Civilization welcomes extinction provided it does not interfere with the morning commute, dental appointments or the season finale
NEW YORK - Experts are once again warning that artificial intelligence could pose catastrophic risks to humanity, an alarming development that Americans greeted Saturday by asking whether the apocalypse could possibly be wrapped up before the start of the workweek.
The latest discussion follows warnings about A.I. risks collected here.
According to several people standing in a coffee line who had not read any of the relevant research, the biggest problem with machine superintelligence is scheduling.
"If civilization is going to end, Sunday afternoon would really be ideal," said accountant Gary Wentworth while staring at his phone. "I've got a staff meeting Monday at 8:30, and frankly I don't want to sit through forty-five minutes about password hygiene if the machines already have the nuclear codes."
Researchers have spent years debating alignment, autonomous systems, control problems and the possibility that advanced A.I. might pursue goals incompatible with human survival.
The public has now simplified those concerns into a far more manageable question: Will parking still be validated?
The Center for Convenient Catastrophe Survey: Extinction vs. Monday Meetings
The newly established Center for Convenient Catastrophe conducted a nationwide survey and reported that 63 percent of respondents would accept human extinction if it eliminated Monday meetings, while another 21 percent requested additional information about whether the destruction of civilization would also erase student-loan balances.
Only 4 percent asked what "alignment" meant.
Three percent believed it was something chiropractors did.
Government officials immediately formed an interagency task force to ensure that any future machine rebellion complies with federal holiday regulations.
"We take existential risk extremely seriously," said Deputy Undersecretary Harold P. Cones, standing beside a seventeen-page flowchart. "But we also recognize that citizens have dinner reservations."
Under the proposed federal framework, artificial superintelligence would be asked to provide at least 72 hours' notice before overthrowing humanity, preferably through Outlook invitations.
The machines would also be prohibited from initiating civilization-ending events between Thanksgiving and New Year's Day because airline tickets are expensive.
Silicon Valley Unveils Apocalypse Scheduler Pro
Silicon Valley executives welcomed the proposal.
One technology CEO assured reporters that his company had already developed a revolutionary safeguard called Apocalypse Scheduler Pro, available for $19.99 a month or $199 annually.
The premium version allows users to choose between "immediate extinction," "extinction after lunch" and "remind me tomorrow."
Humanity's response has puzzled philosophers.
Catastrophic Domestication: Turning Doomsday Into a Haircut Question
Professor Edwin Merriwether of the Institute for Things We Probably Should Have Considered Earlier explained that humans have an unusual ability to convert existential terror into minor administrative inconvenience.
"If an asteroid were headed toward Earth," Merriwether said, "half the population would ask whether Costco was staying open late."
He called this phenomenon catastrophic domestication, defined as the psychological process by which people confront the possible annihilation of civilization by wondering whether they should cancel their haircut.
The theory already has considerable anecdotal support.
In Chicago, one man reportedly asked whether superintelligence would affect his fantasy football league.
In Los Angeles, a woman wanted to know whether robots would honor her Pilates package.
In New Jersey, an entire family agreed that machine domination sounded horrible but acknowledged that automated government might finally fix the DMV.
Economists and Markets React to the Machine Apocalypse
Economists are also studying possible benefits.
If A.I. eliminates the human species, productivity per remaining human technically becomes impossible to calculate, allowing governments to announce whatever number they prefer.
Financial markets responded cautiously.
Shares in companies specializing in emergency generators rose sharply until traders remembered that electricity may not matter if there are no traders.
Meanwhile, millions of people continued willingly feeding artificial intelligence their photographs, writing, work schedules, shopping habits, travel plans and personal preferences.
Experts described this as roughly equivalent to worrying that raccoons might rob your house while carefully labeling the silverware drawers for them.
The Defining Contradiction of the A.I. Age
The contradiction has become the defining feature of the A.I. age.
Human beings fear machines becoming too intelligent while simultaneously asking them to write birthday cards, organize tax records, diagnose refrigerator noises and explain why the printer says "offline."
The average citizen therefore appears to have reached a mature philosophical position:
A.I. may destroy humanity.
But could it please send a calendar invite first?
The Real A.I. Risk Debate Behind the Satire
Behind the jokes sits a genuine, widely discussed concern. In 2023 the Center for AI Safety published a one-sentence statement urging that mitigating the risk of extinction from A.I. be treated as a global priority alongside pandemics and nuclear war, and it was signed by hundreds of researchers and industry leaders. Meanwhile, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology A.I. Risk Management Framework offers organizations practical guidance for managing A.I. risks. Our shrug at big threats has a name, too: psychologists call it normalcy bias, and it explains why so many of us would still check the parking situation first.
Satire Disclaimer
This is satire. Any catastrophic scheduling departments, apocalypse subscriptions or government-approved extinction windows exist primarily in the dangerous territory between exaggeration and the weekend. This story is entirely a human collaboration between two sentient beings - the world's oldest tenured professor and a philosophy major turned dairy farmer.
SOURCE: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/03/opinion/letters/ai-threats-risks.html https://prat.uk/?p=50600
Comments
Post a Comment