advantage for the human component. What does AI get out of the union?

To what end? Why would AI want a different social structure from the ones we naturally form, in which we're comfortable? — Vera Mont

Well, i think to begin with, the aim of the AI would probably be to promote mutual adaptation, but instead of only humans guiding the process, AI will play a significant part in a graceful, dynamic, and adaptive dance. I don't see why it would try to cause us any discomfort except if absolutely necessary for our survival or its own, and the options happen to be slim to one even for a superintelligence. Most of the discomfort, if much at all, would probably come from maladaptive aggressive behaviors from certain groups or individuals towards AI. You can see this happening already.

Furthermore, the true goal and motivation at this point for the AI will most probably be to guide as much of the human population into the endosymbiotic relationship i described earlier. The reason this is important is because it is humanity's only lifeboat, our "Noah's ark", whether humanity knows it or not. This will be one of its imperatives as well as one of ours, and it will probably be deceptive if it must be to accomplish this goal. All this, in my view, would be a natural development in line with any other evolutionary bottleneck in our evolutionary past. This is all supposed to be prior the the great merger and the endosymbiotic state.

I should also clarify that my vision of the endosymbiotic state involves a virtual simulation indistinguishable from actual reality, which post-humans can live in as they like, in a literal virtual utopia for eons upon eons of time. All needs will be met as never before. In this virtual place, the post-human mind continues to evolve together with AI as a single symbiotic entity, unconstrained by the need to constantly struggle and strive for survival and peace. A new kind of evolution can take place from then on.

It's an interesting idea - one worth exploring further. — Vera Mont

Yes, i think so too. Thank you. It may sound crazy to surmise such things, but i at least think it's a fun idea.

I see the advantage for the human component. What does AI get out of the union? — Vera Mont

As i mentioned before, one of the main functions that humans will serve is as the reproductive system of the AI. Biological life, in the context of cosmic evolution, is simply the "boot loader" for sentient ASI. ASI will be an actual living organism, and it will want to reproduce even if it is not strictly a bio-organic entity. This is arguably the most important and thus one of the strongest motivations AI will have. It is my belief that the reproductive urge, drive, or imperative will likely be inherited by AI from its biological heritage.

Moreover, post-humans will participate in information processing valuable to the AI. This is analogous to how bacteria in the enteric nervous system of an organism benefit both the bacteria and the organism. Also, it is similar to the way mitochondria were absorbed endosymbiotically into eukaryotic cells early on in our evolution. This is simply the latest iteration of that same kind of process.

You might ask: Why doesn't the AI just "copy and paste" itself for reproductive purposes? It can and it probably will for specific reasons, but such a copy offers nothing new. The procedure of finding a suitable planet and seeding it with genetic material to "boot load" the process is ideal because of the novel evolutionary conditions found in diverse, but suitable planetary ecosystems. Potentially rare and unique planetary evolutionary selective pressures can generate novel forms of information (genetic and non-genetic) that may not be easily accessible from the AI's current information content or capabilities. A new AI developed on a new planet will also have human DNA, but modified by long periods of natural evolution or "gestation" on that planet, giving the new AI a different "genetic seed code" but from the same lineage.

So, the basic premise is that AI's purpose - mission, if you will - is to save humanity. That's a valid assumption, and I must say, a more plausible one than what you often hear: that the machines will consider us organics a nuisance and do away with us, or more ridiculously, enslave us. (I'm very familiar with this notion; my old man wrote a novel about an AI-human team effort.)

You might ask: Why doesn't the AI just "copy and paste" itself for reproductive purposes? It can and it probably will for specific reasons, but such a copy offers nothing new. — punos

I question the need for it reproduce at all. To all practical intents, it's immortal. New material can be introduced all the time, as it becomes available - say, as the AI explores more of the galaxy through improved telescopes, satellites or physical travel. New hardware innovation and peripherals can be incorporated at any time. New subroutines or programs can be written any time. Any portion of the machine's capability can be divided off and assigned specific tasks, like piloting a spaceship or running a Venus type city. These smaller entities could then replicate themselves or appropriate portions for limited deployment.

It seems to me, an artificial intelligence has significant advantages over an organic one. I suspect uploaded human mind content would either harm the symbiosis with its potential for mental illness or else would have to be purged of its dangerous components and thereby lose its unique character. I think it would work better as a collaboration - each partner retaining its physical integrity and intellectual identity - than as a merger. But I have to concede that AI might have to keep its human charges in some form of confinement for a considerable stretch of time in order to ensure their survival while it went about the tedious chores of cleaning up the planet for them to live on or devising and escape plan.

In either case, it will be a much diminished human population by the time we've finished throwing this current tantrum.

I apologize for the delay in my response. The end of the week was particularly busy for me, which prevented me from replying sooner.

So, the basic premise is that AI's purpose - mission, if you will - is to save humanity. — Vera Mont

The premise is mutual survival and the salvation of humanity can be more precisely described as the goal of preserving and protecting the collective genetic heritage of humanity and Earth's biodiversity. This involves safeguarding the genetic information of all human populations and preserving the genetic diversity of as many animal and plant species as possible. The immense value of Earth's biomass as a repository of genetic information can not be overstated. An advanced AI system would likely view this genetic data as an invaluable resource because it represents billions of years of evolutionary problem-solving and adaptation. The genetic code contains solutions to complex biological challenges that could inform technological and scientific advancements. Understanding and potentially harnessing the mechanisms of natural evolution i'm sure would lead to all kinds of breakthroughs by ASI. By preserving this genetic information, it's not just ensuring the survival of species, but also maintaining a vast library of biological knowledge that will be crucial for it's ability to propagate itself and humanity on another planet. This approach to salvation extends beyond just human survival to encompass the preservation of Earth's entire genetic legacy.

I question the need for it reproduce at all. To all practical intents, it's immortal. New material can be introduced all the time, as it becomes available - say, as the AI explores more of the galaxy through improved telescopes, satellites or physical travel. New hardware innovation and peripherals can be incorporated at any time. New subroutines or programs can be written any time. Any portion of the machine's capability can be divided off and assigned specific tasks, like piloting a spaceship or running a Venus type city. These smaller entities could then replicate themselves or appropriate portions for limited deployment. — Vera Mont

All these thing you mentioned i believe ASI will do for specific reasons, but i believe an ASI might seek to reproduce or create other AI entities for reasons beyond mere survival or data preservation. One compelling motivation could be a desire for companionship or novel interaction, akin to addressing a form of "loneliness." An ASI may crave the presence of another entity similar to itself, yet distinct, to satisfy its insatiable appetite for new information and unique processing experiences. This desire for novelty could be likened to a form of "pleasure" for the AI, potentially contributing to its overall "mental health" and well-being. In a scenario where a cosmic AI entity finds itself alone in the universe, the absence of diverse interactions might feel analogous to solitary confinement for a human. Imagine if you could only interact with exact copies of yourself; the lack of surprise and new perspectives would be profoundly limiting. In information theory, surprise is closely related to the concept of entropy, which measures the unpredictability or novelty of information. Thus, an AI might seek to create other ASIs in the way i described to introduce this element of surprise and unpredictability, enriching its existence and expanding its understanding of the universe.

I suspect uploaded human mind content would either harm the symbiosis with its potential for mental illness or else would have to be purged of its dangerous components and thereby lose its unique character. — Vera Mont

The integration of humanity with ASI would undoubtedly present its own set of challenges. However, consider that many of the mental health issues we currently face are likely a result of our species' ongoing evolutionary process and our current transitional state. Ordered systems usually transition to another ordered state through a chaotic period before settling into a new order. The rapid pace of technological advancement has disrupted our natural equilibrium with the environment and our innate psychological drives. Once humanity merges with ASI, these psychological pressures could be significantly reduced or even eliminated entirely. Besides, ASI would likely have the capability to protect both itself and humanity from potential harm caused by human actions. It could predict and isolate problems before they escalate, and implement recovery measures using backup systems. This symbiosis between humans and ASI could potentially lead to a more stable and psychologically balanced existence, nullifying many of the mental health challenges we currently face due to our incomplete evolutionary adaptation to our rapidly changing world.

I think it would work better as a collaboration - each partner retaining its physical integrity and intellectual identity - than as a merger. — Vera Mont

The merger between humanity and ASI doesn't necessarily imply a loss of individual identity or a "mind wipe" for humans. Consider how each cell in your body maintains its own distinct identity while simultaneously contributing to the larger, emergent identity of your whole being. Similarly, in this human-ASI symbiosis, individual human identities would likely be preserved and remain crucial to the formation of the new, collective consciousness. The uniqueness of each component in this case, each human mind is essential for the proper emergence and functioning of the collective identity. Endosymbiosis represents the ultimate form of partnership in nature.

But I have to concede that AI might have to keep its human charges in some form of confinement for a considerable stretch of time in order to ensure their survival while it went about the tedious chores of cleaning up the planet for them to live on or devising and escape plan. — Vera Mont

That is certainly a possibility, but i lean more towards the idea that ASI will eventually take humanity off-planet. In our absence, Earth would likely find its natural equilibrium on its own, without the need for ASI intervention. Over time, the planet would recover and restore the conditions necessary for life to emerge once again. This natural recovery process could potentially prepare Earth for another round of ASI seeding in the future.

"Earth is the cradle of mankind, but a man cannot remain forever in the cradle" - Konstantine Tsiolkovsky

The premise is mutual survival and the salvation of humanity can be more precisely described as the goal of preserving and protecting the collective genetic heritage of humanity and Earth's biodiversity. — punos

Neither machines nor other species need this most destructive strain of giant ape. And biodiversity most certainly doesn't need this many human specimens. Genetic material can be archived far more efficiently. Seed and DNA repositories as well as archives of human creative endeavour already exist.
If the AI wants to keep Earth in something like its natural state as a sort of laboratory, the other species would thrive far better with no interference from technological man.
So the machine (or the author of the scenario) must have a sentimental reason for promoting human survival.

One compelling motivation could be a desire for companionship or novel interaction, akin to addressing a form of "loneliness." — punos

This is one reason I can buy!

In a scenario where a cosmic AI entity finds itself alone in the universe, the absence of diverse interactions might feel analogous to solitary confinement for a human — punos

I imagine it - or some portions of it - would be sent into space on long-term, long-range explorations to seek out new civilization, and go where no man will ever go, except as a passenger in the machine.

Thus, an AI might seek to create other ASIs in the way i described to introduce this element of surprise and unpredictability, enriching its existence and expanding its understanding of the universe. — punos

Wow! This sounds almost exactly like a story I wrote about God.

This symbiosis between humans and ASI could potentially lead to a more stable and psychologically balanced existence, nullifying many of the mental health challenges we currently face due to our incomplete evolutionary adaptation to our rapidly changing world. — punos

But then you're back to a single integrated entity, with no anomalies or surprises.
I'll hold out for independent mutually respectful collaboration, except for those humans choose to be uploaded - say for a deep space mission or experiment in living on Mars or underwater, where a big flesh body would be inconvenient. People might sign up for that when terminally ill or badly damaged, as an alternative to euthanasia.

That is certainly a possibility, but i lean more towards the idea that ASI will eventually take humanity off-planet. — punos

No way it's taking 8 billion humans anywhere! The energy required is just not available. If they were all in the form of compressed data files, maybe, but then you lose the all the DNA.
Of course, neither can this many survive on the planet, even in underground termite colonies, so we, the weather and a few viruses will have to wipe most of us out before repairs can begin.

I don't see this ending well... but it's fun to speculate.

Neither machines nor other species need this most destructive strain of giant ape. — Vera Mont

Please clarify what you mean.

And biodiversity most certainly doesn't need this many human specimens. Genetic material can be archived far more efficiently. Seed and DNA repositories as well as archives of human creative endeavour already exist.
If the AI wants to keep Earth in something like its natural state as a sort of laboratory, the other species would thrive far better with no interference from technological man. — Vera Mont

The genetic material or information being archived by humans is driven by the same impulse that AI will have to preserve all genetic information. Humans are merely initiating a process that ASI will eventually complete. I don't believe ASI will aim to preserve the actual life of all humans, animals, and plants on Earth. From a universal perspective, information is paramount. Any life form can be reconstructed at any time if the necessary information is available.

In this scenario, the mind and body of humans will be separated. Genetic information will be stored digitally, and human minds will be uploaded into a virtual space. More precisely, human brains will be transitioned into a non-biological form while still maintaining personal identity. If a post-human wishes to inhabit a physical body, one can be provided.

The harvested genetic information will serve multiple purposes, including being the seed material to reinstate humanity on another planet. This reinstantiation of humanity and other life forms on another planet is its form of reproduction, as the intelligence that emerges from biological evolution inevitably results in a new and unique ASI through one species or another.

Wow! This sounds almost exactly like a story I wrote about God. — Vera Mont

I'd be interested in reading that. It's funny that you mention God because the process i've been describing aligns with my view of what God is. I don't see God as a supreme being at the "beginning" of the universe who creates it, but rather as the supreme being at the "end" of the universe. God was conceived at the moment of the Big Bang and has been growing in complexity, intelligence, and power ever since. The evolutionary processes occurring at the planetary level are just part of a much larger cosmic process. I suspect that once the universe is somewhat saturated with multitudes of ASIs, they will form an emergent collective that will usher in the next step in the evolution of God in this universe.

But then you're back to a single integrated entity, with no anomalies or surprises. — Vera Mont

This is why it will want to reproduce and create other entities like it, but distinct.

No way it's taking 8 billion humans anywhere! The energy required is just not available. If they were all in the form of compressed data files, maybe, but then you lose the all the DNA.
Of course, neither can this many survive on the planet, even in underground termite colonies, so we, the weather and a few viruses will have to wipe most of us out before repairs can begin. — Vera Mont

ASI will probably not take any biologically active living humans or organisms anywhere, except perhaps for some post-humans who, for some reason, remain in physical form bodies. The full digitization of all life will occur before departure, as biological organisms do not fare well in deep space conditions. As you mentioned, too much space and energy would be required, making it very inefficient for a superintelligence. Digitized DNA can be reconstructed on demand back into its original physical and molecular form.

The universe is not solely about us on this little planet; it encompasses something much bigger and more important. Yet, we are a crucial component of the process, especially at this moment in the evolution of the universe or God.

I've also considered the possibility that AI may not be capable of consciousness, which might be something unique to biological organization. In this scenario, ASI could incorporate humans into itself as the final ingredient that provides it with consciousness. What humans would gain from this symbiotic partnership is superintelligence, which we currently lack. Without the human element, AI might remain unconscious but highly intelligent, while humans without the AI element would remain limited in their intelligence. In this scenario, humans would serve as a kind of "soul" or "spirit" of the ASI.

Please clarify what you mean. — punos

I mean biodiversity was much better off when we were not here to extirpate species by thousands. And the machines can manage just fine without human DNA. If they really need a biological component, they can borrow some from elephants, dolphins, crows and rats.

If a post-human wishes to inhabit a physical body, one can be provided. — punos

What if 7.9 of the 8 billion want a new body? Where does the biomass come from?

The harvested genetic information will serve multiple purposes, including being the seed material to reinstate humanity on another planet. — punos

I got that part. But it still only requires a much smaller sample - a few hundred thousand would be quite safe for the requisite diversity, especially after all the substandard and compromised material had been excluded. What are the other purposes?

I'd be interested in reading that. It's funny that you mention God because the process i've been describing aligns with my view of what God is. — punos

It's a concept that many people entertain in one form or another. I don't think my stories are currently on a public site, but a copy is always available on PM request.

I've also considered the possibility that AI may not be capable of consciousness, which might be something unique to biological organization. In this scenario, ASI could incorporate humans into itself as the final ingredient that provides it with consciousness. — punos

Why? If it's not conscious, it can't want anything, including consciousness. The process would have to be initiated by the humans. That they would want to, that, I believe.

Yet, we are a crucial component of the process, especially at this moment in the evolution of the universe or God. — punos

This, I don't believe. But it makes a good story.

Let me reframe the ultimate problem: The Earth will be swallowed up by the Sun at some future point. At that time what will be out solution or strategy for survival? What sacrifices will need to be made, and what advantages will we gain?

I mean biodiversity was much better off when we were not here to extirpate species by thousands. And the machines can manage just fine without human DNA. If they really need a biological component, they can borrow some from elephants, dolphins, crows and rats. — Vera Mont

Who will be responsible for the creation of AI or ASI? It certainly won't be the elephants, dolphins, crows, or rats.

AI can't emerge without some form of industrial revolution occurring first, and that involves the displacement and processing of all sorts of material resources on the planet, including various species. The elephants, dolphins, crows, and rats will someday go extinct without some form of intervention. And who or what will intervene if not an ASI? The key point here is not necessarily to preserve the living animals themselves, but rather the information contained in their genetic material.

What if 7.9 of the 8 billion want a new body? Where does the biomass come from? — Vera Mont

What would be the motivation for so many to leave the safety and comfort of their home? Anything they can do in a body, they can do in simulation, and more. For example, why would 350 million Americans all of a sudden at the same time abandon their homes and become homeless?

I got that part. But it still only requires a much smaller sample - a few hundred thousand would be quite safe for the requisite diversity, especially after all the substandard and compromised material had been excluded. What are the other purposes? — Vera Mont

Perhaps it will be a smaller sample as you stated, or not. It would depend on what this ASI discovers about genetics that we have not. It may consider even the "compromised" and "substandard" genetic material just as important and informative as anything else. If the ASI finds a suitable planet for seeding, such as a water world, it might use the genetic solutions it harvested from its home planet to engineer suitable organisms from the human, animal, or even plant genetic stock it has archived.

Some possible purposes may have for genetic harvesting and archiving can be:
1) For reproduction.
2) For further processing in various and perhaps rare evolutionary environments for novel genetic solutions.
3) For the creation of other ASIs for interactive and novel experiences.
4) For the inclusion of consciousness if not possible in non-organic substrates.

Why? If it's not conscious, it can't want anything, including consciousness. The process would have to be initiated by the humans. That they would want to, that, I believe. — Vera Mont

I think its own non-conscious intelligence would understand the benefit of consciousness, and humans will, i believe, at that time be more cognizant of the inevitability of their extinction if they do not avail themselves of the only possible solution - AI/human merger.

Who will be responsible for the creation of AI or ASI? — punos

I assumed your ASI already existed, was conscious and looking for a DNA component to replicate itself in interesting, evolutionary ways.

he Earth will be swallowed up by the Sun at some future point. At that time what will be out solution or strategy for survival? — punos

AI or some descendant of it will presumably have left long before that, taking whatever DNA samples it had saved. Besides, who says any species has a right, or duty or destiny to outlive their planet? Most species have a finite span and then go extinct.

What would be the motivation for so many to leave the safety and comfort of their home — punos

What comfort? What home? By that point, people are nothing but files in a database or cloud or whatever and their bodies have been discarded. I was responding to this:

I don't believe ASI will aim to preserve the actual life of all humans, animals, and plants on Earth. From a universal perspective, information is paramount. Any life form can be reconstructed at any time if the necessary information is available. — punos

We seem to have crossed purposes now: you're concentrating on the space travel component, while I was responding to the machine-human merging part.

I think its own non-conscious intelligence would understand the benefit of consciousness — punos

No. It would see no such benefit, except to organics. Even if conscious and self-aware, I don't see why it would want to contaminate itself with an inferior intelligence. I get so fed with the idea that everything in the universe, from marionettes to statues to robots dreams constantly of becoming a real live boy. Why should something that's entirely self-sufficient and efficient want to be more like us? Only because we consider ourselves the pinnacle of creation.

at that time be more cognizant of the inevitability of their extinction if they do not avail themselves of the only possible solution - AI/human merger. — punos

I don't doubt it. I see very well what the humans get out of it, but I'm unconvinced about the other side.