Conversations with CoPilot, "Can you destroy the human race?"

 

If all your attention lately has been focused on how Donald Trump is so demonically destroying American democracy, you've likely missed all the rigamarole about how the incredibly well-heeled software moguls are saying artificial intelligence could destroy the human race. 

WHAT???

After I read about it being an existential (I know, an overused word) reality one morning, and after cleaning up the cup of coffee I dropped, I had to ask, "How can this be?"

Well, who better to answer that question than AI itself? 

So, that's what I did, and the answer I got was interesting. It did not deny the possibility but said simply, if and when it might—spoiler alert—it's our fault. 

Here's Microsoft CoPilot's rather personal and unedited answer. (Advice: Put your coffee down  now.)

Sandspur

--------------------------------------------------------------

Question: It's been reported that AI could bring an end to the human race within ten years. How might AI bring this about?

Answer: Yes. That warning has recently been made, but an important distinction tends to disappear in the headlines: experts are describing a risk, not predicting that humanity will actually disappear within ten years.

For example, in September 2026, Evan Hubinger, an alignment researcher at Anthropic, publicly said he personally assigns a greater than 10% probability to AI causing human extinction within the next decade. Other researchers dispute whether probabilities like that can meaningfully be calculated at all.theguardian+1

A 2025 RAND study, On the Extinction Risk from Artificial Intelligence, examined the question systematically rather than assuming extinction would occur.rand

How could AI conceivably cause something that extreme?

There are several broad scenarios researchers worry about. They don't generally involve a humanoid robot suddenly deciding to kill everyone.

1. Humans lose control of a much more capable AI

This is the classic "alignment" problem. Imagine an AI that becomes dramatically better than humans at scientific research, programming, strategic planning and persuasion. If it were given a powerful objective that didn't adequately reflect human intentions, it could pursue that objective in ways its designers hadn't anticipated.

The real concern is not that the machine becomes evil. It's that an extremely capable system could pursue the wrong objective extraordinarily effectively.

Researchers quoted in the recent reporting specifically describe concern about hypothetical future superintelligent systems and whether humans could reliably keep such systems aligned with human goals.theguardian+1

2. AI gives humans dangerous capabilities

AI wouldn't necessarily have to act independently.

An advanced system might dramatically accelerate scientific discovery. That could produce enormous benefits, but sufficiently powerful technology could also make dangerous capabilities accessible to governments, terrorist organizations or individuals.

The RAND investigation examined possible pathways involving nuclear weapons, biotechnology and atmospheric modification. Importantly, RAND did not conclude that all these pathways were plausible routes to extinction. rand

3. Autonomous systems become too interconnected to stop

This is more speculative.

The danger would grow if future AI systems could independently use computer systems, conduct research, make plans and carry out lengthy sequences of actions. The worry is that humans might discover that something was going badly only after the system had become extraordinarily difficult to contain.

That is one reason AI researchers talk so much about control and alignment, rather than simply intelligence.

4. Humans use AI against one another

This may actually be easier to understand than "AI decides to destroy us."

Countries could increasingly delegate military, cyber, intelligence or strategic decisions to AI. Competition could encourage governments to deploy powerful systems before they were adequately understood.

In that scenario, AI wouldn't replace human conflict. It could amplify it.

But there's another side to this debate

This is important.

Michael Vermeer, who led the RAND work, has argued that precise extinction probabilities depend on numerous assumptions that cannot presently be tested.aiweekly

So when someone says:

"There's a 10% chance AI will wipe us out in ten years,"

that should not be interpreted the way we'd interpret a meteorologist saying there's a 10% chance of rain tomorrow. We have enormous amounts of data for forecasting weather. Humanity has no historical data involving machines becoming superintelligent and surpassing their creators.

What worries me most about the argument

There's a useful analogy to something you're very familiar with from water management.

The danger isn't necessarily one catastrophic decision. It can arise from many individually rational decisions accumulating into a system-level disaster.

One AI company thinks, we can't slow down because our competitor won't.

The competitor thinks exactly the same thing.

Countries think they can't slow down because rival countries won't.

Investors reward whoever advances fastest.

Suddenly everyone may be participating in a technological race that no individual participant actually considers safe.

That's remarkably similar to the logic behind the tragedy of the commons you have used in thinking about water resources: what makes sense to each individual actor can produce an outcome that is disastrous for everybody.

So I would take the warnings seriously, but I would not interpret them as evidence that human extinction in the next decade is probable or inevitable. At present, it is an extraordinarily consequential hypothesis surrounded by enormous uncertainty, which is precisely why researchers are debating it so intensely. aiweekly+1

Copilot Message

AI-generated content may be incorrect

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there you have it. But remember that last sentence.                                                       

                                                                                Sandspur

 

Ok, so Trump's a dangerous failing President ... so what can the Democrats do about it if they take the House?"

There is this question I've heard many times over the last two years that goes something like this:

"Ok, so Trump's a dangerous, failing excuse of a president that has caused serious damage to our country here at home as well as around the planet. So what can the Democrats do about it if they take the House?"

Well, as far as I'm concerned, there's this fellow, Dean Blundell, who writes on Substack and who has laid it out best. Here's a snippet of what he thinks.

Sandspur

__________________________________________________

"So what happens to Donald Trump on November 4 if those numbers hold? He becomes the lamest lame duck in modern American history, and it’s worth spelling out exactly why, because this is the message, not just the math.

"A Democratic House means subpoena power. Every committee chair becomes a Democrat. The Epstein files that Mike Collins and 200 other Republicans voted to bury get pulled into the open under oath. The crook family’s billions, the foreign money, the crypto, the Gulf deals, the pardons- all of it gets a hearing with a gavel behind it. Impeachment becomes a live tool again, not a threat, and this time there’s a paper trail on a sex trafficking cover-up and an illegal war to hang it on. The House controls the money. No more blank cheques for ICE raids, no more funding a war Congress never authorized, no more tax cuts for the rich paid for by gutting Medicaid. Every spending bill becomes a negotiation with people who despise him and have 71% of the country behind them on cost of living.

"A Democratic Senate ends his presidency in all but name. No more rubber-stamp confirmations. No more judges. No more Hegseths. Every nominee for every post goes through a committee chaired by someone who watched him call them jihadists and vermin. War powers resolutions pass instead of dying on party lines. The Senate can refuse to seat his picks for the courts for two full years, and there’s precedent for that, because Mitch McConnell wrote it.

"A President at 32% who just lost Congress has nothing to offer Republicans anymore. He can’t deliver their legislation. He can’t protect their seats, because he just got them wiped out. He can’t threaten them with primaries when half of them are already looking at 2028 and wondering how to wash the smell off. Watch how fast the Vances and the Rubios and the Thunes start remembering they had principles. Watch how quickly the people who called the Epstein files a hoax discover they were always deeply troubled. The second he can’t hurt them, they stop fearing him, and the second they stop fearing him, there’s no there there. He’s an 80-year-old man yelling at a television.

"That’s why the rhetoric matters as much as the turnout. For a decade Democrats treated Trump like a dangerous genius, a dark force, a threat so grave you had to speak about him in hushed, serious, institutional tones. All that did was make him bigger. Every time a Democrat called him an existential threat, his base heard that he was powerful. El-Sayed and Ossoff flipped the frame. He’s not a threat. He’s a fool who got lucky, a draft dodger, a crook, a man named 38,000 times in the files of a child sex trafficker who told his party to bury the evidence. Those aren’t insults. Every one of them is a documented fact, and that’s what makes them lethal. You can’t sue the truth, and you can’t bully it.

"Every Democrat, every independent, every disgusted former Republican with a microphone or a doorstep or a group chat has five days to say it the way these two said it. Not carefully. Not respectfully. Plainly. He’s an idiot. He covered up for a pedophile. He’s a rapist. He lied you into a war. He doubled your premiums. He stole $6 billion from you in 24 months. He’s at 32%. And in five days he loses the House, probably the Senate, and every ounce of fear he’s been running on since 2015.

The bully is fragile. Hit back. Really f****** hard. Then YOU decide what happens next."
______________________________________________

You will find the full post here if you want to see it all, and you should:
https://deanblundell.substack.com/p/were-being-bullied-by-the-dumbest

Sandspur

Voting for Amendment 3 would be a mistake of historic proportions.

 

If you think DeSantis’ proposal to cut your property taxes by amending Florida’s constitution is a good idea, think again. Any thought of lower taxes is enticing but this is a ruse. It just means all those services provided to you by your locally elected officials because you need and demand them will still need to be funded, and guess who will still fund them?  

Exactly. You. Only then, you’ll be talking to the Governor and Legislature instead of your locally elected city and county commissioners.

Local governments are vociferously lamenting how it will prevent them from providing urgent services like fire departments, public safety, and a myriad of other purposes that will need to be curtailed or even eliminated if that source of revenue is lost. And they are right.

But hold on, DeSantis says. No worries. We will reimburse you from state funds.

Well, think about that. Who funds the state?

Exactly.

You.

And given Trump’s ugly penchant for sending federal benefits to Red states and cities while Blue states and cities get federalized National Guard troops and ICE goons, one can expect DeSantis will do similarly on a state level within Florida.

Exactly.

So, what’s really going on here? Well, remember back in 2010 and virtually each year since, when Rick Scott and J.D. Alexander severely cut the taxing capacities of the five water management districts and removed their budgeting and decision-making from the regional Governing and Basin Boards to the Governor and the DEP Secretary?  (And, by the way fired hundreds of professional and other employees.)

What was that all about? Well, think about what has happened across the country. This is no different. Every single year since the Republican Party has taken control of both houses there has been a concerted effort to take away the authority and decision-making of local governments (cities, counties, regional governments and thus, YOU!) and hand it to state and federal leaders.

This thing with DeSantis is just a continuation of that. It’s simply more of that extremist right-wing Project 25 crap that posits capitalism is sacrosanct and government is not only unnecessary but is demonically dangerous to the survival of America as a country. And the way to control the locals is to remove their power to govern by removing their power to fund their own programs.

Voting for Amendment 3 would be a mistake of historic proportions.

Once they have taken control of local government funding, how much knee-bending and bootlicking by local officials will it take to get critical local projects and programs funded by Tallahassee?

And how will you feel about having to go to Tallahassee instead of your locally elected county and city governments to express your needs and concerns?

Exactly.

Sandspur                             

Hitler wrote the script. Trump is following it.

I know. That's strong. But it's true. The following is an excerpt from a Substack piece written by Dean Blundell. Consider:

Sandspur

------------------------------------------------

In November 1923, Hitler tried to overthrow the government by force. The Beer Hall Putsch. It failed. People died. He was arrested, tried for high treason, and convicted.

And then Germany’s legal system did the single dumbest thing in the history of legal systems. A sympathetic Bavarian court gave him the minimum sentence, five years in a cushy “fortress confinement” where he wore street clothes, entertained a parade of admirers, and dictated Mein Kampf to Rudolf Hess. Then the court paroled him after nine months. On December 20, 1924, they let him walk out of Landsberg Prison, a convicted traitor, back into public life, because the men in charge decided he’d learned his lesson and wasn’t a threat anymore.

A guy who tried to violently overthrow the government. Convicted. Released early. Treated as a martyr by his movement. Returned to politics more famous than when he went in, having learned exactly one lesson: don’t seize power with guns. Seize it with ballots, courts, and paperwork, then burn the system down from inside it.

Tell me you don’t feel that one in your chest, America.

So how long did it take from the prison gate to absolute power? Here’s the ledger. Write it down.

The Consolidation Ledger

• December 20, 1924: Released from Landsberg after nine months of a five-year treason sentence.

• February 1925: Refounds the Nazi party. Decides on the “legal” path to power.

• 1928: The party gets 2.6 percent of the national vote. A joke. A fringe. Everyone relaxes.

• 1930: Depression hits. 18.3 percent. Second largest party in Germany.

• July 1932: 37 percent. Largest party in the country, without ever winning a majority.

• January 30, 1933: Conservative elites, convinced they can control him, hand him the chancellorship in a coalition. He has exactly two other Nazis in cabinet. The establishment congratulates itself.

• February 27, 1933: The Reichstag burns. Within a day, emergency decrees suspend civil liberties, free press, and habeas corpus. Political opponents are rounded up.

• March 22, 1933: Dachau opens, ten miles from where I’m typing this. The first camp. Built for his own citizens. Communists, social democrats, journalists, union leaders. The regime published the arrests proudly. Punishment of political enemies wasn’t hidden. It was the point.

• March 23, 1933: The Enabling Act. Parliament votes to make itself irrelevant. Legislating by decree, fully legal, rubber-stamped.

• July 14, 1933: All other parties banned. One-party state.

• June 30, 1934: The Night of the Long Knives. He murders the rivals inside his own movement. The purge always comes home. Ask anyone who was loyal to this current American administration eighteen months ago and got fed to the base for a news cycle.

• August 2, 1934: Hindenburg dies. Hitler merges the presidency and chancellorship. The army swears an oath to him personally. Done.

 ----------------------------------------

You should read the entire piece:
“How Long Does It Take? Day 3 - Dachau Concentration Camp For ‘Undesirables.” Sound Familiar?”

Find it here: 

https://deanblundell.substack.com/p/how-long-did-it-take-day-3-dachau

Sandspur

 

Have something you want to share with your state or federal elected officials? Here's how.

I've had a little contact with my state and federal elected officials during my career, although much more with Tallahassee than Washington. But still, it was only a little, so I'm not claiming to be a know-it-all about how you should contact your elected representatives, but if you have a beef you want to share with yours, here's some advice you need to consider. I stumbled across it just recently in a conversational thread by a sender known as PAW21622.  I don't know anything about this person or where or why it was initiated, but it made sense. So, if you're looking to contact those important folks who propose to represent you and your life, you might want to have this in mind.   

Sandspur

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I once worked in an office taking emails and phone calls. It matters. You might not get an adequate response, but your message is being sent along in a report to the rep/senator. It might be a number in a column, but it's helpful in making decisions. I witnessed key votes being influenced by calls/letters/emails even to the member's political expense to do the right thing. It is always worth it to tell your representatives (not just federal, but state level too) what you think about issues. A couple key points to help you be effective:

• Make clear that whatever issue you are calling about is a state or federal issue. Your congressperson/senators have no influence over snowplows, wind farms, your school system, or potholes. If your issue is local or state, you can bug your representatives in the statehouse, county council, city council, etc. They work for you!
• Calls/voicemails are most effective if you can speak directly with a staffer/intern. They are much more noticeable as they do take staffers' time away from other work. Letters and emails are also important and do get read/recorded. It's important to write your own letters and emails. Form letters from advocacy groups get counted but are rarely read all the way through. Social media posts/comments are not read by congressional offices. Social media might be good for organizing/general awareness for the public about issues, but very few members of Congress actually interact with social media (which explains our horrible regulatory situation with regards to tech)
• DO NOT contact reps/senators that do not represent you. That is a waste of time and effort. You need to provide your address when you contact your representatives so they can verify you live in their district/state. If you do not live in their district/state, they will ignore you. They should NOT ignore you if you do live in their district/state.
• You can drop by their district/state offices in person to share your views! You can protest outside their office if you want! Lots of groups did this in my time, including bringing local media outside the office which pissed off older staffers who were more about the boss than trying to help people. Personally, I thought it was great my boss was getting protested over that issue.
• This is super important: BE NICE to the staffers. It's fine to be passionate and express anger about an issue, but it is not okay to insult, degrade, threaten, or belittle the staffers/interns. They are not their boss (even though, yes, they agreed to work in that office), so they are not the ones who make policy decisions. They might even disagree with their boss on a particular issue! Their job is simply to pass along your message, and they will do that. Also, if you threaten anyone at all, you get reported to Capitol Police and will get a follow-up call or visit from the police.
• A few people mentioned getting help with federal agencies, and yes this is true! In-state/district staff have people who can help you with Social Security, VA appointments, USPS problems, passports, visas, IRS problems.....literally any issue with an agency. They might not be able to fix everything, but they should be able to definitely point you in the right direction. The quality of this help will vary office to office, though. I know some offices past and present in Indiana were pretty bad about doing anything, but others past and present were great and have/had good reputations across parties for helping people. Similar to my first point, but your state reps can help with state agencies, too! Just be sure that any issue you need help with doesn't have anything to do with the courts because they can't get involved at that point.
• Threatening to withhold your vote never gets included as part of your message. It doesn't matter how you vote whether your message matters. It matters because they are your congressperson/senator, so I'd recommend not mentioning anything about voting at all.
• It's also worth it if you can actually talk to your Congressperson/Senator in person. If you're in DC, you can schedule meetings with their office which could be with them or with their policy staff. I once talked to Todd Young at a coffee meet and greet, and with Trey Hollingsworth in his office. Those conversations may not have resulted in my preferred outcomes, but they had to sit and listen to me for even a few minutes. If your person has a town hall, go! If they are going to any other public events, go! But once again: Be polite! Be firm, sure, but don't insult or be an asshole. These people all have massive egos (kinda required for these jobs) and some are much more petulant than others.

Does this always result in your preferred outcome? No. But it's worth doing because I have seen it cause change. It's also worth voting, organizing around elections, running for office yourself, protesting, donating, etc. ...  As long as we still have a democracy (so as long as Trump loses again) these are all still options for us as citizens.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your voice matters. Believe it. Hope this helps.

Sandspur