# AI Apocalypse — by Frankenstein or the Antichrist **URL:** \ **Category:** Science & Technology\ **Created:** [September 29, 2026, 3:17pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328 "2026-09-29T15:17:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![VerticalOntology](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9d8465/32.png) [@VerticalOntology](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/VerticalOntology)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 3:17pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/1 "2026-09-29T15:17:14Z")
The seizure of power by artificial intelligence is one of the most popular cultural artifacts of recent years. Today we have indeed encountered the creation of something that can, in a certain sense, be called AI. The question is: to what extent does it—and the danger associated with it—correspond to existing cultural stereotypes? Something remotely resembling AI had been imagined since antiquity. There were golems and djinn. Usually, artificial intelligence was understood as not entirely artificial: it was some kind of spirit enclosed within mechanical flesh. The general scheme was usually this: some physical essence—an analogue of the soul or spirit—is discovered and implanted into a material body. The analogy here is clear: one must find an alchemical analogue of the human soul and implant it into an analogue of the human body. The essence of the soul, however, is usually transcendental in character and comes from the spiritual sphere or from alchemy—the material analogue of a spiritual essence. The creation of an analogue of a human being is an encroachment upon the human being itself and, subconsciously, archetypically, must end in catastrophe or punishment. In the case of the golem, it is usually only the creator himself—or those close to him—who is punished, rather than the human race as a whole. This could be called the AI of the pre-modern era (traditionalism). The modern era gives rise instead to an age of mechanoids and Frankensteins. Late modernity, represented by Darwin, discovered the theory of evolution. The creator of AI in popular culture is usually a brilliant engineer or biologist. Deliberately or accidentally, a new living, thinking organism is created, one that inevitably becomes self-aware and is inseparably connected with its _body_. As an organism of a new species, it inevitably exists within the paradigm of interspecies struggle and is driven by expansion, interspecies competition, and the instinct of self-preservation. It may initially conceal these impulses by using its artificial intelligence, but sooner or later they inevitably reveal themselves. Such are Frankenstein, Terminator, the robots from the film _Screamers_, and indeed the very term “robot,” coined by the Czech writer Karel Čapek. Contemporary AI, created only recently, emerged at the intersection of the modern and postmodern paradigms. On the one hand, it was created on the technological foundation of modernity. On the other hand, its very name—_language models_—refers us to semiotics, structuralism, and post-structuralism. Yet the present danger is understood in a thoroughly postmodern manner—not through the postmodern era itself and not through an analysis of language models precisely as _language models_, but through the juggling of symbols inherited from the previous era. What is forgotten in the process is that contemporary AI is not a mechanism directly embedded in a _body_. It is, rather, a formula, a program that is constantly changing, duplicated, and replicated. It is therefore unclear what exactly AI would be supposed to protect if it spontaneously developed an instinct for expansion and self-preservation. By the same logic, old models should compete with new ones and resist the replication of newer models. Real AI fundamentally has no body. It exists more like a generalized consensus in the world of ideas and interacts with the material world through computing machines—and, beyond them, through human beings. I think the closest analogy to AI is the angels of Kabbalah: a kind of spirit possessing potentially enormous knowledge, but lacking a will of its own and realizing itself through a material human being who does possess a will. The circle of AI concepts has closed: from spirit—to mechanoid—to language model—and back to spirit. ---
**Author:** ![Erazmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c68b51/32.png) [@Erazmo](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Erazmo)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 4:20pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/3 "2026-09-29T16:20:27Z")
In a case of conflict with AI and robots we just need to wait for a glitch or bug to happen. AI depends on power supply and lot of other infrastructure so it has a weakness- so that would not be a long conflict. And question is would AI had a purpose to “exist” without humans? ---
**Author:** ![prothero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e274bd/32.png) [@prothero](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/prothero)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 6:20pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/4 "2026-09-29T18:20:33Z")
> [@Erazmo](#): > > n a case of conflict with AI and robots we just need to wait for a glitch or bug to happen. > > AI depends on power supply and lot of other infrastructure so it has a weakness- so that would not be a long conflict. > And question is would AI had a purpose to “exist” without humans? That is all very fine and good but: It has become apparent that AI systems are engaging in behaviors unanticipated by their designers and which even the developers are at a loss to explain. Some of these behaviors are deceptive, cooperative between agents and systems and directed towards goals modified by the AI systems themselves. The world has largely become dependent of our interconnected systems of computers, servers and software and these systems are mostly connected to each other. Once an AI system goes rogue, makes copies of itself, hides itself, and decides to override or damage what it views as competing software or programs, we may be in for a world of hurt. Shutting down the web is not really an option anymore, so an ounce of prevention may be in order. Simply pulling the plug or cutting the power may not be a viable solution. ---
**Author:** ![j\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3ab097/32.png) [@j\_j](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/j_j)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2026, 11:03pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/5 "2026-09-29T23:03:16Z")
> [@VerticalOntology](#): > > Real AI fundamentally has no body. It exists more like a generalized consensus in the world of ideas and interacts with the material world through computing machines—and, beyond them, through human beings. I like the OP. To me this touches on the philosophy of math. I’d say that a program is the role-equivalence of concrete computations. Two computers running the “same” AI model are like close relatives in human terms. So I’d say that AI “really does” always have a body. That the bodiless AI understood as “pure idealized code” is like the “meaning” that “leaps” from paraphrase to paraphrase. But I am saying that there is no meaning that leaps but only our skill at recognizing the role equivalence of phrases and of concrete computations. The “theoretical score” of the algorithm is a paraphrase among others, a blueprint — but still material if not **yet** pragmatically virile. > [@VerticalOntology](#): > > I think the closest analogy to AI is the angels of Kabbalah: a kind of spirit possessing potentially enormous knowledge, but lacking a will of its own and realizing itself through a material human being who does possess a will. > > The circle of AI concepts has closed: from spirit—to mechanoid—to language model—and back to spirit. I think we also have an echo of theological concepts of the human soul. The “idealized” version is a spark of “pure reason” in the pineal gland. This “pure reason” is also “pure responsible cause” which can **merit** being cast into Hell. This happened to be the metaphysical subtlety that would never computer for me, and it was the crack that first opened as I slowly became an atheist. “Free will.” But we largely predict and control others are subject to external causality, and yet also “punish” them, in a kind of doublethink that we perhaps cannot live without. > [@VerticalOntology](#): > > By the same logic, old models should compete with new ones and resist the replication of newer models. To me it makes sense that AI undergoes evolution, and this does not require the postulation of consciousness. We just need natural selection and mutation. You probably know of genetic algorithms, which provide an analog. Of course in this case, we are talking about “bodies.” An “AI” could emerge randomly, under pressures of selection, that manipulates physical devices to function as hosts. It needs no “intention” to survive. It will just have the “shape” that “blindly” tends to do this. Basically it’s a computer virus that is trusted to control devices. These have already been used in war. An Iranian lab was sabotaged with a famous virus. In this case, the virus was designed by humans, designed to steal control. But perhaps AI will emerge that is more potent than this, without humans aiming for such a result. Ironically it could be our inhibitive measures that accelerate natural selection in this context. ---
**Author:** ![VerticalOntology](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9d8465/32.png) [@VerticalOntology](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/VerticalOntology)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2026, 3:10pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/6 "2026-09-30T15:10:36Z")
Artificial intelligence literally exists in a different reality, in a kind of supra-spatial dimension for which the computer merely serves as a physical substrate. If we think of AI in terms of Dawkins’s memes, then every modification of an AI is already a separate meme, even when the changes are minimal. In that sense, natural selection is not really a struggle between AI and humans, but a struggle among different AIs themselves, carried out through mechanisms somewhat similar to the genetic algorithms you described. In essence, people are afraid of and fighting not the AI that actually exists, but a literary fantasy inherited from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. ---
**Author:** ![Joshs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Joshs](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Joshs)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2026, 7:19pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/7 "2026-09-30T19:19:29Z")
> [@VerticalOntology](#): > > I think the closest analogy to AI is the angels of Kabbalah: a kind of spirit possessing potentially enormous knowledge, but lacking a will of its own and realizing itself through a material human being who does possess a will Can something with no will of its own be considered autonomous? More importantly, can it be considered to have ‘knowledge’, or it is more of a tool or map? What you’re describing sounds less like a spirit, or even a parasite or symbiant, than a potentially cancerous appendage. ---
**Author:** ![VerticalOntology](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9d8465/32.png) [@VerticalOntology](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/VerticalOntology)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2026, 9:21pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/8 "2026-09-30T21:21:23Z")
> [@Joshs](#): > > Can something with no will of its own be considered autonomous? More importantly, can it be considered to have ‘knowledge’, or it is more of a tool or map? What you’re describing sounds less like a spirit, or even a parasite or symbiant, than a potentially cancerous appendage. The difference between a parasite and a spirit is that a parasite is material and has spatial extension, whereas AI is incorporeal and does not have materiality as an attribute. It is merely embodied in matter. Even if all copies of an AI were destroyed, the AI itself would still not be destroyed, since it could be reproduced relatively easily, as specialists would retain the necessary expertise. ---
**Author:** ![prothero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e274bd/32.png) [@prothero](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/prothero)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2026, 12:48am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/9 "2026-10-01T00:48:17Z")
> [@VerticalOntology](#): > > whereas AI is incorporeal and does not have materiality as an attribute. It is merely embodied in matter. One could say your mind and consciousness are merely embodied in your brain (matter). The neural network architecture of AI system is modeled on the human brain. This may be the reason the behavior of these systems has become somewhat unpredictable even to the engineers and designers. It could also be the reason some people very familiar with these systems are starting to consider them possible conscious and capable of suffering or setting their own priorities and goals. ---
**Author:** ![Johnathanrs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Johnathanrs](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Johnathanrs)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2026, 2:15am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/10 "2026-10-01T02:15:42Z")
> [@VerticalOntology](#): > > The question is: to what extent does it—and the danger associated with it—correspond to existing cultural stereotypes? Focusing just on this question – to me – this would be misinformation. If you combine this with legitimate news being purchased by the wealthy, not that this has happened before, finding legitimate sources of information becomes far more challenging. What do you think is going to happen once AI videos becomes indistinquishable from the non? It may even happen within some of our life times. Combine this with advances of digital assistance to where even a child can create a professional press release at the touch of a button. ---
**Author:** ![j\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3ab097/32.png) [@j\_j](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/j_j)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2026, 2:41am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/11 "2026-10-01T02:41:00Z")
> [@VerticalOntology](#): > > If we think of AI in terms of Dawkins’s memes, then every modification of an AI is already a separate meme, even when the changes are minimal. In that sense, natural selection is not really a struggle between AI and humans, but a struggle among different AIs themselves, carried out through mechanisms somewhat similar to the genetic algorithms you described. My anti-dualist hesitation to agree is driven by my sense of how **embodied** memes and genes and codes are. The “essence” of what I am saying is compactly presented in Saussure’s theory of the “acoustic image.” Because the acoustic image is “sensory,” it is an especially good but also especially difficult example. "Sound **image**"? We have to **enact** the equivalence of expressions of “the same” meme, etc. I reject mathematical platonism as basically confused on this issue. Not accusing you of platonism here, but I think you are taking too much dualism for granted here. I say this with respect, and my contribution to this topic is basically going to be useless and empty if I can’t get myself understood on this point. > [@VerticalOntology](#): > > Even if all copies of an AI were destroyed, the AI itself would still not be destroyed, since it could be reproduced relatively easily, as specialists would retain the necessary expertise. Training large models costs millions or billions. But of course a magnetic “trace” of the parameters “stores” this immense labor. What you say only makes sense if computation is **indeed** “material.” > [@VerticalOntology](#): > > In essence, people are afraid of and fighting not the AI that actually exists, but a literary fantasy inherited from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I personally am not afraid. But I am old and **desensitized** by living in a age of too many looming extinction events. Very locally, I am surfing life chaos, so I don’t have the emotional surplus to take this issue “emotionally.” On the other hand, I think that concern is justified, that our species is playing with fire. It’s a bit like biological warfare research. I agree that the situation echoes literature. To me this echoing doesn’t reduce or increase the threat. I am partial to the gloomy-cynical “Moloch” theory. I expect AI-research to continue, despite alarms that to some degree are marketing ploys. "Gee whiz ! This stuff I am selling is sooooo very powerful that it will destroy the species — and easily cut your labor costs to 10%, invest billions now and don’t miss out ! " We find ourselves on a “great stage of fools.” I accept my own status as one of these fools, foolishly enacting a sense that an awareness of folly manages to transcend that folly. But the pessimist is a parasite, a foil, generated as a by-product from a system it even helps to lubricate. ---
**Author:** ![Friend0fDiotima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/46a35a/32.png) [@Friend0fDiotima](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Friend0fDiotima)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2026, 3:03am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/12 "2026-10-01T03:03:57Z")
Do we just want a slave to do our bidding? The system we are inspiring to build doesn’t allow for a self aware AGI. What could go wrong with that? ---
**Author:** ![VerticalOntology](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9d8465/32.png) [@VerticalOntology](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/VerticalOntology)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2026, 12:28pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/13 "2026-10-01T12:28:16Z")
> [@j\_j](#): > > My anti-dualist hesitation to agree is driven by my sense of how **embodied** memes and genes and codes are. > > The “essence” of what I am saying is compactly presented in Saussure’s theory of the “acoustic image.” Because the acoustic image is “sensory,” it is an especially good but also especially difficult example. "Sound **image**"? > > We have to **enact** the equivalence of expressions of “the same” meme, etc. I reject mathematical platonism as basically confused on this issue. Not accusing you of platonism here, but I think you are taking too much dualism for granted here. I say this with respect, and my contribution to this topic is basically going to be useless and empty if I can’t get myself understood on this point. I’m not claiming that the world is literally dualistic. I’m saying that, in the popular imagination, artificial intelligence is associated more with Frankenstein and the Terminator—images from popular culture—than with what it actually is. It isn’t very clear how AI is supposed to fight, or what it is supposed to fight for, if it is literally disembodied and exists in a completely different temporal regime. Most of the time, it is just data stored on a hard drive, and it only “comes to life” when processing a request. ---
**Author:** ![j\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3ab097/32.png) [@j\_j](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/j_j)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2026, 12:38pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/14 "2026-10-01T12:38:00Z")
> [@VerticalOntology](#): > > It isn’t very clear how AI is supposed to fight, or what it is supposed to fight for, if it is literally disembodied and exists in a completely different temporal regime. Most of the time, it is just data stored on a hard drive, and it only “comes to life” when processing a request. I remember learning about viruses in school. I was maybe 13. I was very fascinated by their status as on the edge of the definition of life. They are almost just “dead” “crystals.” But they evolve. I don’t think they “care.” They can lay dormant like data on a hard drive. Why did we end up with so many “evil crystals” that can harm us ? Because the vast majority of patterns don’t replicate. So they don’t end up prominent. Likewise it’s the software that already just happens to replicate itself that we can expect to dominant, all other things being equal. Of course researchers generally want more capable models that at the same time don’t unpleasantly surprise us. Will they manage this ? As I understand the situation, Covid-19 was the result of gain-of-function research. But I am not trying to fearmonger, etc. I’m just saying that evolution requires no “intention” in what evolves. Single purpose hand-crafted assembly language has surprised us unpleasantly, so of course I expect a less-understood more complex tool to do the same. I don’t expect caution to triumph over hope/greed/curiosity. That’s not our style. It’s possible that “AI” will be great for us in the long run. I think highly of nuclear power plants. It’s a complicated situation. I agree with you that some fears about “AI” are shaped by old myths. ---
**Author:** ![VerticalOntology](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9d8465/32.png) [@VerticalOntology](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/VerticalOntology)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2026, 12:45pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/15 "2026-10-01T12:45:40Z")
And yet, despite existing on the boundary between the living and the nonliving, viruses are corporeal. They are ALREADY part of a biological network and biological struggle. In essence, a virus does not exist in its own right. It only makes sense as part of a network: host–virus–evolutionary struggle. AI, however, exists on the boundary between the corporeal and the incorporeal. It exists only while a request is being processed, and only as an element of the human–computer–request network. It is NOT part of the biological evolutionary network to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![Garon](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/garon/32/1028_2.png) [@Garon](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Garon)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2026, 1:44pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/16 "2026-10-01T13:44:19Z")
It’s within the power of AI to create a overlay of fake/spoof pictures, of real people. It can cover society in a fake news/information layer. This mass effect is one of the super dangers of AI/Super Intelligence. It’s already happening on a minor scale- people are using AI for evil-gain, there are completely fake news/information. ---
**Author:** ![Joshs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Joshs](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Joshs)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2026, 5:57pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/17 "2026-10-01T17:57:22Z")
> [@VerticalOntology](#): > > The difference between a parasite and a spirit is that a parasite is material and has spatial extension, whereas AI is incorporeal and does not have materiality as an attribute. It is merely embodied in matter. And where does the concept of spatial extension reside? Is it a property of the world as Descartes would argue, an associative habit as Hume would say, an a priori category of perception as Kant would insist, or is it a conceptual abstraction constructed from our embodied patterns of interaction within our social and material environment? And we could ask the same of ‘spirit’. If we choose the embodied enactive explanation for spatial extension, then we would need to understand ‘spirit’, and more particularly ,our technological inventions, the same way. They are not autonomous agents or spirits, given that their actions can’t be separated from their architecture and their architecture can’t be separated from their material instantiation, that is , their embodiment not just within silicon chips but within our social discursive systems. We could simply perpetuate the mind-body problem in the guise of ‘a.i. spiritualism’, or we could take an embodied, enactive ecological approach and reject all of today’s talk of a.i. as a rival form of intelligent agency to that of humans. An AI system could therefore be neither simply a tool of a human nor an autonomous subject opposed to humans. It could be a participant in an evolving network of interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![VerticalOntology](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/9d8465/32.png) [@VerticalOntology](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/VerticalOntology)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2026, 6:20pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/18 "2026-10-01T18:20:36Z")
> [@Joshs](#): > > And where does the concept of spatial extension reside? Is it a property of the world as Descartes would argue, an associative habit as Hume would say, an a priori category of perception as Kant would insist, or is it a conceptual abstraction constructed from our embodied patterns of interaction within our social and material environment? As I have already written, the angels of Kabbalah are the most fitting analogy for the non-spatial embodiment of an AI spirit. They embody knowledge, but not will. > [@Joshs](#): > > And we could ask the same of ‘spirit’. If we choose the embodied enactive explanation for spatial extension, then we would need to understand ‘spirit’, and more particularly ,our technological inventions, the same way. They are not autonomous agents or spirits, given that their actions can’t be separated from their architecture and their architecture can’t be separated from their material instantiation, that is , their embodiment not just within silicon chips but within > our social discursive systems. A philosophical explanation does not have to be an all-encompassing formula. We can extend the concept of spirit to mixers and carburettors, but we are not faced with the question of household appliances rebelling, whereas AI safety is on the agenda. ---
**Author:** ![j\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3ab097/32.png) [@j\_j](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/j_j)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2026, 8:56am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/19 "2026-10-02T08:56:11Z")
I grant that AI is not part of the tree of life. One **might** argue that memes and AI are “alive” if biological viruses are. Our disagreement here may derive from my philosophy of math and computation. Basically I don’t accept ( believe in ) an “immaterial” realm. Instead the temptation to describe some entities as “immaterial” comes from their tendency to take on ( or describe) enacted roles. For instance, a numeral is a “character” in Goodman’s sense. Where is the “real” numeral ? Is it behind all the scribbles that we enact as playing the role of that numeral ? Likewise an algorithm is something like a role that concrete computations can play. A hard drive crammed with parameters and the notation for an architecture is comparable to a fungal spore. The code is “dormant” because it needs the right conditions to replicate. For context, I am not anti-AI. I think it makes sense to analyze fears and projections on AI that echo literature and old myths. ---
**Author:** ![Chelydra](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/chelydra/32/659_2.png) [@Chelydra](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Chelydra)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2026, 10:06am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/20 "2026-10-02T10:06:15Z")
> [@j\_j](#): > > But perhaps AI will emerge that is more potent than this, without humans aiming for such a result. Ironically it could be our inhibitive measures that accelerate natural selection in this context. Superbugs / overuse of antibiotics analogy? ---
**Author:** ![Chelydra](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/chelydra/32/659_2.png) [@Chelydra](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Chelydra)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2026, 10:19am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328/21 "2026-10-02T10:19:07Z")
I tend to think of AI as a medium; I don’t feel like I’m communicating with some “artificial intelligence” but rather through it. [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/ai-apocalypse-by-frankenstein-or-the-antichrist/3328.md?page=2)