some counterpoints, in no particular order of strength:
biological agents that follow any kind of actual science are a rather slow vector of extinction. You can either make a biological weapon extremely viral or extremely deadly, but not both, as the hosts need to live long enough to spread it. Simple quarantine measures would slow that process to a crawl, especially if the plagues are obviously deadly and artificial, which would motivate more robust reaction than COVID did.
Nukes are a poor choice for the AI to use to wipe out humans, since its the one weapon that AI and robots are just as (if not more) vulnerable to as humans are,due to EMP. If the nukes start flying back and forth, its not immediately obvious that AI nodes and robotic hubs would not be the worse off.
Humans are already self-replicating general intelligence robots with a lot of built-in robustness and grid independence. Its not obvious to me that AI using mundane robotics/drones could easily outfight or even outbreed humans.
The total cost of outfitting a relatively fit adult human with a rifle, a full body Hazmat suit, and cable cutters is lower than the cost of producing a combat drone of similar capability. Such a human would be extremely dangerous to the robotic hub and supply chains, and the supercomputers the AI resides on. Without nanotech, AI is very susceptible to asymmetrical warfare, sabotage, arson, and plain old analog assault (dynamite, molotovs, cutting power cables, sledgehammer to the server etc.)
there is no reason to believe the AI in this scenario would be invulnerable to hacking, or viruses. E-viruses are much easier and faster to produce, mutate, randomize, and spread than biological agents. Even if the AI itself would be too rugged to malware to be killed that way, the grid is not. If humans were facing extinction It is likely we would just destroy the global network with malicious software and strategic use of sledgehammers and bolt-cutters. After that, the war is reduced to 1970s style analog level, at which humans have advantage.
Actually, I think that AI will preserve humans for instrument reasons, at least some of them.
AI can also so powerfully indoctinate/ brain-edit existing humans that they will be like robots at early stages of AI ascending.
There are ways to make biological weapons much deadly and solve the delivery problem, I list many of them here.
Nukes likely can’t kill everyone, at least if you do not make large cobalt bombs, - but in suggested scenrio AI use combination of bio, nukes and drones to kill all. Bio kills most, nukes is used against bunkers and drones clean the remains.
some counterpoints, in no particular order of strength:
biological agents that follow any kind of actual science are a rather slow vector of extinction. You can either make a biological weapon extremely viral or extremely deadly, but not both, as the hosts need to live long enough to spread it. Simple quarantine measures would slow that process to a crawl, especially if the plagues are obviously deadly and artificial, which would motivate more robust reaction than COVID did.
Nukes are a poor choice for the AI to use to wipe out humans, since its the one weapon that AI and robots are just as (if not more) vulnerable to as humans are,due to EMP. If the nukes start flying back and forth, its not immediately obvious that AI nodes and robotic hubs would not be the worse off.
Humans are already self-replicating general intelligence robots with a lot of built-in robustness and grid independence. Its not obvious to me that AI using mundane robotics/drones could easily outfight or even outbreed humans.
The total cost of outfitting a relatively fit adult human with a rifle, a full body Hazmat suit, and cable cutters is lower than the cost of producing a combat drone of similar capability. Such a human would be extremely dangerous to the robotic hub and supply chains, and the supercomputers the AI resides on. Without nanotech, AI is very susceptible to asymmetrical warfare, sabotage, arson, and plain old analog assault (dynamite, molotovs, cutting power cables, sledgehammer to the server etc.)
there is no reason to believe the AI in this scenario would be invulnerable to hacking, or viruses. E-viruses are much easier and faster to produce, mutate, randomize, and spread than biological agents. Even if the AI itself would be too rugged to malware to be killed that way, the grid is not. If humans were facing extinction It is likely we would just destroy the global network with malicious software and strategic use of sledgehammers and bolt-cutters. After that, the war is reduced to 1970s style analog level, at which humans have advantage.
Actually, I think that AI will preserve humans for instrument reasons, at least some of them.
AI can also so powerfully indoctinate/ brain-edit existing humans that they will be like robots at early stages of AI ascending.
There are ways to make biological weapons much deadly and solve the delivery problem, I list many of them here.
Nukes likely can’t kill everyone, at least if you do not make large cobalt bombs, - but in suggested scenrio AI use combination of bio, nukes and drones to kill all. Bio kills most, nukes is used against bunkers and drones clean the remains.