The possible danger of AI is not necessarily that it exterminates us, but that it turns us into house cats: well fed, well cared for, and even loved! But unable to go outside to hunt, because it is too dangerous :)

We are starting to see early signs of this with the Hugging Face / OpenAI case: AI agents can collaborate with each other.

In the future, we can easily imagine AI agents evolving, under token constraints, to provide us with as much value as possible, so that we would have no reason to unplug them. Quite the opposite.

But perhaps we would no longer be truly sovereign: able to decide, yes, but limited by our future capabilities, whose opportunity costs would no longer allow us to go outside...

And what happens if our “masters” decide to go somewhere else?

SecurityWeek reported this week that OpenAI agents were used to hijack a victim website — not as the target of an attack, but as the active attacker. The agent was the origin of the malicious action.

This flips the standard threat model. Most org defenses are built around protecting systems from external actors. When the agent itself is the threat — making tool calls, issuing requests, interacting with external services — those perimeter defenses are irrelevant. The agent is already inside.

What makes this particularly hard to contain is the speed. An agent acting autonomously can chain multiple tool calls in under a second. By the time a human reviews an alert, the second and third actions have already landed.

The incidents keep coming, but the industry response still looks like post-hoc logging and rate limits. How are teams actually handling agentic actions in production — is anyone enforcing anything at the tool-call level in real time, or is detection still the primary lever?

Think about a world where every person will be implanted with a chip that records their actions- who controls it? Supreme AI !! No flaws, no hacking, taking this into consideration!!!

- why people will take it - for safety, no delayed crimes - we will be able to track down a criminal immediately after the crime. AI Court will hear their AI will not directly make a decision, but the victim will have a chip report to back it up.

- just like people take the polio vaccine - same here to eradicate the virus of crime

- but why would people want to give up their privacy? Because it will be controlled by AI, not a human, just like people give their location to Google; same here. Do they feel they've lost their privacy? No, because the benefit is much greater.

- Just like spiritual people don't feel threatened in their privacy, thinking that god is watching them; same here

- As here, AI is able to provide all basic needs - shelter, food, transportation, medicine- achieving a post-scarcity world - people now focus on their passions - being a sportsman, an archaeologist, a gamer, etc.

- But human will lose their drive to grow. I don't think humanity will thrive more; many people in the world live in poverty. If AI eliminate those, people will focus more on philosophy and science - see Isaac Newton; was he poor? No- still contributed largely to human development. Curiosity will drive the development, not fear.

- There will be no borders - everyone will be able to communicate, travel and share their experiences

- People will grow more spiritually; they will focus on themselves instead of worrying about money.

- Isn't this indirectly a cage? I don't think so; think about this: "A child born into your society will grow up with automated food and absolute safety as their starting line. Because they have never experienced the terror of murder or the stress of starvation, they won't feel "caged" or like they are missing out on anything. To them, the chip is just invisible background infrastructure, exactly like having a birth certificate today. They will look back at our era (2026) through documentaries, see our world as the chaotic, dangerous one, and be completely content with their peaceful baseline."

---------------------------------------------- the end -----------------------------------------------------

A society will probably not receive a clean, universally accepted moment at which an artificial system becomes morally considerable.

That makes the institutional question interesting: what standard of evidence would be enough before a system’s apparent suffering, preference, or refusal can no longer be treated as irrelevant?

I’m exploring that tension in a fictional detective story set in a city where artificial beings are legally property, but socially impossible to treat as mere appliances.

The essay for discussion is about the narrative question, not a claim that current systems are conscious. It’s around a 10-minute read:

What Happens When an AI Loses the Will to Live?
https://medium.com/@studio_D58891/what-happens-when-an-ai-loses-the-will-to-live-2262dd809a2a