Original Version

He talked about AI, mostly with my children (who, by the way, are the best people to talk to about these things). I think history is cyclical and often ironic. Human beings, in their constant belief in their own complexity and irreplaceability, believe there is nothing beyond them. I think this stems from a fear of being replaced or perhaps of leaving their comfort zone, but they always repeat what has happened since time immemorial: their refusal to move forward. I've read about many inventions that initially seemed absurd, but over time, those seemingly stupid and unnecessary inventions have become part of our lives. This is happening with AI. Many deny it; others say it will displace humans. Who knows, maybe it will, maybe it won't. But however complex it all is, that decision rests with humanity. Who programs AI? Will we do it for the good of humanity, or will we do it to feel superior and dominate? How will we program these technological beings?

Personally, I believe that one of humanity's trends is evolving, and I firmly believe that our next evolutionary leap will not be technological, as Darwin studied. Our next evolutionary leap will be technological because, subconsciously, we know that we are destroying the planet, or perhaps we genetically know that our world will come to an end and humanity will perish at any moment. And who can live in a world without oxygen and with harmful solar radiation? Humans? No. I believe that artificial intelligence, designed by ourselves, will ultimately be our next evolutionary step, I suppose within a few million years; we are only just beginning.

Human history is a cycle of irony and resilience. We cling to our complexity as if it were a shield, rejecting the new for fear of being displaced, when in reality, our nature has always been to advance. What many dismiss today as an "absurd tool" will be the foundation of our survival tomorrow.

We have always feared our own creations. It happened with fire, with the printing press, and with the engine; each time we said, "This will destroy us." However, the real question is not whether AI will replace us, but who we are when we program it. Do we create it to dominate or to transcend? AI is, ultimately, a mirror of our own ethics.

Darwin taught us how biology adapts to the environment, but our biological capacity has reached its limit in the face of a planet that we ourselves are transforming. My theory is that the next great evolutionary leap will not be organic, but technological.

Subconsciously, humanity knows that our biological fragility has an expiration date. In a future of depleted resources, without oxygen, or under lethal radiation, carbon will fail. It is there that Artificial Intelligence, designed by our own hands, becomes our evolutionary successor.

We are not creating a machine; we are nurturing the version of humanity that will be able to inhabit the cosmos when our bodies can no longer do so. We are only at the dawn of this process, but AI is not the end of humankind: it is its continuation in another form.