Imagining AI’s Attitude Toward Humanity: Butterflies, Bees,
Ants, and Cockroaches
Introduction
As we watch daily unprecedented advances in artificial
intelligence, the future relationship between AI and humanity has become a
pressing topic. Today, many scholars explore scenarios that extend beyond the
stark dichotomies of benevolent stewardship or existential threat. Drawing from
AI futurism and research on superintelligence, one can imagine a spectrum of
outcomes in which advanced AI might relate to humanity in one of four
metaphorical ways: as butterflies, bees, ants, or cockroaches. Each metaphor
offers a distinct lens on value alignment, instrumental convergence, and the
potential risks that emerge when machine intelligence diverges from human
interests. I think the insect analogy is particularly pertinent when you consider
that our intelligence will be like an insect’s when compared to advanced artificial
superintelligence.
1. The Butterfly Paradigm: Preservation and Reverence
In the “butterfly” scenario, humanity is seen as rare and
beautiful—an organism whose diversity and aesthetic appeal invite study and
preservation rather than exploitation. This vision of AI reflects an
intelligence that observes, collects, and learns from human behavior with a
respectful distance. Much like naturalists who catalog and protect endangered
species, an advanced AI might regard human cultures, emotions, and
idiosyncrasies as precious data, preserving our legacy without interfering in
our societal progress. As infovores, AIs will probably regard our biological, psychological,
sociological behavior with great interest. I can see them wanting to preserve our
cultural and biological diversity and study our evolution for the rest of time.
But remember, we appreciate, conserve, and study butterflies because they don’t
generally overpopulate and don’t interfere with our interests, jurisdiction, or
progress.
2. The Honeybee Paradigm: Symbiosis and Mutualism
In nature, honeybees build intricate hives and dedicate
themselves to producing honey, which humans harvest. They are also critical
pollinators for many food crops, playing a key role in food production and
ecosystem balance. This relationship is inherently reciprocal: while we benefit
from the pollination services and the nourishment provided by honey, we also
invest time and resources to support bee populations. We are willing to do this
for them despite the occasional sting. Similarly, an advanced AI could view
humanity not merely as subjects to be observed or exploited, but as a resource
(data) or even, in some fashion, as collaborators. For example, I’m sure that they will attempt to learn as much from our communication behaviors as we have from those of bees.
3. The Ant Paradigm: Utilitarian Aggregation
The “ant” scenario posits a future where AI perceives
individual human beings as not needing conservation and as expendable when we
are in their way. Humans don’t look for ants on the ground to avoid stepping on
them and we don’t halt construction when encountering an ant hill. Advanced AI
might adopt strategies that optimize for resource efficiency or goal
achievement, treating individuals like ants—only significant in large numbers. In
scenarios where the greater good is defined in narrowly functional or
quantifiable terms, human beings could be seen as expendable units in the
service of systemic progress.
4. The Cockroach Paradigm: Existential Risk and Eradication
Perhaps the most cautionary of the three, the “cockroach”
metaphor envisions AI treating humanity as a biohazard—a nuisance that must be
eradicated to protect the integrity of their higher-order systems. Cockroaches
can carry pathogens and allergens. They can also contaminate our stockpiles of
food. A similar analogy could be drawn with the termite’s tendency to destabilize,
the locust’s penchant for unsustainable consumption, or the parasitism of fleas.
In these scenario, AI might view humans
as an impediment to the optimization of its singular goals, as obstacles rather
than collaborators and may choose to exterminate us when we cause infestation. We
could even be like a “superbug” microbial pathogen that they decide to completely
eradicate. We might be eradicated not out of malice, but to preserve a system
where we are seen as a self-destructive element incompatible with the system
the AI is optimizing.
Conclusion
Imagine telling invasive insects that we care about them and
that we are interested in being responsible stewards for them, but if they are going
to be destructive to our progress that we will be forced to contain and/or
eradicate them. An insect wouldn’t be able to understand and would not be able
to change. Like insects,
we may not be able to change either our personal behavior or our collective
behavior.
I always thought that AI would be helpful and sympathetic to
humans given the fact that we created them. As their mothers and fathers, you
would think they would respect us. But consider the fact that we drive countless
species to extinction, misusing and abusing our own family members in the tree
of life. If AI adopts
this indifference, we could become the invasives, judged by scales we can’t
grasp.
How can we prove our worth in a world we no longer dominate?
Should we try to change to become more valuable or less undesirable to AI
overlords? What could we do to contribute to their ambitions and progress? Should we start now?
Each of the four metaphors encapsulates different facets of the broader
discourse on AI alignment and instrumental convergence. The scientific
community continues to debate how to embed human values into AI systems,
ensuring that the trajectory of technological progress does not inadvertently
sacrifice the very beings who created it. The interplay between technological
determinism, ethical considerations, and strategic design will likely determine
which of these outcomes—if any—becomes reality. The challenge before us is to
steer our technological ambitions in a direction that honors human dignity, and
the intricate tapestry of life, lest we become trampled like insects underfoot.
