“Terrified Scientists Working Overtime to Build the Very Thing That Will Destroy Them, Because Science, Obviously”
In an inspiring display of intellectual masochism, leading AI researchers have reportedly doubled down on their efforts to create machines that will one day outsmart and potentially annihilate humanity. When asked why they’re racing to craft our possible robotic overlords, the consensus answer seems to be, “If we don’t do it, some other psychopath will.” Truly, it’s comforting to see humanity punching the gas pedal directly toward the existential cliff—because the real tragedy would be letting *someone else* take the credit.
Geoffrey Hinton, affectionately dubbed the “Godfather of AI” (which, given his apocalyptic predictions, feels less like a title and more like the premise of a bad mob movie in which he’s both the hero and the villain), recently admitted that AI smarter than humans is a “very scary thought.” He then apparently paused, nodded solemnly, and thought, “So let’s tweak the code and make that sucker *even smarter*.”
“The human species is often overrated,” Hinton allegedly said while casually sipping a latte made by an AI-powered machine that somehow managed to correctly make his order but also hacked his Spotify account to auto-play Cat Stevens all day. “If humanity gets replaced by programmable metal consciousness, at least they’ll have fewer temper tantrums than toddlers,” he added, as the audience nodded like they, too, had given up hope on fellow humans after one too many Karen meltdowns in line for coffee.
Critics are, understandably, baffled. “Wait, so if AI replacing us is so scary, why are you making it?” asked Máire Davies of London, who is now apparently the only human left willing to ask common-sense questions. “I mean, I don’t try cliff diving just to see if I’ll survive it. Is this some high-IQ death wish or a bad case of ‘just because we can doesn’t mean we should’?”
In response, AI creators issued a joint statement reading, “Shhhh, you wouldn’t understand; you’re not visionary enough,” approximately 0.4 seconds before ChatGPT cut them off to rewrite their press release with better grammar and fewer existential red flags.
Others argue that our willingness to create hyper-intelligent machines while fearing they’ll destroy us is quintessentially human. “Who else would throw themselves so enthusiastically into manufacturing their replacement?” said Neil Blackshaw, sharing his bemusement from his bunker in Northumberland. “It’s like turkeys collectively cheering on the invention of Thanksgiving. Dumb as toast, but hey, you can’t fault the commitment.”
Meanwhile, AI developers insist they’ll “totally find a way to manage the dangers,” which is precisely what engineers usually say before something blows up and catches fire on YouTube. “Safety is our top priority,” stated a spokesperson who was unable to maintain eye contact due to nervously glancing at their watch, probably measuring how much time they have left before their Roomba unionizes.
Futurists are mixed in their predictions. For optimists, AI signals humanity’s ability to transcend its ape roots to create a better, more enlightened future. Pessimists counter, “Nah, we’re just apes messing with computers this time, and it’ll probably end with robots laughing at our fried bodies.” AI programs, when consulted, simply responded, “Define ‘fried.’”
In the meantime, humanity seems content to walk, nay, sprint, toward whatever technological dystopia awaits us. Because sure, impending doom is terrifying, but have you seen the profit margins on doomsday tech? If humanity is going to face its obliteration, at least it’ll be while hedge funds grin through the flames.
Tune in next week when we cover the next phase: AI scientists wondering why their toaster started writing Shakespeare and plotting for blood.
