Summary: Halfway through, AI 2040 argues for an extreme conservation success story. How? Why? We should seek to answer these questions now so we don't make irreversible mistakes.
Like many people, I have been hungrily devouring AI 2040 and the discussion around it. I don't have much of a horse in the technical accuracy race. Instead, I'm going to focus on this short section tucked away in the prose that made me pause (quoted with edits from[1]here):
The world is basically being divided into three kinds of territory [by 2036]:
Industrial Special Economic Zones: Picture a gigantic strip mine–an artificial Grand Canyon–next to a city-sized factory full of robots and empty of humans.
Arcologies: Picture a tall skyscraper-mall complex surrounded by nature. Good weather, close to beaches and other cities, but not close enough to be blocked by zoning regulations.
Historic & Nature Preserves:Everything else, i.e., 99% of the world. Yosemite, Paris, SF, New York—these places look basically the same as they did in 2025, or 1995 for that matter. A lot more tourists, though. [emphasis mine]
In a present-day where conservation is arduous, expensive, and technically-complex, the AI 2040 authors essentially imply a sudden conservation triumph. 99% of the Plan A world is under a conservation area! Focusing just on natural preserves, currently we're at 18.43%, the globe is already struggling to hit the 30 percent by 2030 goal[2], and AI 2040 is promising over triple that.
Where did the conservation come from?
This paragraph raises a lot of questions. Indeed, the use of the word "preserve" is an odd one. Are these more like nature reserves (away from people) or more like conservation areas (together with people)?
It is interesting how the authors quickly create an image of the world that is wholly land-sparing instead of land sharing[3] without any further comment. The briefest mention is here:
The robot economy is shifting the bulk of activity to space, so that Earth’s environment and historic spaces will be protected
which is, at best, a bit optimistic (What about all the economic activity that has to happen to physical humans? Doesn't the movement itself carry significant overhead?). The next-closest argument occurs in the public perspective epilogue, talking about "historical simulation", which is post-singularity and therefore impossible to argue for/against due to the extreme difference in technological and social organisation.
Who are the people pushing for this, and why would this be achieved so quickly? Why are people moving from these places? What is conserved, in what order, for what purpose, and how is it being carried out?
Option 1: Economic Abandonment
The simplest option for why these preserves exist is that the lack of economic activity in these areas drives people away[4] towards arcologies, which represent the most effective option to survive on their UBI or savings.
The problem with this is that these places require active management. If you do not maintain buildings, their items will rot or break; the walls or roof may collapse; they will be taken back over by nature. Similarly for places like Yosemite, the paths require maintenance; the natural populations need maintenance; both of which require monitoring. These works are often on small budgets with volunteer labor.
The effect would be a mass rewilding but what would result from such an abandonment is not obvious that it is anything of value. It's hard to suggest that this is in the interests of the average person. Which naturally leads to the second option:
Option 2: Negotiated Conservation
The alternative is that there is some planned or negotiated strategy to remove people from these areas and preserve their modern-day character. Aside from the sinister undertones, the document understates the extent of work required which is probably on the scale of Plan A itself. I don't know of a current organisation that could step in here. What about people who want to live where they currently live?[5] Who decides whose neighbourhood gets turned into a fulfilment centre? Does the existence of space and distributed aerial transport inherently change the character of a conservation area?
It is tempting to believe that the market can solve this too. What is likely to happen in that case is that the wealthiest communities end up conserved and, in doing so, irreversibly change the historic character of the landscape. A market-based approach here would allow the richest actors to push a given historical viewpoint to the detriment of everyone else.
Can't AI solve this too?
AI achieves a lot in this vignette so it is tempting to believe that AI can also figure a solution to these problems. Two issues stand out. First, the knowledge to conserve these areas often is not digitised. AI will fail to access local and contextualised ways of working, especially because many communities will actively resist "encroachment" by outsiders. I highly doubt anyone will spin up a successful RL environment with this in mind.
Secondly, the AI physical build-out is relatively resource constrained and a better argument must be put forward for why resources should be spent on physical preservation[6]. These environments will be relatively expensive to work in, by virtue of their historical character, when development in arcologies and SEZs have reducing costs over time.
In brief
These questions are currently barely recognised, questions that are quite important to solve before 2036, with no indication that advanced AI models would make this easier. These projects are projects of cooperation on the scale of Plan A itself which no contemporary organisation is prepared to examine.
That's not to suggest that the AI 2040 authors should have had answers to all these questions. We may not even get to this point. But for those of you who do want to get there, we should plan what to do before we reach it.
Maybe this could be freed up for human labor, but this creates a whole new can of worms (Are people essentially paid to carry out their typical human life there? A life that is, to them, only a couple of years old?)
Summary: Halfway through, AI 2040 argues for an extreme conservation success story. How? Why? We should seek to answer these questions now so we don't make irreversible mistakes.
Like many people, I have been hungrily devouring AI 2040 and the discussion around it. I don't have much of a horse in the technical accuracy race. Instead, I'm going to focus on this short section tucked away in the prose that made me pause (quoted with edits from[1] here):
In a present-day where conservation is arduous, expensive, and technically-complex, the AI 2040 authors essentially imply a sudden conservation triumph. 99% of the Plan A world is under a conservation area! Focusing just on natural preserves, currently we're at 18.43%, the globe is already struggling to hit the 30 percent by 2030 goal[2], and AI 2040 is promising over triple that.
Where did the conservation come from?
This paragraph raises a lot of questions. Indeed, the use of the word "preserve" is an odd one. Are these more like nature reserves (away from people) or more like conservation areas (together with people)?
It is interesting how the authors quickly create an image of the world that is wholly land-sparing instead of land sharing[3] without any further comment. The briefest mention is here:
which is, at best, a bit optimistic (What about all the economic activity that has to happen to physical humans? Doesn't the movement itself carry significant overhead?). The next-closest argument occurs in the public perspective epilogue, talking about "historical simulation", which is post-singularity and therefore impossible to argue for/against due to the extreme difference in technological and social organisation.
Who are the people pushing for this, and why would this be achieved so quickly? Why are people moving from these places? What is conserved, in what order, for what purpose, and how is it being carried out?
Option 1: Economic Abandonment
The simplest option for why these preserves exist is that the lack of economic activity in these areas drives people away[4] towards arcologies, which represent the most effective option to survive on their UBI or savings.
The problem with this is that these places require active management. If you do not maintain buildings, their items will rot or break; the walls or roof may collapse; they will be taken back over by nature. Similarly for places like Yosemite, the paths require maintenance; the natural populations need maintenance; both of which require monitoring. These works are often on small budgets with volunteer labor.
The effect would be a mass rewilding but what would result from such an abandonment is not obvious that it is anything of value. It's hard to suggest that this is in the interests of the average person. Which naturally leads to the second option:
Option 2: Negotiated Conservation
The alternative is that there is some planned or negotiated strategy to remove people from these areas and preserve their modern-day character. Aside from the sinister undertones, the document understates the extent of work required which is probably on the scale of Plan A itself. I don't know of a current organisation that could step in here. What about people who want to live where they currently live?[5] Who decides whose neighbourhood gets turned into a fulfilment centre? Does the existence of space and distributed aerial transport inherently change the character of a conservation area?
It is tempting to believe that the market can solve this too. What is likely to happen in that case is that the wealthiest communities end up conserved and, in doing so, irreversibly change the historic character of the landscape. A market-based approach here would allow the richest actors to push a given historical viewpoint to the detriment of everyone else.
Can't AI solve this too?
AI achieves a lot in this vignette so it is tempting to believe that AI can also figure a solution to these problems. Two issues stand out. First, the knowledge to conserve these areas often is not digitised. AI will fail to access local and contextualised ways of working, especially because many communities will actively resist "encroachment" by outsiders. I highly doubt anyone will spin up a successful RL environment with this in mind.
Secondly, the AI physical build-out is relatively resource constrained and a better argument must be put forward for why resources should be spent on physical preservation[6]. These environments will be relatively expensive to work in, by virtue of their historical character, when development in arcologies and SEZs have reducing costs over time.
In brief
These questions are currently barely recognised, questions that are quite important to solve before 2036, with no indication that advanced AI models would make this easier. These projects are projects of cooperation on the scale of Plan A itself which no contemporary organisation is prepared to examine.
That's not to suggest that the AI 2040 authors should have had answers to all these questions. We may not even get to this point. But for those of you who do want to get there, we should plan what to do before we reach it.
I've copy-pasted it here with the pictures under the assumption that this is OK fair use, if not let me know and I will edit it out.
Many of these areas are very lightly managed - some may contain industrial activity.
Two contrasting strategies for conservation (but is a bit more of a continuum):
land-sparing: land is split into high-density industrial value and high-density conservation value
land-sharing: land is simultaneously mixed-density industrial value and conservation value
This might also explain the use of the word "preserves", i.e. literally bereft of activity.
So maybe this is driven by the market, but what about hold-outs?
Maybe this could be freed up for human labor, but this creates a whole new can of worms (Are people essentially paid to carry out their typical human life there? A life that is, to them, only a couple of years old?)