Have you seen the video of robots racing?  They can now run faster than any human. Individual Robots (or Bots) are being trained to clean the house, dance, fight and to do many other things (click on the robot photo to see a sample of what they can and can't do today). Massive numbers of programing Bots can now answer most routine questions, and/or they can overwhelm complex internet security and interface protocols. So should we run towards or away from AI and the Bots?

In a generation AI has moved from playing a competent game of tic-tac-toe to overwhelming any human chess opponent. When Bots compete against other Bots in chess, there's now concern for off-the-board cheating. 

The potential benefits and risks associated with AI use are beyond comprehension (in fields of health, science, financial, arts, communication, combat, etc.). One might hope that responsible AI developers would want to optimize benefits while minimizing the risks. But are they up to this task? Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang wears the same clothing most days to reduce decision fatigue. This doesn't necessarily instill confidence  in him being "up for the task". More importantly, will Huang, other CEOs, and developers be willing and able to morally prioritize and differentiate between benefit/risk challenges for them personally, their company, and the human race? Recent AI CEO warnings have amplified concerns. The intent of these warnings may be to stave off personal and company liability for AI risks. Ultimately who really knows if we should be running away from or to the Bots. Too easily many have embraced the notion this needs to be a race to an unknown destination. We are told we don't want to lose this race, but the reward for winning is obscure.

[pictured running robot is from Chris Mora's "The Articulate Robots" which was at the Foothills Art Center in Golden, CO]

Jonathan Kennedy's book Pathogenesis affirms that Galen (Aelius Galenus, a 2nd century physician and philosopher) thought it best to try and run away from the plague.  Galen's inclination may be well grounded as Kennedy claims that microorganisms have been a dominating influence on earthly humanoids. Homo neanderthalensis, and other pre-modern day humanoids, didn't lose an evolutionary battle with Homo sapiens because they were dim witted. Rather, Kennedy proposes that microorganisms and plagues more profoundly determined which group of humanoids would live or die.  Long before the European conquistadors and colonizers exposed the 'at-the-time' indigenous humanoids of North America to smallpox, measles, and typhus, the prehistoric ancestors of these cultures exposed prior indigenous humanoids to disease. Kennedy states that plagues, for which some humanoids had less immunological resistance, much or more than conquest, was often a determinant of extinction.   

Plagues and pandemics are scary and running away doesn't seem to be a current day option. Orthoebolavirus and SARS-CoV-2 virus have dominated headlines over the last 10 years. What humanoids of this century have learned about DNA and RNA is transformational and also a bit scary. There's good reason to believe that scientists in Wuhan, and around the globe, have been and will continue to undertake viral gain of function research. Both morality and safety competence in this research are already demonstrated failures. The basic questions and challenges for this microbiological research aren't much different than those for transformational AI and Bot commercialization.

Imagine the nexus of microbiological genetic sequencing research and AI. This could be a race to wondrous new antibiotics and vaccines. Or, it could be a race to warfare plagues. So what might be one of the important first steps to take as this nexus is explored? How about we rename AI (artificial intelligence) to SI (super intelligence)?  Maybe Galen is still right!