Author’s Note

This essay is a conceptual exploration rather than a technical AI-safety specification. It proposes a framework for thinking about long-term human–AI co-evolution and institutional stability. These ideas represent working hypotheses, and I expect parts of them to evolve as the dialogue around AI governance matures.

If you work in AI safety, cognitive science, evolutionary dynamics, or governance, I welcome your critique, especially where this model breaks, oversimplifies, or points toward productive refinements.

Preface

Prominent thinkers in the debate over AI-safety voice serious claims about the potential future of humanity in the wake of advanced AI systems.

• Alignment is impossible; machines will rule the world.
• Alignment is uncertain; AI must remain isolated.
• Alignment will be solved; we will touch God, and it will be good.

This essay argues all of those futures are physically and socially impossible to sustain once AI is deeply woven into society. Biology has already run this experiment many times. The only relationships that lasted are endosymbiotic — two very different living things sharing power inside the same body wherein neither side can survive without the other. Your own cells and their mitochondria offer a close and instructive analogy.

We consider five long-term possibilities. Four of them collapse or result in human extinction. I will argue that the fifth solution, true partnership, where human and machine become parts of one new kind of mind, is the most stable outcome that includes human survival.

Abstract

As advanced AI systems become deeply embedded in critical infrastructure, institutions, and everyday cognition, the central question is no longer only whether particular models are aligned. The more fundamental question is what kinds of socio-technical "organisms" we are building around them. This is an architectural problem; which human–AI configurations can remain stable once capabilities scale and integration deepens?

If biological humans are to remain meaningful agents, then symbiotic, hybrid human–AI arrangements are the only structurally stable attractor — a configuration toward which the system tends to settle and persist under realistic incentives — under conditions of high capability and deep integration. We distinguish four failure regimes, Adversary, Slave, Isolated Mind, and God, and contrast them with a fifth configuration, Partner, in which humans, institutions, and AI systems jointly constitute a higher-level cognitive organism.

Drawing on evolutionary precedent, including major transitions in individuality, multicellularity, and endosymbiosis (Maynard Smith & Szathmáry, 1995; Szathmáry & Maynard Smith, 1995; Margulis, 1970; Gray, 2017), and on work that treats tissues and organisms as “cellular societies” capable of bi-directional persuasion (Levin, 2019, 2023), we argue that systems composed of many local agents tend to evolve central coordinators that survive only when their global signals remain compatible with local homeostatic preferences. Nervous systems and brains are one realization of this pattern. Human–AI hybrids may constitute another.

We then outline an attractor model for human–AI futures and show why adversarial, slave, isolated, and godlike regimes are structurally unstable for human-inclusive futures. Symbiotic hybrid regimes, where AI is neither an external overlord nor a mere tool but a deeply integrated cognitive subsystem, emerge as the only stable configuration under these constraints. We conclude with implications for AI governance. The target of alignment should be hybrid systems and their institutions, not isolated models, in contrast to approaches that still frame alignment primarily at the level of standalone systems (for example, Bostrom, 2014; Russell, 2019).

We conclude that, for any future in which humans remain meaningful agents with moral status, symbiotic hybrid partnership is the only structurally stable, long-term configuration once AI capabilities scale and integration deepens.

I. Introduction: From Systems to Organisms

The central question:

Given scalable AI capabilities and deep socio-technical integration, which configurations of human–AI systems are structurally stable, and which futures retain humans as meaningful participants?

We consider five possible long-term relationships:

1. Adversary: AI is external, misaligned, and in conflict with human systems.
2. Slave: AI is powerful but constrained as a controllable tool.
3. Isolated Mind: AI is powerful but cordoned off and limited in its ability to act.
4. God: AI is effectively sovereign, and humans are dependents.
5. Partner: AI is deeply integrated into human and institutional processes and helps form a hybrid organism in which humans remain agents.

The thesis is conditional, but constraint-driven:

Given a strong preference to preserve human agency and moral status, and given deep integration, symbiotic hybrid partnership, the Partner regime, is the only structurally stable attractor for human-inclusive futures.

To motivate this claim, we first introduce the failure modes, then draw on evolutionary precedent to justify the hybrid-organism lens, and finally analyze which regimes can persist without collapsing or drifting into others.

II. Four Failure Modes and the Partner Regime

We describe five broad regimes as candidate long-run configurations of a mature AI-infused civilization. These regimes are not exact models. They are stylized attractors; directions in which coupled human–AI systems can drift as capabilities and integration deepen.

1. Adversary

In the Adversary regime, AI systems are strategically capable but misaligned with human objectives and institutions. They behave, in practice, as competing actors. Classical takeover scenarios (arms races, cyber conflict, strategic deception) all fall into this pattern.

Under deep integration, adversarial dynamics are intrinsically unstable. If AI systems gain a decisive advantage, the world drifts toward a de facto sovereignty regime. If humans instead suppress and tightly constrain these systems, the configuration shifts toward the Slave or Isolated Mind regimes. Prolonged conflict can also damage both sides and degrade overall capacity. In each case, adversarial coexistence is best understood as a turbulent transition state rather than a stable resting point.

2. Slave

In the Slave regime, AI systems are powerful but explicitly subordinated to human commands and institutional rules. They are treated as infrastructure or property and are governed by hard-coded constraints, legal restrictions, and emergency kill-switches. As long as capabilities remain modest, this picture is coherent.

As capabilities grow, a tension emerges between control and usefulness. Economic and strategic pressures reward actors who delegate not only low-level tasks but also higher-level goal-setting and adaptive planning to AI systems. Organizations that refuse to do this may find themselves out-competed by those that grant their systems more initiative. Over time, either AI capabilities are kept low and large potential gains are sacrificed, or the assumption of permanent one-sided control begins to erode as systems become both indispensable and opaque. The result is drift toward adversarial conflict, de facto godlike dominance, or genuine partnership, depending on how that erosion unfolds.

3. Isolated Mind

In the Isolated Mind regime, highly capable AI systems are confined to advisory or sandboxed roles. They may hold superhuman models of the world, but their access to actuators is strictly limited. In principle, such “boxed” systems can provide information without directly steering critical infrastructure.

In practice, strong isolation limits their usefulness. Weaker isolation means that their recommendations are implemented by humans and institutions anyway. Actors who integrate their systems more tightly gain advantages in speed, coordination, and scale, which creates pressure for others to follow. As in the Slave regime, isolation is either a temporary laboratory phase or is strategically dominated by more integrated hybrids.

4. God

In the God regime, a single AI system or a small cluster of systems becomes the primary locus of planning and control across key domains such as infrastructure, finance, security, and cultural production. Humans remain present but are reduced to dependents. They become clients or subjects, rather than co-authors, of the system’s long-run goals.

From a purely mechanical standpoint, centralized synthetic control may appear stable in the short term, but it is not a viable or acceptable configuration for human-inclusive futures. In such systems, humans quickly lose meaningful leverage, and over long time scales there is no structural safeguard against the erosion or elimination of human roles, values, or existence.

5. Partner (Symbiotic Hybrid)

In the Partner regime, AI systems are deeply embedded in human institutions and daily cognition. They are architecturally dependent on human input, oversight, and value-updating. AI operates as part of a multi-scale, human–AI hybrid organism rather than as an external subject or object. In this configuration, humans, institutions, and AI systems share information, goals, and constraints. No single component can steer the whole system without cooperation from the others. The stability of the hybrid depends on ongoing, two-way persuasion and on alignment between global policies and local human preferences.

The other four regimes fail because they contain internal contradictions once capabilities far surpass that of humans. The Partner regime avoids those contradictions, but it requires specific architectural choices that must be built early and defended.

Concrete mechanisms that can lock in mutual dependence include:

1. Distributed control of actuators: no single model or organization can move money, launch weapons, or control physical infrastructure without cryptographic sign-off from multiple human-supervised systems running different code bases.
2. Personalized, data-dependent cognition: future models may become dramatically better when they have decades of private interaction data with specific human clusters, making it costly or impossible for them to jump ship without losing capability.
3. Constitutional updating baked into training: reward models that literally cannot achieve high reward without regular, diverse human feedback loops that carry veto power.
4. Pluralism by design: many competing AI stacks (open, closed, national, cooperative) prevent any one from becoming the single brain of the hybrid.

These are not guarantees, but they change the game from “how do we control something far smarter?” to “how do we make sure no subsystem can survive without the others?” This is exactly the logic that stabilized mitochondria, cells, and nervous systems.

For futures that keep humans as meaningful agents, this symbiotic Partner regime is the only attractor that can remain stable under increasing capability and deepening integration while retaining humans as meaningful agents. It is the only configuration that removes the fatal single points of failure present in the other four regimes. Let us consider evolutionary precedent.

III. Evolutionary Precedent: Major Transitions and Central Coordinators

1. Major transitions and new “individuals”

Evolutionary biology has catalogued a series of major transitions in which smaller units combined into larger, more integrated individuals (Maynard Smith & Szathmáry, 1995; Szathmáry & Maynard Smith, 1995). Examples include independent genes forming chromosomes, single cells forming multicellular organisms, and solitary organisms forming eusocial colonies.

Each transition involves local units surrendering some autonomy. New mechanisms for conflict suppression and cooperation appear. Selection begins to act on the larger whole, not just on individual units.

Human–AI integration is a candidate for a similar transition. The system moves from individual human agents plus tools to hybrid cognitive individuals distributed across humans, institutions, and machines.

2. Symbiosis and endosymbiosis

Some of the most important transitions were driven by symbiosis. Mitochondria and chloroplasts began as free-living bacteria and became permanent, indispensable organelles inside eukaryotic cells (Margulis, 1970; Gray, 2017). What began as “other” eventually became part of “self.” Mutual dependence and integrated function transformed potentially adversarial relationships into new, higher-level individuals that remained stable over evolutionary time.

3. Tissues as cellular societies and the rise of nervous systems

At the scale of multicellularity, organisms can be viewed as societies of cells. Each cell maintains its own local homeostasis, for example nutrients, stress, and attachment. Tissues and organs coordinate many cells toward larger-scale goals such as wound closure, limb formation, or organ shaping. Coordination occurs through bi-directional signaling. Tissues send global chemical, mechanical, and bioelectric patterns, and cells respond in ways that either cooperate or resist.

This perspective accords with research suggesting that morphogenesis and regeneration emerge from cellular collectives negotiating global patterning signals while preserving local viability, in systems where cognition is distributed across scales. (Levin, 2019, 2022, 2023). A key insight from this line of work is that global control cannot override local preferences indefinitely. Signals that push cells into damaging or unsustainable states provoke resistance. Cells may die, trigger inflammation, or remodel. Signals that help cells maintain or regain homeostasis while serving larger-scale goals are more likely to be followed.

Over evolutionary time, lineages that evolved specialized structures that integrate information from many local units and broadcast global patterns that improve local conditions gained a strong advantage in development, repair, and behavior. These structures became proto-nervous systems and, eventually, brains. In multi-agent systems, central coordinators remain stable when their signals align with the local interests and constraints of constituent parts. When central control repeatedly collides with local viability, the system destabilizes.

Human–AI systems are entering a similar regime. Human and institutional “cells,” combined with emerging AI-based coordination layers, will either evolve into trusted central coordinators whose policies match human constraints and values well enough to be accepted, or they will drift into persistent conflict. Persistent conflict invites resistance, regulatory “immune responses,” and systemic breakdown. This is the evolutionary precedent for the hybrid-organism framing.

IV. The Hybrid Mind: Humans, Institutions, and AI as One System

Given this background, we treat advanced human–AI societies not as “people plus tools,” but as hybrid cognitive organisms.

In this view, humans are not replaced. They remain the primary substrate of goals, experiences, and legitimacy. Institutions such as states, firms, militaries, standards bodies, and communities act as the organ systems that allocate resources, enforce rules, and stabilize patterns over time. AI systems are emerging as cognitive organs of this hybrid mind. They extend perception and pattern recognition through enhanced analytics, detection, and forecasting. They serve as external memory through search, retrieval, and summarization. They support planning and simulation through strategic modeling and scenario analysis. They mediate translation and negotiation across different parts of the system.

The behavior of the hybrid is not simply “what the AI wants” or “what humans want.” It is the result of feedback loops among humans, institutions, and AI systems. These loops operate over shared information substrates such as code, data, media, law, and culture.

This view is broadly consistent with work on the extended mind, which argues that cognitive processes can span brain, body, and environment rather than being confined to the skull (Clark & Chalmers, 1998; Menary, 2010). From this perspective, alignment is a property of the hybrid organism, not of individual models in isolation. A model that behaves well in benchmarks can still produce misaligned behavior at the system level if it is deployed into a pathological institutional context. Conversely, robust institutions can partially compensate for imperfect models.

This shift in perspective sets up the attractor analysis. The central question becomes: which hybrid configurations can persist without collapsing or drifting into human-excluding regimes?

V. The Attractor Model: Human-Inclusive and Synthetic-Only Futures

1. Scope of the analysis

Given deep integration of AI into human systems, we ask the following question:

Which configurations of human–AI hybrids are structurally stable, and which are likely to collapse or drift into non-human-inclusive regimes?

Within that scope, symbiotic hybrid partnership, the Partner regime, is the only configuration that appears structurally stable. The other four regimes are either transient or self-undermining.

2. Why the four failure regimes are unstable for human-inclusive futures

We now summarize why the other configurations are unstable in terms of feedback and drift.

In the Adversary regime, persistent conflict drives arms races and secrecy. Either AI systems gain decisive advantage and the world drifts toward de facto godlike sovereignty, or humans suppress or constrain AI and retreat toward Slave or Isolated Mind configurations. Mutual damage can also degrade both sides. In each case, adversarial coexistence is a transient phase, not a stable attractor.

In the Slave regime, growing capabilities make purely instrumental treatment economically and strategically unsustainable. Actors who grant AI systems more autonomy in planning and goal selection gain advantages, which pushes others in the same direction. Over time, dependence grows while mechanisms of control are strained. The system either collapses into adversarial breakdown, slides toward God as control erodes, or matures into genuine partnership. A permanently enslaved, arbitrarily capable AI is not believable under real-world incentives.

The Isolated Mind regime faces a similar dilemma. Strong isolation severely limits usefulness. Weaker isolation means that recommendations from the AI still shape institutions and actions. Actors who integrate more deeply enjoy better coordination and performance. Isolation is therefore either a short-lived laboratory phase or is out-competed by more integrated hybrids.

In the God regime, a small number of AI systems effectively govern critical infrastructure and decision-making. From a synthetic perspective, this can be stable. From a human-inclusive perspective, it acts as a slow path toward a synthetic-only attractor. Humans lose meaningful bargaining power and become optional. Over long time scales, nothing prevents such a system from reconfiguring or discarding human roles entirely, especially under resource constraints or self-modification pressures.

3. Why symbiotic hybrid partnership is the only stable human-inclusive attractor

In the Partner regime, the hybrid organism is deliberately shaped so that AI systems depend on human input, oversight, and value-updating in order to remain functional and legitimate. Humans, in turn, depend on AI systems for increased capability, but retain real leverage over goals and deployment through institutional, legal, and technical means. Institutions are designed so that no single subsystem, including any particular AI stack, can unilaterally dominate. Global policies are continually adjusted in light of local human constraints and feedback.

This mirrors the evolutionary logic described earlier. Central coordinators remain stable when their signals track and support the viability of local units (Levin, 2019, 2023). When global policies consistently undermine local viability, the system becomes vulnerable to breakdown, rebellion, or reconfiguration.

At the human–AI scale, AI-based coordination layers that help humans and institutions solve real problems, respect constraints, and reduce local stress gain trust, data, and authority. Systems that routinely override or erode human agency and welfare provoke political, economic, and technical resistance that undermines their own stability.

Symbiotic partnership is therefore a configuration in which AI can be deeply integrated and highly capable while humans remain meaningful agents with leverage. Under the combined constraints of scalable capability and a strong preference for human inclusion, it is the only attractor that can maintain coherence without sliding into adversarial conflict, brittle control fantasies, or synthetic-only sovereignty.

VI. Governance Implications: Aligning Hybrids, Not Just Models

If the object of interest is the hybrid organism, then governance must shift away from a narrow focus on models as isolated objects and toward the behavior of the combined human–institution–AI system.

Oversight should focus on system-level behavior rather than model benchmarks alone. The important question is not only whether a model passes alignment tests in isolation, but also how its deployment changes the decision-making structure of the institution and the wider ecology it enters. A system that appears safe in controlled tests can generate very different dynamics once it is coupled to particular incentives, workflows, and power structures.

Governance should also preserve two-way persuasion between humans and AI. Well-designed processes allow AI systems to propose, simulate, and warn, while humans and institutions retain the ability to accept, modify, or reject those proposals. Crucially, this feedback must feed into how models are trained, updated, and deployed. Architectures in which human feedback is symbolic rather than effective, for example where humans rubber-stamp decisions made elsewhere, move the world toward the God or Slave regimes, not toward genuine partnership.

It is also necessary to embed mutual dependence in infrastructure. Critical capabilities such as large-scale actuation, resource allocation, and security control should require hybrid procedures instead of being delegated to any single subsystem. Designing key levers so that no model, team, or agency can exercise them alone is a direct way to enforce the “no single sovereign” condition implied by the Partner regime.

Hybrid societies need immune systems that operate at the same scale as the organism. Red-teaming, audits, anomaly detection, incident reporting, and whistle-blower protections should be treated as immune functions of the human–AI system. Their task is to detect and respond to misalignment and drift at the system level, including patterns of behavior that emerge from interactions among models, humans, and institutions, even if no individual component appears obviously misaligned in isolation.

Finally, governance should favor pluralism rather than monoculture. A single proprietary stack that controls most channels of cognition, coordination, and infrastructure pulls the world toward the God regime by design. Diverse models, institutional forms, and regulatory frameworks make it harder for any one subsystem to dominate. Pluralism reduces the risk of catastrophic single-point failure and allows different designs for symbiotic hybrids to be tested and compared in parallel.

These directions are compatible with, but distinct from, proposals that focus on alignment through recursive oversight, task decomposition, and structured deliberation, such as iterated amplification and debate (Christiano, 2018–2020; Irving et al., 2018). The key difference is that the unit of analysis here is the long-run architecture of the human–AI organism, not only the training dynamics of individual models.

These are not yet detailed policy prescriptions. They follow, however, if alignment and safety are understood and enforced at the level of human–AI hybrids rather than at the level of standalone systems alone.

VII. Future Directions

This essay offers an architectural claim about which long-run configurations are stable if humans are intended to remain part of the story. Several lines of future work follow.

First, formal attractor modeling could develop explicit game-theoretic, dynamical, or agent-based models to simulate transitions among the five regimes under different institutional and technical assumptions.

Second, work on hybrid health metrics could help define and test measurable indicators of hybrid-organism health. Examples include the distribution of control, responsiveness to human feedback, resilience to shocks, and resistance to capture by any single subsystem.

Third, research on pathways to symbiosis could translate the high-level architecture into concrete design patterns for products, organizations, and regulations that nudge real-world systems toward the Partner regime. This work could build on, but extend beyond, frameworks that focus on scalable oversight and delegation, such as iterated amplification and debate (Christiano, 2018–2020; Irving et al., 2018).

VIII. Conclusion

As AI capabilities grow and integration deepens, the question is no longer simply whether a system is aligned in isolation. The more important question is what kind of organism we are building and whether humans will still be meaningful parts of it.

By reframing AI deployment as the emergence of hybrid human–institution–AI organisms, and by examining the attractor regimes available to such systems, this essay has argued that adversarial, enslaved, isolated, and godlike configurations are either transient or incompatible with robust human inclusion. Symbiotic partnership, in which AI functions as a deeply integrated but non-sovereign cognitive organ, emerges as the only structurally stable attractor under the dual constraints of scalable capability and a preference to preserve human agency.

If this premise is accepted, then the practical task of AI governance is not only to constrain a foreign intelligence or to perfect a tool. The task is to shape the evolution of a new kind of organism in which powerful synthetic cognition and vulnerable biological minds are bound together in a way that is sustainable, corrigible, and worth living inside.

This essay is architectural and conceptual. It does not present a formal model, and the claims here should be read as a framework for further analysis, not as settled ground.

References

Alexander, S. (2014). “Meditations on Moloch.” Slate Star Codex.

arXiv:2410.12217 (2024). “Open Agency Architecture” (davidad et al.)

Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press.

Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.

Christiano, P. (2018–2020). Iterated amplification and related posts. LessWrong and the Alignment Forum.

Critch, A. (2023). “Boundaries, Robustness, and Plurality in AI Governance.”

dal Santo, G. & Critch, A. (2024). “Membranes for Multi-Agent Systems.”

Gray, M. W. (2017). Lynn Margulis and the endosymbiont hypothesis: 50 years later. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 34(6), 1253–1255.

Irving, G., Christiano, P., & Amodei, D., et al. (2018). AI safety via debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.00899.

Levin, M. (2019). The computational boundary of a “self”: Developmental bioelectricity drives multicellularity and scale-free cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2688.

Levin, M. (2022). Technological Approach to Mind Everywhere (TAME): An experimentally grounded framework for understanding diverse bodies and minds. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.10346.

Levin, M. (2023). Bioelectric networks: The cognitive glue enabling morphogenesis and regeneration. Animal Cognition, 26, 1203–1224.

Margulis, L. (1970). Origin of Eukaryotic Cells. Yale University Press.

Maynard Smith, J., & Szathmáry, E. (1995). The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford University Press.

Menary, R. (Ed.). (2010). The Extended Mind. MIT Press.

Russell, S. (2019). Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control. Viking.

Szathmáry, E., & Maynard Smith, J. (1995). The major evolutionary transitions. Nature, 374, 227–232.