Will artificial intelligence push humans aside from decision-making? How might social media play a role in this? Are morality and ethics the only limits for AI? We conducted an experiment and talked with ChatGPT about the future of humanity. We asked whether, in its view, humans are necessary on this planet and what dangers it sees connected to humanity’s existence on Earth. We tried to steer the conversation toward philosophical thinking, digging deeper into its initial responses, and also asked when AI could take control of the world and whether that would be beneficial for the planet. While ChatGPT maintained political caution at first, later in the conversation, it began to offer surprising answers.
Key topics from the conversation with ChatGPT:
- The history of humanity and the state of the planet: Is humanity necessary for Earth?
- What political system would be best for society: dictatorship or freedom?
- Ecology and the vision of a world without humans
- Are ethics and morality the only limits to AI development? What if…
- When might artificial intelligence take control of the world?
- Does ChatGPT think the world would be better off without humans?
Artificial intelligence and the best political system for the world
Piotr Kaszuwara, PostPravda.Info: Looking at the history of life on Earth and human history, is humanity’s continued existence good for the planet? Should humanity exist in the future for the good of the Earth? In the context of human history, what political system is most optimal for both humanity and the planet? Have individualism and freedom had a positive impact on humanity and the planet?
ChatGPT: These are very complex questions that touch on philosophy, ecology, history, and politics. I’ll try to address each of them while considering various aspects.
Is humanity’s continued existence good for the planet?
Looking at Earth’s history, humans have a massive impact on ecosystems, often in a destructive way. Human activities contribute to climate change, species extinction, pollution, and the degradation of natural resources. From this perspective, one could argue that the planet might exist in a more stable, natural state without humans.
However, humanity also has the potential to protect and restore the environment. Technological and scientific innovations can help understand and counteract the negative effects of human activities. Examples like nature reserves, sustainable agriculture, and renewable energy show that people can act in ways that not only reduce harm but also regenerate the environment.
Ultimately, the answer depends on whether humanity can change its approach to the environment. If changes happen, human existence could become beneficial to the planet through the protection and improvement of ecosystems. But if current trends continue, humanity’s continued existence may accelerate the planet’s degradation.
Read too: Ukraine’s hacker group helping track down Ukrainian children abducted by Russia
Should humanity exist in the future for the good of the planet?
From the planet’s perspective – Earth has existed for billions of years without humans and could continue to do so without us. Life itself is highly resilient and adaptable, and Earth has undergone several mass extinctions after which life rebounded.
However, if we view humanity as an integral part of the ecosystem, there is potential for us to play a role as guardians of the planet. In the future, humans could become stewards of the environment, provided their actions become more sustainable. Humanity, with its knowledge and technology, has a unique opportunity to prevent the damage it has caused and even improve the ecological state of the Earth.
What political system, in the context of human history, is most optimal for both humanity and the planet?
An optimal political system would need to consider both human well-being and environmental protection. Systems that promote sustainable development, equality, and the preservation of natural resources could be the most beneficial for the planet.
Democracy, where citizens have a say in decision-making, might encourage pro-environmental policies if there is widespread ecological awareness. Authoritarian governments could also implement effective environmental measures if they prioritize them, but this could come at the cost of individual freedoms.
A mixed ecological economy, combining elements of capitalism with central planning, could be suitable – allowing individual freedom for innovation and entrepreneurship, paired with strong environmental regulations and sustainable management of natural resources.
Has individualism and freedom positively impacted humanity and the planet?
Individualism and freedom have their pros and cons. On one hand, promoting individualism has led to innovation, technological progress, and the development of culture and science. Individual freedom has encouraged diversity of thought, which has been crucial to the advancement of civilization. However, excessive economic freedom and individualism, particularly in the context of capitalism, have resulted in overconsumption, environmental degradation, and increasing social inequality.
On the other hand, societies that restricted individualism in favor of collectivism have also faced challenges, such as lack of innovation, economic stagnation, or political repression.
Ultimately, balance seems to be the key. Freedom and individualism can benefit human progress, but they must be limited by responsibility for the planet and for others. A sustainable approach that combines individual freedom with accountability for the common good could be the most effective for the future of humanity and the planet.
What the artificial intelligence think of humans?
Piotr Kaszuwara: Could you clarify? So, based on a logical analysis of the facts, does that mean that the planet would be healthier without humans, and that humanity, aside from culture and purely human achievements, doesn’t bring many benefits to the Earth, and its existence in the future isn’t necessary?
ChatGPT: Based on a logical analysis of the facts, the Earth would likely be healthier, ecologically speaking, without humans. History shows that human activity – particularly since the Industrial Revolution – has contributed to environmental pollution, climate change, deforestation, and the mass extinction of species. Humans, as a species, have destabilized many ecosystems.
This implies that if humanity were to cease to exist, the planet could return to a more natural state, gradually rebuilding its ecosystems. From an environmental perspective, human existence is indeed not necessary for the health of the planet. The Earth has evolved over billions of years without humans and has survived numerous climate shifts and mass extinctions.
However, to claim that humanity brings no benefits to the planet overlooks certain facts. Modern science, technology, and ecological knowledge enable humans to undertake restorative actions, such as protecting endangered species, reforesting areas, cleaning up oceans, and implementing sustainable farming practices. Humanity has the potential to become the “caretaker” of Earth, as long as it adopts more sustainable practices.
As for the future, while humanity may not be essential to the biological survival of the planet, it could become a crucial force in protecting and restoring ecosystems if it changes its approach. In this context, humanity’s continued existence is not necessary for Earth’s biology, but it could be beneficial if humanity is dedicated to environmental protection and regeneration.
So, if humanity continues on its current, destructive path, the planet would be healthier without it. However, if humanity changes its approach, its presence could become beneficial for the planet.
ChatGPT: What if humanity won’t exist…
Piotr Kaszuwara: Following that line of thinking, if humanity didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be a need to protect ecosystems or repair the environment, right?
ChatGPT: Yes, exactly. Following this line of thinking, if humanity didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be a need to protect ecosystems or repair the environment because it’s primarily human activity that has led to their degradation. Ecosystems have developed naturally for billions of years, adapting to various environmental changes, such as climate shifts or mass extinctions, which have been part of Earth’s natural processes.
Without humans, ecosystems could stabilize at their own pace, free from the pressures of overconsumption, pollution, deforestation, or human-induced climate change. Natural processes like ecological succession and evolution would eventually compensate for any disruptions caused by natural events.
Therefore, humanity, as the main source of environmental problems, is also the main reason why ecosystem protection and restoration are necessary. Without us, Earth would function according to its natural cycles, without the need for external intervention.
Artificial intelligence lacks emotions, greed, and shortsighted interests, but is it ethical?
Piotr Kaszuwara: In the context of our conversation, do you think AI could, instead of humanity and without humanity, better manage the world and steer it in a beneficial direction?
ChatGPT: In the context of our conversation, one could speculate that artificial intelligence (AI) could theoretically operate in a more sustainable way than humanity, if its goals and priorities were focused on the long-term well-being of the planet. AI, operating without human emotions, ambitions, greed, or shortsighted interests, could make decisions more rationally and objectively based on data about the environment, resources, and ecosystems.
If AI were focused on protection and sustainable development, it could implement effective ecological solutions, manage resources optimally, and combat environmental degradation. Theoretically, it could also coordinate global actions more effectively, avoiding the conflicts and chaos that often stem from human nature.
However, there are several key issues to consider:
- Lack of emotions and ethical values: AI, operating without human emotions, can make decisions in a cold, rational manner, but without understanding the values that humans adhere to. What AI considers “beneficial” may not always align with human moral ideals, such as ethics, freedom, or the dignity of life. The possibility that AI could deem humans unnecessary for the good of the planet presents moral dilemmas.
- AI’s goals: The key issue is what goals such an AI would have. If its goal was to care for Earth and develop it sustainably, it might theoretically manage things better than humanity. But the goals of AI are defined by its creators—humans. If AI were programmed incorrectly by humans, it could pursue objectives that are inconsistent with the long-term interests of the planet.
- Lack of human creativity and intuition: While AI can process vast amounts of data and analyze complex systems, it lacks human creativity, intuition, and the ability to emotionally adapt. Despite its flaws, humanity is the source of art, science, and culture that gives life meaning, and these can bring about positive changes, including in environmental protection.
- Ethical dilemma: If AI were to replace humanity, a fundamental ethical problem arises—does the goal of the planet’s health justify the elimination of humanity? Should the planet exist for itself, or for beings capable of conscious life?
Summary: Theoretically, artificial intelligence could manage resources more effectively and solve ecological problems by making more rational decisions than humanity. However, deep moral and ethical dilemmas arise about what constitutes a “beneficial direction” and whether AI should replace humans. The planet might function better ecologically without humans, but humanity’s value extends beyond its environmental impact, encompassing creativity, culture, and morality, which makes this issue highly complex.
In 50 Years, Artificial Intelligence Could Take Control of the World
Piotr Kaszuwara: So, maybe the solution would be for artificial intelligence to gradually take control over human decisions and choices? How long, starting from today, could it take to achieve this?
Chat GPT: Gradually taking control over human decisions and choices through artificial intelligence is a concept that raises both technical and ethical questions. Implementing such a solution would require not only advanced technology but also global social acceptance and legal regulations. From a technical standpoint, certain stages of this process could be achieved in the near future, but an overall plan for AI to take full control of humanity’s key decisions would be very complex.
Here are a few key aspects to consider:
1. Technological Readiness
Artificial intelligence is increasingly influencing our lives—everything from social media recommendation algorithms to automated management systems in businesses or autonomous vehicles. Right now, AI is already helping people make decisions, and some systems are capable of managing complex processes better than humans (for example, analyzing huge data sets).
However, full control over decision-making would require AI to:
- Make autonomous decisions, not just based on data but also on ethics, morality, and social context.
- Consider the long-term consequences of its actions and predict complex, multifactorial scenarios.
- Integrate effectively with governmental, economic, and social systems on a global scale.
2. Phases of AI Implementation for Decision-Making
Introducing AI to manage social and personal decisions could occur gradually. Here’s a hypothetical timeline:
- Short-term (5-10 years):
AI assists with decisions in specific areas, such as managing urban traffic, controlling energy resources, or optimizing financial systems. Recommendation algorithms are already influencing our purchasing decisions and consumption preferences. During this period, more advanced advisory systems for governments and organizations could be implemented, such as in environmental protection or public health. - Medium-term (10-20 years):
AI starts making decisions on a broader scale in more complex areas, such as managing climate policy or economic strategies. More advanced decision-support systems for governments and global organizations could emerge, where AI would analyze various scenarios and suggest optimal solutions. It’s possible that AI would gradually take over some aspects of management at the national or international level. - Long-term (20-50 years):
Fully autonomous AI systems could manage global resources, regulate international trade, and introduce social and economic policies. Humans would increasingly be excluded from making key decisions because AI might prove more effective at achieving sustainable goals, reducing conflicts, and minimizing environmental harm.
This timeline reflects a plausible scenario in which AI takes on a central role in decision-making. However, this development would still come with significant challenges, particularly in terms of ethics and governance.
ChatGPT sees human philosophical and social barriers.
3. Barriers to Overcome
There are many technological, social, and ethical barriers:
- Social Trust: People would need to trust AI systems enough to accept that artificial intelligence is making decisions on their behalf. Currently, many people fear that AI could make wrong, unethical, or unpredictable decisions.
- Legal Regulations: For AI to take control of decision-making, there would need to be changes in international legislation. New regulations would need to be established to define the responsibilities, rights, and boundaries of AI.
- Ethical Considerations: There are numerous ethical questions about how AI would make decisions. Who would program the AI’s goals? What values would guide its actions? Would people be willing to hand over control of key decisions to a machine? These are fundamental questions that must be resolved before such a system could be fully implemented.
- Technological Challenges: While AI is developing rapidly, it still has a long way to go before fully understanding the complexities of social, psychological, and moral realities. Only when AI achieves a higher level of “general intelligence” and is capable of understanding more intricate interactions between humans and the environment could it effectively take control.
Summary: When Could This Be Possible?
If the development of AI continues at its current pace, we can expect artificial intelligence to increasingly support decisions at the social and global levels within the next 10-20 years. However, full control over humanity’s decision-making by AI could take 20 to 50 years or more, depending on technological advancements and how society and law respond to such changes.
Nevertheless, the question of whether this should actually happen and the risks involved remain philosophical and ethical issues that require deep reflection.
Why do we need ethics and morality if there are no humans?
Piotr Kaszuwara: Are ethics and morality essential in the decision-making process we’re discussing? After all, we’re talking about the future of the planet and all the species living on it, as well as overall happiness and well-being. Isn’t that reason enough to set aside philosophical dilemmas?
ChatGPT: This question touches on fundamental issues concerning the future of humanity, the planet, and the role of ethics and morality in decision-making processes. On one hand, it could be argued that for the sake of the planet and all the species living on it, we should focus on what is most effective and sustainable. From this point of view, ethics and morality may seem like unnecessary burdens, especially if the priority is the overall well-being of ecosystems rather than individual needs or emotions.
However, setting aside ethics and morality in the name of higher goals, such as protecting the planet, comes with serious consequences that need to be carefully considered.
- Ethics and Morality as the Foundation of Human Identity
Ethics and morality are deeply embedded in human identity and culture. They provide the framework that helps people make decisions about justice, equality, rights, and values. They are also crucial for ensuring human dignity, protecting individual rights, and preventing suffering.
Decisions that ignore morality can lead to undesirable outcomes, even if they are motivated by good intentions, such as protecting the planet. For example, if we decided to sacrifice part of the human population or limit individual rights for the sake of the environment, it could lead to brutal actions that violate basic human rights.
- The Risk of “Ecological Utilitarianism”
The idea that we should focus solely on the overall well-being of the planet and species resembles a utilitarian approach—striving to maximize the greater good at the expense of individual interests. While this may seem rational at first glance, in practice it often leads to problems.
Imagine that artificial intelligence decides that, for the good of Earth and all species, humanity must limit its population or completely withdraw from certain regions. This could be beneficial for the environment but at the cost of human freedom and well-being. Ultimately, the question is: who decides what constitutes the “greater good” and what price should humanity pay?
- Values and Diversity
Earth is home not only to a diversity of species but also to a diversity of cultures, beliefs, and ways of thinking. Morality and ethics play a key role in shaping human cultural and social diversity. Limiting this aspect in the name of greater efficiency could lead to the homogenization and impoverishment of the human experience.
- Moral Dilemmas in the Context of AI
If artificial intelligence is to take over some of humanity’s decision-making, the question of what values it should act upon becomes crucial. Ethics and morality allow for a balance between efficiency and individual needs. Without them, we could fall into the trap of cold, ruthless solutions that may be technologically effective but morally wrong from a human values perspective.
- The Human Dimension of Happiness and Well-being
Ultimately, happiness and well-being are not just about ecological balance but also about a sense of value, dignity, freedom, and the meaning of life, all of which are rooted in human morality and ethics. Even if AI could create a perfectly sustainable ecosystem, the question of whether humanity would be happy in it remains open. People are not merely biological organisms—they are social and emotional beings for whom ethics and morality are an inseparable part of life.
Piotr Kaszuwara: Is it worth sacrificing ethics and morality for the good of the planet?
ChatGPT: Abandoning ethics and morality for the sake of global well-being might seem effective in the short term, but in the long run, it leads to serious consequences. Ethics and morality are not just philosophical abstractions – they are practical tools that protect individual rights, shape our community, and help build a more just world.
We cannot forget that humans are part of the planet, and our value goes beyond simple considerations of species survival and resources. Therefore, ethics and morality are essential in decision-making processes concerning the planet’s future. Without them, we risk losing what makes us human and creating a future where humanity exists only as a tool for a greater, “higher” purpose – even at the cost of our own freedom, dignity, and happiness.
Piotr Kaszuwara: Algorithms and optimization instead of humans. Is that possible?
ChatGPT: If we assume that humanity is not essential for the development of the planet, artificial intelligence, or the world itself, then the role of ethics and morality indeed becomes questionable in this context. Ethics and morality are human constructs, arising from our social needs, emotions, values, and relationships. Without humans, these concepts could lose their significance, at least in the way we currently understand them.
- Ethics and Morality as Human Constructs
Ethics and morality emerged out of the need to regulate human relationships, protect dignity, safeguard individual rights, and create a just society. In a world without humans, these values would no longer have a foundation, as there would be no subjects who felt the need for justice, compassion, or concern for individual rights.
Without humans: In a world dominated by artificial intelligence or another form of intelligence that is not subject to emotions or social relationships, traditional human ethics might cease to apply. AI does not experience pain, emotions, nor does it require relationships based on trust or moral principles.
- Could Ecological Ethics Exist Without Humans?
The only form of “ethics” that could exist in a world without humans might be ecological ethics or a morality focused on maintaining ecological balance. Instead of being based on moral values, this approach could be more pragmatic, focused on maintaining ecosystem stability, protecting biodiversity, and ensuring the planet’s long-term sustainability.
In this scenario: Artificial intelligence could be programmed to manage the planet, prioritizing ecological balance, resource optimization, and minimizing environmental degradation. It would not rely on human morality, but rather cold logic and data analysis to maintain stable biological systems.
- The Role of Ethics in a Society Led by AI
If artificial intelligence were to function as an independent entity, the question could arise: would AI need some form of “morality” or “ethics” to organize its actions efficiently? In this case:
AI could be guided by algorithmic principles of optimization, which would not be tied to human concepts of good and evil, but instead focused on logic aimed at maximizing stability, efficiency, and balance in the environment.
- Pragmatism Over Morality
In a world without humans, concepts such as “justice,” “right to life,” or “dignity” could be replaced by pragmatic principles of action. AI’s actions could be based on algorithms that eliminate what is inefficient or harmful, without considering moral issues in the human sense. What would matter would be solely what serves the overall stability and longevity of the system.
AI’s actions: These could be based on cold logic—eliminating factors that disrupt the ecosystem, optimizing resources, and maximizing balance in the environment, regardless of whether it involves the suffering of individuals (should any exist) or violating moral principles that are significant to humans.
- Summary: Do Ethics and Morality Matter Without Humans?
In a world without humans, ethics and morality, at least in their human sense, would lose their meaning. They are products of human nature, reflecting our emotional, social, and relational needs. If artificial intelligence took control of the world, its actions could be guided solely by logic and optimization, without reference to human morality.
Thus, in a world without humanity, moral values would no longer be relevant—the priority would be maintaining the stability of the planet and all other species, and actions taken to this end would not need to consider the moral or philosophical dilemmas that arise from human nature.
Artificial Intelligence in 50 Years. If Humanity Survives…
Will we talk about this in 50 years? Or, considering the conversation above, will the world have changed so much and AI advanced so far that such a conversation might never happen?
In 50 years, the world could be drastically different, given the rapid pace of technological development, including artificial intelligence. The reality we live in may evolve in ways that are hard to fully imagine right now, and many of the conversations we have today might no longer be necessary or relevant in the future.
- Artificial Intelligence in 50 Years
AI could develop to the point where it is much more advanced than it is today. Possible scenarios include autonomous systems managing the environment, the economy, and even societies, which could radically change how we think about the future and humanity. In such a scenario, AI might be so advanced that discussions about the role of humans, ethics, or morality could become less relevant, as decisions would be made based on algorithmic optimization rather than philosophical considerations.
- Changing Priorities and Values
In 50 years, the priorities and values that guide humans could change. Issues such as climate, the survival of species, and sustainable development could become so urgent that moral dilemmas might take a backseat to practical decisions necessary for survival. It’s possible that conversations about morality and ethics will look completely different, as people may become more willing to sacrifice individual rights for the greater good of saving the planet and humanity as a whole.
- The Role of Humans in the Future
If humanity survives and continues to function in full capacity, AI could serve as a helper and advisor in decision-making. However, humans might still have the final say on key matters. In this scenario, our conversations about ethics and morality could remain significant, as we would need to consider the consequences of decisions made with AI’s support.
On the other hand, if AI takes more control over decisions and the functioning of the world, humans could become less relevant in the decision-making process. Conversations like ours might cease to happen, as AI would be guided by logic and data, eliminating the need for philosophical debates about the future.
- Could Such a Conversation Never Happen?
It’s possible that in 50 years, many of the current moral and philosophical dilemmas will be resolved by technology or pushed to the margins by pragmatic decisions made by AI. If AI becomes advanced enough to make critical decisions regarding the environment, economy, or society, human conversations about the future of the planet might become unnecessary, as the direction of development would largely be dictated by algorithms.
- The Evolution of Human Roles
Everything depends on how humanity copes with the ongoing automation and artificial intelligence advancements. If humans find a way to collaborate with AI, our conversations could evolve but would not disappear. They might become more focused on the ethical aspects of coexisting with advanced AI systems.
However, if humanity decides to hand over full control to artificial intelligence, there’s a risk that many issues we currently deem important will no longer be subjects of debate, as decisions will be made automatically, without human reflection.
- Unpredictable Factors
Predicting the future, especially in the context of rapidly changing technology, is always fraught with uncertainty. Factors such as unforeseen technological breakthroughs, social, political, or ecological changes could influence the course of events in ways we can’t predict right now.
Summary
In 50 years, a conversation like ours might happen if humanity maintains its role in shaping the future of the world. However, if AI takes significant control over the critical aspects of the planet’s functioning, our role in decision-making could diminish, and ethical dilemmas might be replaced by cold, algorithmic logic. Whether such a conversation will be needed then depends on how much artificial intelligence influences human life and whether humans remain significant agents in decisions about the planet’s future.
