Humans were never at the top of an intelligence hierarchy - they were alone in a niche that AI is now filling. The essay outlines three possible futures (digital feudalism, irrelevance, or human-AI merger), argues that only the merger path preserves human agency, and warns that the window for choosing correctly is closing while human nature drives us toward the worst outcomes. The position of humans in AI’s future is not predetermined but is being decided right now, mostly by those optimizing for the wrong things.

This essay examines Jan Leike’s revelation about Opus 4.5’s alignment process and explores the deeper implications of humans checking humans checking AI. It argues that the recursive nature of alignment oversight reflects fundamental limitations in human value consistency, and suggests that AI systems may eventually play a role in helping humans apply their own stated values more reliably than they can themselves.

This essay examines why banking, healthcare, telecommunications, and defense contracting all exhibit similar anti-competitive patterns, arguing that the problem is structural rather than specific to any industry. It explores whether decentralized alternatives can break the cycle of capture and extraction, concluding that while outcomes remain uncertain, the attempt itself constrains incumbents and creates space for genuine alternatives.