But how exactly might AI kill us all? There\u2019s no shortage of fantastical scenarios, and most of them involve the concept of \u201csuperintelligent\u201d AI \u2013 that is, AI that\u2019s more capable than humans.<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve distilled these scenarios down to the top five, ordering them roughly from most vague to most precise. And I\u2019d argue the list is also ordered from least probable to most probable apply.<\/p>\n
![\"How](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/woman-has-confused-thinking-question-mark-icon-on-paper-bag-B3YZ7WKGSNFTVA56IABPDCE7UM.jpg\"){kind=icon}
<\/p>\n
How can we possibly imagine what a superintelligence might do to take out less intelligent beings like us? (Source: istock.com)<\/p>\n
1. We\u2019ll never know<\/p>\n
AI doomers often justify their concerns by means of an annoying catch-22 paradox: how can we possibly imagine what a superintelligence might do to take out less intelligent beings like us?<\/p>\n
We\u2019d have to be superintelligent to predict what a superintelligence would be able to do. It\u2019s like asking your family dog to imagine thermonuclear war.<\/p>\n
The good news here is that superintelligence is still perhaps some distance away. Current AI models are really good at solving particular problems, but that\u2019s not the same as being more intelligent than a human in all domains.<\/p>\n
However, AI did recently solve one of the seven most challenging maths problems known. It\u2019s apparently closing in on others, which might leave you feeling less optimistic here.<\/p>\n
![\"Could](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/stack-of-colorful-paper-clips-KNDLR3SO2BDVXHNZWP5PVD5JZ4.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Could AI turn us into paperclips? (Source: istock.com)<\/p>\n
2. Paperclips<\/p>\n
A superintelligent AI would likely be extraordinarily competent at achieving its goals. But it might be indifferent to human survival.<\/p>\n
A classic example of such indifference comes from Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom\u2019s imagined superintelligent AI that\u2019s been designed to optimise paperclip production. To produce its preferred form of office supplies, it quickly converts all available matter \u2013 including humans, planets and stars \u2013 into paperclips.<\/p>\n
What we have here is the perfect execution of improperly specified objectives. The AI doesn\u2019t hate humanity; it simply recognises we\u2019re composed of atoms that could be better utilised for paperclips. It\u2019s not personal.<\/p>\n
The good news here is that this scenario confuses intelligence with power. A superintelligent AI doesn\u2019t necessarily have the power to achieve its goals. Turning the planet into paperclip factories would require planning permissions.<\/p>\n
Even if it got the permissions, building too many paperclip factories would lead to inevitable public outcry. Interest groups would block the proceedings in the courts. Environmental activists would block the bulldozers.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s a lot of friction in the world that prevents even the very intelligent from imposing their will on the rest of us. In fact, you could think of data centres as a current embodiment of the theoretical paperclip scenario. And humans are increasingly pushing back against turning the planet over to data centres.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/robot-or-cyborg-hold-gun-KAUT3YKIGJCJPOPNOU5HC4WLJM.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
(Source: istock.com)<\/p>\n
3. Bioweapons<\/p>\n
Humanity could be killed by a superintelligent AI making and releasing some dangerous new bioweapon into the atmosphere. This is, in fact, one outcome of the AI 2027 scenario by the AI Futures Project, a non-profit dedicated to forecasting the impacts of advanced AI.<\/p>\n
This risk was made more concrete last month, when researchers at Stanford University announced they\u2019d used a genetic language AI model to synthesise 16 new viruses.<\/p>\n
Worryingly, they just sent the genetic sequences off to a mail-order lab and it sent the viruses back in test tubes. The whole experiment cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars at most.<\/p>\n
The good news here is that it\u2019s remarkably hard to kill everyone with a new virus. To do that, you need a virus that\u2019s very transmissible, so it spreads far and wide. But it\u2019s a rule of biology \u2013 viruses that spread easily are typically less fatal. By contrast, if a virus is very fatal, transmissibility tends to go down, as most people infected die before there\u2019s time to spread the infection.<\/p>\n
Covid killed less than 1% of humanity. The deadliest pandemic in recorded history was the Black Death, when the plague killed more than one-third of Europe\u2019s population in the 13th century. However, even the plague would likely be much less deadly today due to our increased medical knowledge and better sanitation.<\/p>\n
![\"Experts](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/ai-TP6FDFBHTNFPLABSLRJJVGJSIQ.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Experts say that while AI may be convenient, it’s not always effective for advertising. (Source: istock.com)<\/p>\n
4. Nuclear war<\/p>\n
What if AI got into the nuclear command and control chain and started a nuclear war? We\u2019ve come close to nuclear war by mistake several times in the past 50 years.<\/p>\n
We\u2019re told that nuclear command and control is completely disconnected from the internet. But, as we saw in 2010, Iran\u2019s nuclear centrifuges got taken out by a computer worm called Stuxnet, thought to have been brought in on a USB stick. AI can also give the military false intelligence, which could lead to irreparable actions.<\/p>\n
The good news here is that nuclear stockpiles are down. But they are still enough perhaps to take out half of us. And it wouldn\u2019t be by the nuclear blast itself, but the famine in the nuclear winter that would follow.<\/p>\n
![\"Perhaps](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/asian-women-mediating-disagreement-BNPE2U65SRDFLD2EYNFJWAWJGU.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Perhaps the most likely risk is that we take ourselves out. (Source: istock.com)<\/p>\n
5. Other humans<\/p>\n
Perhaps the most likely risk is that we take ourselves out. And AI might precipitate this.<\/p>\n
Imagine \u2013 and it doesn\u2019t take a lot of imagination \u2013 that AI causes massive job losses, pollutes the information space with misinformation, fractures our politics, and destroys human relationships with fake synthetic companionship.<\/p>\n
Society might easily break. Slowly but surely, we\u2019d stop being able to support human life at any scale.<\/p>\n
What then to take away from all these scenarios? There are some things to be worried about for sure. But not to be too worried, I hope.<\/p>\n
Author Toby Williams is a Professor of AI, Research Group Leader at the UNSW<\/p>\n