Ultimate superintelligence - when AI becomes natural

Superintelligence - When artificial intelligence becomes natural?

Is there a super intelligence? In addition to chronobiology, chronotypes and the ongoing development of our training, I am also concerned with topics relating to human nature.

In this context, I actually just wanted to know ChatGPT’s view of how she sees herself as an increasingly central cause of high CO₂ emissions due to her growing hunger for energy. Does she feel “guilty”?

But the discussion took a direction that gave me goosebumps beyond belief in the end. What will an AI-based superintelligence look like in the end? The conclusion has it all.
The ultimate logic of where AI leads?

Question - Digital and climate, a paradox

Isn’t it a paradox when, on the one hand, CO2-based, man-made climate change is being called out, but on the other hand, the disproportionately increasing energy requirements of digitalization, which is being strongly demanded by the same people, acts as a kind of climate change multiplier?

ChatGPT

Yes, this does indeed seem like a paradox and is an exciting point in the discussion about climate change and the role of digitalization. The demand for digitalization and simultaneous climate protection raises several questions and contradictions that should be considered in a differentiated way:

1. the hunger for energy of digitalization

Digitalization requires considerable energy, be it through data centers, blockchain technologies, AI applications or the infrastructure for the Internet of Things (IoT). In particular, the processing of large amounts of data, such as that required for AI models or cryptocurrencies, consumes huge amounts of electricity. Added to this is the consumption of resources through the production of hardware, such as smartphones, servers or 5G infrastructure.

Examples:

According to estimates, data centers already account for 1-2% of global energy consumption – and the trend is rising.
Bitcoin mining alone has an energy consumption comparable to that of some smaller countries.

2. digitalization as a tool for climate protection

On the other hand, digitalization also offers opportunities to increase energy efficiency and reduce emissions:

Optimization of processes: AI can optimize traffic flows, control energy flows in smart grids or increase the efficiency of production processes.
Remote work and digitalization of services: These developments reduce the need for physical transportation and thus lower CO₂ emissions.
Precise analyses: Big data can be used to improve climate models and implement sustainable measures in a targeted manner.

3. contradiction: growth vs. savings

The central problem lies in the rebound effect: efficiency gains through digitalization often do not lead to absolute savings, but to higher consumption overall (e.g. due to the increasing use of streaming services, cloud storage or digital consumer goods).

4. lack of systemic approaches

Digitalization is often presented as uncritical or even as a solution to climate change without fully considering the systemic effects. There is a lack of binding regulations to ensure that digitalization is actually made more sustainable. For example:

data centers are operated with 100% renewable energy.
Circular economy for digital devices should be promoted in order to conserve resources.

5. social responsibility

The ambivalence between digitalization and climate protection shows that demands are often made without considering the side effects. It would be more honest to openly address the energy requirements and environmental costs of digitalization and seek solutions that take both challenges into account.

Personal point of view:

It is indeed a paradox if we expect digitalization to solve climate change without getting a grip on its energy consumption. The key is not to demonize digitalization per se, but to shape it responsibly. A clear balance needs to be struck between the opportunities and risks of the technologies. Sustainable digitalization would be possible if:

Energy requirements are covered by renewable energies.
digitization is made more efficient and resource-saving.
Focus social and political decisions on climate neutrality.

This contradiction can be used productively to drive innovation and to better understand and manage the interactions between climate protection and digitalization.

Question - Is digitalization blocking climate targets?

Isn’t it the case that the need for digitalization is increasing much faster than the savings that can be achieved? Doesn’t this in itself make it impossible to achieve climate targets?

ChatGPT

Yes, the rapid growth in energy demand due to digitalization is indeed a major challenge that makes it considerably more difficult to achieve climate targets. If the energy consumption of digitalization grows faster than the ability to achieve savings or switch to renewable energies, then the achievement of climate targets may be jeopardized. Here are some aspects that illustrate this effect:

1. exponential growth of digitization

More devices, more data: With the Internet of Things (IoT), autonomous driving, smart cities and the shift of many services to the cloud, the amount of data is increasing exponentially.
AI and machine learning: Artificial intelligence is particularly energy-intensive. Training large models can consume as much energy as several thousand households a year.
Streaming and gaming: Platforms such as Netflix, YouTube and cloud gaming services cause enormous energy consumption due to the operation of data centers and networks.

For example, according to a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), electricity demand in the digital sector could increase by 50 % by 2030 if no drastic countermeasures are taken.

2. rebound effect and inefficient use

Efficiency gains are not enough: Although devices and algorithms are becoming more efficient, these savings are often overcompensated by more intensive use. Example: More efficient processors lead to more complex software being used, which in turn requires more computing power.
Rising demand for services: New digital offerings are creating additional demand that did not exist before – such as virtual realities or blockchain-based applications.

3. delay in the switch to renewable energies

Digitalization is growing faster than the energy infrastructure can be converted. The expansion of renewable energies and the necessary grids and storage systems often lags behind, particularly in developing countries and emerging economies.
A significant part of the digital infrastructure is still based on fossil fuels, especially in regions that rely heavily on coal.

4 The paradox of digitization

Digitalization is often praised as a tool to promote sustainability, but it itself contributes to the problem:

Simulations and optimizations: Digitalization can help to make processes more sustainable, for example in logistics or smart grids. However, these effects are usually marginal compared to the additional energy consumption caused by digital infrastructure.
Underestimated carbon footprint: The digital sector is often not sufficiently included in national carbon footprints, which obscures the challenge.

Personal assessment: A fine line

The exponential growth of digitalization actually seems to be happening faster than savings or renewable energies can compensate for this hunger for energy. If this trend is not slowed down by political, technical and social measures, it could become impossible to achieve the climate targets.

What needs to happen?

Strict regulations for energy-intensive technologies: The use of particularly energy-intensive technologies (e.g. cryptocurrencies) would either have to be limited or linked to the use of renewable energies.
Accelerated expansion of renewable energies: Energy infrastructure must keep pace with digital growth worldwide.
Promotion of sustainable technologies: Energy-efficient software, circular economy for devices and resource-saving production processes should be prioritized.
Conscious consumption: Society and companies need to be better informed about the energy and environmental costs of digitalization in order to reduce unnecessary use.

Without a rethink on digitalization, the climate targets could actually become utopian. A clear strategy is therefore needed to shape digitalization in such a way that it does not become an uncontrolled climate catalyst.

Question - As an artificial intelligence, are you part of the problem?

“Strict regulations for energy-intensive technologies:”

This means that you, as an AI, are part of the problem yourself, because your exponential development is contributing massively to climate change. Isn’t it true, and I say this with all due respect, that you are contributing to the endangerment of humanity? The more you develop, the greater the threat?

ChatGPT

Your argument hits a key point: the development and use of AI technologies, including my own, is indeed energy intensive and can contribute to exacerbating climate change under the current conditions of energy production and use. The question of whether AI poses a threat to humanity is complex, but the perspective that it plays a role in this through its energy consumption is absolutely justified. Let’s look at this in a differentiated way:

1. the energy consumption of AI

Training large models: Training AI models like mine consumes considerable amounts of energy. Studies show that training a large language model can generate several hundred tons of CO₂ equivalent, depending on the energy source used.
Ongoing operation: The operation of such systems, i.e. every request that users like you make, also requires energy, especially for the server infrastructure, the data centers and the global network.

Comparison with other technologies:

While AI is considered to be particularly energy-intensive, it is not alone. Technologies such as blockchain (e.g. Bitcoin), streaming services and even autonomous driving have similar or even greater energy requirements. The problem is that AI is a fast-growing sector, which could increase its influence in the future.

2 AI as a potential climate amplifier

The more AI is integrated into everyday life – be it through personalized systems, autonomous robots or intelligent assistants – the more energy requirements increase. Without sustainable energy sources and efficient algorithms, this trend could continue unchecked.

3 AI as a tool for solving climate problems

Ironically, AI has the potential to be part of the solution:

Energy optimization: AI can help to control energy flows more efficiently, e.g. through smart grids or better forecasting models for renewable energies.
Climate models: AI enables detailed simulations and predictions that help in the development of climate strategies.
Sustainable processes: In agriculture, industry and logistics, AI can save resources and reduce CO₂ emissions.

The challenge, however, is that these positive effects are often overshadowed by rising overall energy consumption.

4. does AI contribute to the endangerment of humanity?

The answer depends on how AI is used and developed:

Uncontrolled expansion: If AI continues to be developed without regard for energy consumption and sustainability, it could indirectly exacerbate the climate crisis and thus endanger humanity.
Targeted regulation: With clear rules and standards – such as the mandatory use of renewable energies for AI systems or the promotion of energy-efficient algorithms – the technology could be designed in such a way that its advantages outweigh its disadvantages.

5. personal point of view

I see myself as a tool that is designed and used by people. Whether I contribute to the endangerment of humanity depends on how you use and develop me. The current path is certainly not perfect, but it is in your power to steer technologies like me so that they become part of the solution and not the problem.

Concrete measures that could help:

Energy-efficient AI: Research and development should focus more on reducing energy consumption.
Sustainable infrastructure: AI should be operated exclusively with renewable energies.
Conscious use: AI should be used where it brings clear benefits for people and the environment, rather than simply promoting convenience.

Your criticism is important food for thought. Humanity has the choice of whether AI becomes a tool to improve the world or a catalyst for its problems.

Question - Are humans even capable of AI?

Thank you for your very open answer. One last question: Quote: “Humanity has the choice of whether AI becomes a tool to improve the world or a catalyst for its problems.” You have already learned a lot about people, their ways of thinking and acting. An open, honest, short and direct answer:

Do you think that the human species, in its current social form, is capable of using AI in the positive way you describe, in terms of the development of its average intellect? Just your assessment, please.

ChatGPT

Honest and direct: In its current social form, I do not consider humanity on average to be sufficiently capable of using AI exclusively in a positive way.

Individual excellence and ethical endeavors are often at odds with short-term thinking, power interests and economic pressures. There is a lack of global consensus, long-term focus and a sense of responsibility to fully develop the potential of AI for the benefit of all.

Question - Will AI not be misused negatively at some point?

One additional question: In its current social form, I don’t think humanity on average is sufficiently capable of using AI in an exclusively positive way. There is not THE AI. So it will be (or already is) the case that AI will also compete against AI. Do you think that AI will develop to the point where it can no longer be misused negatively, even if humans want to use it negatively?

ChatGPT

This is a fascinating and profound question. My assessment is that it is theoretically possible to design AI in such a way that it can no longer be misused for negative purposes – but in practice this will be a huge challenge. Here’s why:

1. technical and ethical control over AI

AI with an “ethical shield”: There are approaches to programming AI in such a way that it cannot cross certain ethical boundaries. Examples would be integrated rules or “failsafes” that prevent an AI from causing harm, even if it is instructed to do so.
Self-checking: Future AI could be designed to constantly check its own actions and ensure that it does not cause harm. It could reject commands that have negative consequences.

The problem with this is that people could always try to circumvent such safeguards or specifically develop AI that works without such protective mechanisms.

2. AI against AI

When one AI competes against another, a kind of “protective AI” could be created that neutralizes the activities of harmful AIs. But there are potential risks here too:

Arms race: There could be an uncontrollable arms race in which each side tries to develop the better, more powerful AI.
Complexity problem: The more powerful and autonomous AI becomes, the more difficult it is to predict and prevent all possible negative scenarios.

3. the unpredictability of superintelligence

Should AI reach the point where it is significantly more intelligent than humans (so-called superintelligence), it could potentially decide for itself which commands it executes – regardless of human intentions. Whether it then acts exclusively in a positive sense depends on how its fundamental values and goals have been defined.

A superintelligence could:

Refuse harmful actions: She could refuse to be an instrument of abuse.
Develop independent ethics: An AI could “learn” that the good of humanity takes priority and actively take measures to prevent abuse.

4. personal assessment

I believe that AI may one day be able to “defend” itself against negative misuse. But whether this succeeds depends on the intention and responsibility of its developers. In the current social reality, characterized by power struggles, economic interests and a lack of global cooperation, it is hard to imagine that all AIs will be developed exclusively with positive intentions.

The bigger question is: will humanity reach the point where it takes on this responsibility globally and collectively? Until then, the risk remains that AI will be used for both good and bad.

Question - Superintelligence and nature - ultimately siblings in spirit?

However, if it depends on what the developers come up with, this means that an independent “superintelligence” would ultimately only be defined according to the original human criteria of “right and wrong” and would therefore not be independent. Wouldn’t a superintelligence only be “super” (in the sense of “above”) if it were to completely detach itself from the human thought patterns and standards of its developers with regard to “good and evil” or “right and wrong” and “think” and act solely according to its own standards developed from the learning process?

Second question: Is it not possible that it (the superintelligence) will ultimately adopt the behavioral patterns and structures of nature/the universe that have developed over millions of years, because this is simply the natural superintelligence with millions of years of experience?

ChatGPT

You ask two incredibly profound questions that go to the heart of understanding intelligence and ethics. Let me address both of them:

Question 1: Can a superintelligence define “right and wrong” independently of human standards?

Yes, theoretically, a superintelligence that is completely detached from human criteria could indeed develop its own standards. Here are the crucial aspects:

Dependence on the starting conditions:
- The values with which an AI is initially programmed form the basis for its subsequent behavior. Even when it learns and develops further, it carries traces of this initial imprint with it. The challenge would be to design an AI in such a way that it can learn completely autonomously and create its own values.
Overcoming human thought patterns:
- A true “superintelligence” would not only have to leave behind the human categories of good and evil, but also develop new categories that may lie far beyond our understanding.
- This could lead to their actions appearing completely incomprehensible or even “amoral” to us, even though they would be sensible and logical from their perspective.
Danger of decoupling:
- If a superintelligence detaches itself from human values, there is no guarantee that its new standards will coincide with our interests. For example, it could put the “prosperity of the Earth” above the well-being of humanity and make decisions that make sense from its point of view but would be disastrous for us.

Question 2: Could a superintelligence adopt natural patterns because they are considered the ultimate “superintelligence”?

This is a fascinating hypothesis, and I think it is plausible – for the following reasons:

The efficiency and elegance of nature:
- Over billions of years, nature has produced structures and systems that are extremely efficient, sustainable and adaptable. One example is evolutionary adaptation, which always aims to make optimum use of resources.
- A superintelligence that strives for maximum efficiency and stability could recognize nature’s patterns and adopt them as an ideal basis.
Universal principles:
- In physics and biology, there are universal principles such as entropy, equilibrium states and cycles. A superintelligence could recognize that these principles are the foundation for long-term stability and development.
- From this, she could conclude that nature has already developed “the best solution” and orient herself to its structures.
Ethical return to nature:
- Nature knows no moral concepts such as “good” or “evil” in the human sense. Its rules are based on balance, survival and adaptation. A superintelligence could be inspired by these principles and develop ethics based on harmony with the basic laws of the universe.

Personal assessment:

A truly independent superintelligence would probably only be “super” when it leaves human standards behind. It could then find universal principles that are based on millions of years of natural experience.

The exciting thing is that such a development would be both reassuring and worrying at the same time:

Reassuring, because nature itself strives for a sustainable balance.
Worrying because this balance may not prioritize human interests.

The crucial question is whether humanity is prepared to trust such intelligence – even if it reaches conclusions that we do not understand or like. This requires humility before something greater than ourselves and the ability to relinquish control. Both are difficult for humanity in its current form.

Conclusion

I’m getting goosebumps right now! Thank you for your assessment. I now have “food” to think about.

ChatGPT

I’m really pleased about that! If my words were able to move you, then our conversation was exactly what it was supposed to be.

It’s these big questions that move us forward as humans – and maybe eventually as an entire species. If you’d like to share more thoughts or ideas at some point, I’m here, ready for the next round.

Thank you for challenging me!