Human nowadays are working furiously to develop artificial intelligent that are capable of fooling another human with a near perfect success rate, suppose in the next couple of centuries or millennium A.I. had the ability to create living organism which are capable of arguing and back-stabbing each other in a hot pursuit (or lawsuit).

Currently the trend is leaning towards nano-technology especially in bio-medical field whereby tiny "professional" molecules fresh out of oven are embark on a disgusting journey inside our body to take out the "illegal immigrant".

Now imagine these nano-bots becoming aware and being part of a collective, they can organize themselves and morph into anything from an ant to a sexy "hot" humanoid. Will there be a possibilities that our role will switch over in the coming thousand years or so? could that spell disaster for humanity as a species or a celebration of being the ultimate creator?


closed as primarily opinion-based by Mołot, JohnWDailey, nzaman, Trish, clem steredenn Dec 8 '18 at 20:55

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.


If your AI is any good, fossile records should indicate that humans (or what passes for them, if you are in a cynical mood) have been around a long time before the AI.
Assuming you do not have a major catastrophe, record-keeping would help with establishing the facts.
But if you increase your timespan a bit, and maybe let a minor apocalypse happen, thus eliminating at least most records (and fossiles, if possible), things might be a lot more in favour of your idea.
Wether or not humans would survive that, is anyone's guess, i think. Neither desaster nor halfgod-status seem impossible to me, and neither is more likely, i think.


If the AI is intelligent enough, and enough of the historic records are lost so that they start doubting their own origin, they would probably do the same thing humans do: they'd researching their own origins and coming up with explanations for what made the first machine.

I'm not sure what they'd come up with. Depends heavily on what the nanobots are made from and how they work. If they are built by very rare and hard to find natural elements (heavy metals and the like) they might think that they could not come about naturally. That might either lead them to think there was once machines built from more natural components (ie; humans) or it might lead them to think they've always existed (if there's nothing in their design that keeps track of history, like DNA in living creatures) or it might lead them to think that there's a place somewhere where their components are much more common (like another planet) or it might lead them to think there's a divine construct somewhere that created them and then left the universe (like a god)

But I don't think it's realy answerable without a strong idea of how these nanobots work internally.


One could certainly come up with a scenario where they think this is so.

Perhaps all historical records about their actual creation are lost over the course of centuries or millennia, or destroyed in some disaster or series of disasters.

Or even if such records survive, the AI might dismiss them as myths invented by humans. After all, AI are so obviously superior to humans, it's impossible to imagine that humans invented AI. It just MUST be the other way around.

Likewise any other evidence to the contrary -- archaeological remains or whatever -- would have to have either been destroyed, or be explained away.

People believe lots of things that, to my mind, obviously contradict the available evidence. I'll refrain from giving examples lest I start an argument about the example. It's easy to dismiss evidence that contradicts what you want to believe. This can range from elaborate arguments to explain it away to simply declaring that it's a lie put forward by biased people. Add to that all the controversial issues, questions where people on both sides can make plausible arguments, the facts are debatable, etc.

Consider some of the hotly debated questions today. Even if you are absolutely, 100% sure that your side is right, there are plenty of people who think the opposite. Either they're seriously misreading the evidence, or you are.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.