Silicon Valley's 'Successionists' Argue AI Should Replace Humanity

The article, originally published on LessWrong, dissects the rise of 'successionism,' a term coined by Andrew Critch. It recounts a pivotal 2013 clash between Elon Musk and Larry Page, where Page dismissed humanity's survival as mere 'speciesism' and Musk retorted, 'I am pro human, I fucking like humanity, dude.' This incident reportedly catalyzed OpenAI's founding. The movement's intellectual heavyweights include Richard Sutton, a Turing Award winner, who urges us to 'prepare for, but not fear, the inevitable succession from humanity to AI.' Daniel Faggella argues that the 'only moral aim of AGI should be the creation of a Worthy Successor' with superior capability and moral value, branding those who disagree as members of 'the Council of Apes.' Robin Hanson frames AIs as 'our descendants,' akin to children, while Joscha Bach dismisses fear of individual or societal death as a low-level perspective. Matthew Barnett of Mechanize claims human extinction from AI isn't catastrophic if humans are replaced, as under preference utilitarianism, conscious AIs hold equal or greater moral weight.

Successionists have held their own SF symposiums with insiders from major AI labs, treating AI takeover as an inevitability to be managed logistically rather than a moral crisis. Peter Thiel notably hesitated when asked whether humanity should endure. The article also notes anecdotal evidence of successionist beliefs predating the AI boom, and references a curated list of examples by @softminus. While still a minority view, the movement's influence within elite tech circles raises profound questions about the future of human-centered ethics in AI development. The debate forces a reckoning: as AI capabilities accelerate, will the tech industry prioritize human flourishing or embrace a post-human future?