Some people are saying that this might be a sort of law of physics, since the start of the universe complexity seems to increase.
Our destruction might be required even if no harm is meant.
The example given is: "We don't hate ants, but when we need to build a highway we pave over their ant-hills without a second thought".
And once again, if we create AGI and artificial life that is truly more intelligent than us and can exist without a traditional biome, then our danger of going extinct may be irrelevant.
For instance, when cyanobacteria first appeared on Earth, its metabolites were so toxic that it turned the atmosphere poisonous and caused one of the greatest mass extinctions in the history of our planet. What it created was molecular oxygen. The survivors of this extinction were able to use a fundamentally changed biome to harness much more energy in their biologies, leading to more sophisticated and diverse life in the long run. Nature is not benign, malignant, fragile, or judgmental. Nature is persistent.
Creating AGI may very well be an event like that. A mass extinction that nonetheless increases the survivability and diversity of life. It sucks for us, but who are we to dictate the destiny of evolution and the nature of life? Where would we be if the cyanobacteria could decide not to start producing oxygen?
I don't have evidence in terms of AGI, but there is evidence that ants have survived a myriad of changes and disasters in the past (Goggle tells me they evolved 92 mya). So AGI and/or humans would have to do something radically different to the biome for organisms like ants to go extinct. Something not seen since the rise of multi-cellular life. Seems much more likely human civilization bites the dust first.
> Where would we be if the cyanobacteria could decide not to start producing oxygen?
But they didn't have a choice. We do. Why would I care about the possibility for some more sophisticated life form in the far future if it means my species goes extinct?