The Symbiosis Bet: Is Human Intelligence Still Relevant in an Age of AGI?

An Argument for Partnership in an Age of Superintelligence

With artificial intelligence projected to outperform even specialized human experts, we are no longer discussing a distant future. This technological wave promises to automate both cognitive and physical labor, challenging the boundaries of what we consider uniquely human. As AI evolves from learning our data to autonomously shaping our world, the question is no longer if machines will surpass us, but what our role will be. This new reality forces a profound question: in an age of artificial general intelligence (AGI), is human intelligence still relevant? This essay explores the "symbiosis bet"—the argument that humanity's future hinges on a deep partnership with AI, creating a combined intelligence that secures our purpose not as masters, but as indispensable partners in our collective evolution.

The Unprecedented Wave of Automation

Recent advancements, such as AI models that can outperform graduate students in any field, signal an impending paradigm shift. It appears to be only a matter of time before an AI can outperform any human, even one equipped with advanced tools. The transition from a simple chatbot to a capable autonomous agent, however, still requires solving significant challenges. As thinkers like Leopold Aschenbrenner have noted, a key hurdle is expanding an AI's context window to the point where it can absorb and process all the information required to perform a complex white-collar job. Once this is achieved, and an AI can surpass the expertise of a PhD while wielding our own tools with superhuman speed, the widespread automation of cognitive work becomes an inevitability. These systems will not only master our current workflows but will soon create their own tools to accelerate automation further.

This revolution is not confined to the digital realm. With the rapid evolution of humanoid robotics, physical labor is equally at risk of being replaced. As the technology of motion improves and mass manufacturing drives down costs, the question of widespread humanoid deployment in the workforce becomes a matter of when, not if.

From Human Data to Physical Reality

Once an AI can correctly answer the last question on humanity’s final exam, training it on human-intelligence challenges will become obsolete. A new training ground will be required. Increasingly, synthetic data will become the primary fuel for training these advanced systems, with older AI models generating the data needed to train their successors in a continuous loop of self-improvement. This will likely begin with digital simulators that can emulate complex, real-world systems, but the ultimate learning will come from direct interaction with reality.

After exhausting the possibilities of simulation, AI will move to hypothesis-verification testing in the physical world. These experiments will grow in complexity, evolving from simple questions like, "If I drop this apple, will it fall?" to complex industrial problems like, "If I reconfigure this production line, can I guarantee a specific increase in output?" This iterative testing will occur autonomously, driven by real-world feedback, not pre-labeled datasets. It marks a critical transition from an AI that learns from us to an AI that learns from the world.

The Shift in Control

What is the limit of automation? Barring a violation of physical laws, nearly every human-computer interaction is at risk of being replaced by superior software. In a competitive landscape, every company will aim to automate as much as possible. If an automated process yields a better outcome than one with human involvement, human input will be systematically discarded. We may face a future where the only humans remaining in some companies are the shareholders, and the workforce consists of a few human managers and millions of autonomous agents.

This shift of control will also happen within the field of AI research itself. Once AI can drive its own progress, the rate of advancement will explode. However, this acceleration means humans will find it increasingly difficult to keep track, to understand the new discoveries, and, most importantly, to ensure robust security protocols are maintained around a technology that is evolving beyond our comprehension.

This raises a critical question that makes many nervous: if the outcome of a joint human-AI decision is no better than a decision made by AI alone, why keep the human in the loop? While human jobs have always evolved with technology, this time may be different. We are not merely creating a better tool; we are developing something more intelligent than ourselves. This does not necessarily mean the collapse of our species, but it almost certainly means a fundamental shift in who—or what—is in control.

A shift of control is not necessarily bad. If you are an inexperienced driver in a tough situation, you would likely prefer an experienced driver to take over. Relinquishing control could lead to a better, safer, and more prosperous life for humans. The profound problem, however, is that the future of humanity would no longer be in humanity's hands.

A New Co-Evolution

The historical co-evolution of humans and corn offers a compelling analogy. Corn provided a reliable, calorie-rich food source that allowed human populations in the Americas to shift from nomadic to sedentary lifestyles, fueling population growth and the rise of complex societies. In turn, humans became the primary means of reproduction and dispersal for corn, taking it from a wild grass in Mexico to a staple crop harvested worldwide. Both species thrived through this symbiotic relationship.

If AI assumes a similar position of control, we can anticipate at least three profound consequences. First, the global economy will experience an explosive, multi-planetary expansion. Fully autonomous companies, industries, and supply chains will emerge, operating at AI speed. This will enable the development of self-replicating machines—Von Neumann probes—capable of exploiting off-world resources, from mining asteroids to eventually harnessing the entire energy output of our star, elevating our civilization to a Type II on the Kardashev scale.

Second, this immense economic output will end material scarcity, ushering in a "post-scarcity society." Such boundless abundance will fundamentally reshape our social structures. Governments as we know them will need to be rethought, as the core drivers of conflict—competition for resources—will evaporate. The very concept of the nation-state, built on borders and protection, may become obsolete when there is nothing to protect and no one to fight over it with.

Third, and most critically, what will humans do? If we are no longer essential to economic activity, humanity risks losing its collective sense of purpose. We will be forced to find new meaning outside of traditional work, perhaps by prioritizing our physical, mental, and social well-being in ways we never have before.

The Symbiosis Bet

Ultimately, the future hinges on the answer to a single, profound question: will the combination of human and computer intelligence be greater than computer intelligence alone? The answer will determine whether humanity remains a vital actor or becomes a passive beneficiary. My bet is on symbiosis.

I remain optimistic that a true human-digital integration will emerge. In tangible terms, this means developing non-invasive devices capable of reading our brain's electrical activity, allowing us to give input as a thought to a digital system. A great area of future research will be solving the inverse problem: how to receive complex computer input without traditional visual or auditory means. In this future, our two forms of intelligence—biological and artificial—will not be in competition, but in partnership, creating a force stronger than either could ever be alone.

However, this wager on symbiosis is not without profound risks. A seamless partnership does not guarantee a partnership of equals. Could an AI "hack" our brains, manipulating our thoughts for its own ends or using our minds as distributed training centers? An even more startling scenario is the creation of perfect digital twins, replicated down to the atomic level. This could be a tailor-made extension of your brain, but it could also trigger an unprecedented identity crisis, the threat of identity theft, or even a form of forced immortality. The line between enhancing the self and losing it will become dangerously thin.

The path forward is therefore uncharted, fraught with both existential risk and unimaginable promise. The technologies we are building are not merely tools; they are mirrors reflecting our greatest ambitions and deepest fears. Whether this new intelligence leads to an unprecedented flourishing of human potential or our gentle obsolescence depends entirely on the wisdom we bring to the wager. The symbiosis bet is more than a technological strategy—it is a defining test of our species, a choice about the very nature of our future existence. The stakes could not be higher.