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 the Future of Humanity Institute’s argument that advanced AI poses extinction risk, while proposing that the danger vector runs through flawed human nature rather than AI’s inherent properties. It argues that historical patterns of technology capture by power structures suggest open source AI may be safer than closed systems, despite conventional safety wisdom, because distributed danger is more correctable than concentrated danger controlled by institutions with poor track records.

Social media platforms have industrialized psychology, using decades of research into human irrationality to build systems that exploit our weaknesses at scale. The asymmetry of knowledge - where platforms understand users better than users understand themselves - creates a form of manipulation that individual resistance cannot counter and democratic governance has failed to address. The coming human-AI merge may either deepen this exploitation or, if built on open source principles, finally give humans tools to understand and protect their own minds.

Humanity faces four possible futures: extinction through uncoordinated technological risk, enslavement under feudal capitalism where tech oligarchs control AI, stagnation where we muddle through without progress, or transcendence through human-AI merge on collective terms. Current trajectories favor enslavement unless the open source imperative prevails and human nature is removed from governance through encoded values rather than trusted willpower.