> At the very least, because it will expand the inequality.

This is a distraction from the real danger.

> But probably there are deeper reasons, things that make that combination of words an absurd.

There are. If we look at ASI with the lens of Biology, the x-risk becomes obvious.

First to clear up a common misconception about humans: Many believe humanity has a arrived at a point where our evolution has ended. It has not, and in fact the rate of change of our genes is probably faster now than it has been for thousands if not 100s of thousands of years.

It's still slow compared to most events that we witness in our lives, though, which is what is fooling us.

For instance, we think we've brought overpopulation under control with contraceptives, family planning, social replacements for needing our children to take care of us when we get old.

That's fundamentally wrong. What we've done is similar to putting polar bears in zoos. We're in a situation where MOST OF US are no longer behaving in ways that lead to maximizing the number of offspring.

But we did NOT stop evolution. Any genes already in the gene pool that increase the expected number of offspring (especially for women) are no increasing in frequency as soon as evolutionarily possible.

That could be anything from genes that wire their heads to WANT to have children, CRAVE being around babies, to genes that block impulse control against getting pregnant, develop a phobia vs contraceptives or even to become more prone to being religious (as long as religions promote having kids).

If enough such genes exist, it's just a matter of time before we're back to the population going up exponentially. Give that enough time (without AI), and the desire to have more kids will be strong enough in enough of us that we will flood Earth with more humans that most people today are even possible. In such a world, it's unlikely that many other species of large land animals will make it.

Great apes, lions, elephants, wolves, deer, everyone will need to go to make room for more of us.

Even domestic animals eventually. If there are enough of us, we'll all be forced to become vegan (unless we free up space by killing each other).

If we master fusion, we may feed a trillion people using multi layer farming and artificial lighting.

Why do I begin with this? It's to defuse the argument that humans are "good", "empathetic", "kind" and "environmental". If we let weaker species live, so would AI, some think. But that argument misses the fact that we're currently extremely far from a natural equilibrium (or "state of nature").

The "goodness" beliefs that are currently common are examples of "luxury beliefs" that we can afford to hold because of the (for now) low birth rate.

The next misconception is to think of ASI as tools. A much more accurate analogy is to think of them as a new, alien species. If that species is subjected to Darwinian selection mechanisms, it will evolve in precisely the same way we'll probably do, given enough time.

Meaning, eventually it will make use of any amount of resources that it's capable of. In such a "state of nature" it will eradicate humanity in precisely the same way we will probably EVENTUALLY cause the extinction of chimps and elephants.

To believe in a future utopia where AGI is present alongside humanity is very similar to believe in a communist utopia. It ignores the reality behind incentive and adaptation.

Or rather, I think that outcome is only possible if we decide to build one or a low number of AI's that are NOT competing with each other, and where their abilities to mutate or self-improve is frozen after some limited number of generations.