It's futile to debate *whether* transformative technologies like AI and robotics should be developed. If a technology offers a decisive advantage, it *will* be built, regardless of the risks. The only rational approach is to accept its inevitability and focus all energy on managing its implementation to stay ahead.

Historical inventions have atrophied human faculties, creating needs for artificial substitutes (e.g., gyms for physical work). Social media has atrophied socializing, creating a market for "social skills" apps. The next major risk is that AI will atrophe critical thinking, eventually requiring "thinking gyms" to retrain our minds.

AI provides a structural advantage to those in power by automating government systems. This allows leaders to bypass the traditional unwieldiness of human bureaucracy, making it trivial for an executive to change AI parameters and instantly exert their will across all levels of government, thereby concentrating power.

While current brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are for medical patients, the timeline for healthy individuals to augment their brains is rapidly approaching. A child who is five years old today might see the first healthy human augmentations before they graduate high school, signaling a near-term, transformative shift for society.

A ban on superintelligence is self-defeating because enforcement would require a sanctioned, global government body to build the very technology it prohibits in order to "prove it's safe." This paradoxically creates a state-controlled monopoly on the most powerful technology ever conceived, posing a greater risk than a competitive landscape.

The tech world is fixated on trivial AI uses while monumental breakthroughs in healthcare go underappreciated. Innovations like CRISPR and GLP-1s can solve systemic problems like chronic disease and rising healthcare costs, offering far greater societal ROI and impact on longevity than current AI chatbots.

While AI may eventually create a world of abundance where energy and labor are free, the transition will be violent. The unprecedented scale of job displacement, coupled with a societal loss of meaning, will likely lead to significant bloodshed and social upheaval before any utopian endpoint is reached.

New technology can ignite violent conflict by making ideological differences concrete and non-negotiable. The printing press did this with religion, leading to one of Europe's bloodiest wars. AI could do the same by forcing humanity to confront divisive questions like transhumanism and the definition of humanity, potentially leading to similar strife.

AI disproportionately benefits top performers, who use it to amplify their output significantly. This creates a widening skills and productivity gap, leading to workplace tension as "A-players" can increasingly perform tasks previously done by their less-motivated colleagues, which could cause resentment and organizational challenges.