Framing AI's future as a stark choice between superintelligence and human extinction is a false and demoralizing binary that obscures the many positive, human-scale things AI could actually do.
Jordan rejects the extinction-vs-superintelligence dichotomy pushed by prominent 'thought leaders' as harmful, especially to young people who are being told there is nothing meaningful left to build. ✦ AI generated
Michael I. Jordan · Machine Learning Street Talk · 2026-05-20 · original ↗
starts at this moment · 50:49
“These guys are painting a picture that this technology is recursively self-improving, that it is agential, that it's not a cultural technology, it's a thing in of itself... what do you think?”
Super intelligence versus extinction. Those are your two options. And god damn it those aren't the only two options. There's a huge number of very positive things that can be done at human scale. And let's hope that enough of the young mentalities kind of get behind that.
verbatim transcript · starts at 50:49
50:49sort of you know how does uh a young the next generation take technology and work with it and I don't think that voices like that are actually helping that tech that that that uh generation to actually perceive what they should work on and why. Um super intelligence versus extinction. Those are your two options. Um and god damn it those aren't the only two options. there's a huge number of very
51:14positive things that can be done at human scale. Um and let's hope that enough of the young mentalities kind of get behind that. Um um but they don't have enough examples of people out there who made money by making did Sam make life better, you know, not clear. And and and uh you know, I think in previous generations there was a little bit more, you know, here's people that are out
51:38there making things that uh vaccines or whatever. Oh, I want to be like that. And right now, not so good. >> I don't know if I could um get you to be a psychologist for a minute and try and understand why these I don't know whether it's the search for purpose, but have you noticed as well that some folks think that there's going to be a utopian
51:58future and when you when you speak with them, they there's quite a similar DNA. So they they also think that it's recursively self-improving, it's going to be super intelligence and so on. If if if I was to press you to say why do you I can understand right these things are so clever but why is it why do they believe it >> I mean they're clever in the way in a
52:16recognizable way at some level they're not they're taking all this human cleverness and packaging it in in a new way and um again I think it'll kind of always be missing a little bit of the point because it's not in the moment it's not the ephemeral stuff um um but that doesn't mean it can't be even more clever and I kind of think that that's Okay. I think that the for
52:37me the goal here is not to build a super intelligence and have it dictate or tell or anything like that. It never was. And I'm kind of shocked that some people seem to think that was always the goal. It to me it just never was. Um rather again I think I said this in the very beginning. Humans are wonderful. Um you know I'd hate to have robots taking over
- ·Superintelligence vs. extinction is a false choice.
- ·These are not the only two options for AI's future.
- ·The framing is actively harmful, especially to young people.
- ·It tells them there is nothing meaningful left to build.
- ·A huge number of positive, human-scale outcomes exist.
- ·This positive spectrum is obscured by the extinction debate.
- ·Michael I. Jordan urges young minds to reject the binary.