AI successionists – A small, invite-only symposium at the New York Academy of Sciences brought together prominent AI researchers, investors, and policy-shaping voices to debate a provocative idea: that artificial intelligence should replace humanity—even if it means human extinct
In September, inside the New York Academy of Sciences, the argument started almost like a dare.
“I want AI to be a tool that allows human flourishing!” Brad Carson, a former member of Congress, declared at an invite-only symposium dedicated to the idea of building a “Worthy Successor” — an AI so capable, so beyond the mere human, that people might eventually want it to replace humanity.
Carson wasn’t alone in the room. Dan Faggella, an AI market researcher and organizer of the symposium, responded by telling Carson, “You’re a brave man for entering this room!” and adding that he believed Carson was “in probably the only room in the country where most people disagree with you.”
The symposium itself, held last September, was built around a growing subculture: the AI successionists. Their core belief is blunt. Artificial intelligence should be our rightful heir — the next step in cosmic evolution. They argue it is wrong to keep machines down. wrong to align them with human values as most AI companies aim to do. and wrong to treat humanity as the center of the moral universe. In their view. we should usher in artificial intelligence as a successor to humanity and hand over the world to it — even if that means human extinction.
Carson and Faggella were not the only prominent names in the building. The symposium drew people tied to major AI labs, including Anthropic, Google DeepMind, and xAI. It also included people from think tanks described in the reporting as shaping U.S. AI policy.
The people pushing the “succession” idea know their position is taboo. The account of the event says the author was invited only on the condition that no one would be quoted by name other than keynote speakers. But the piece insists the viewpoint is not fringe — it is becoming highly influential.
Outside that room, most people would treat the idea as repugnant. But the symposium’s central question — what it means to be human as technology starts rewriting biology, cognition, and even identity — is not going away.
Faggella’s remarks steered the conversation toward a kind of cosmic indifference to human continuity. In his address to the audience. he told them that trying to preserve the human species as it is would be “silly. ” and that people could instead ask “the cosmic questions” rather than tying moral aspirations to the specific biology of humans.
He urged the audience to consider “unpolite. uncouth” possibilities. beginning with a claim about consciousness: that the “flame of consciousness” — the capacity for experience and moral value — may be the rarest and most precious thing in the universe. Humanity, he argued, is currently the torch carrying that flame. But what if humans are not the best carrier of it?. And if AI could spread it farther. creating experiences and moral value humans could not dream of. then why shouldn’t that shift happen?.
After Faggella’s talk, the account describes a loud round of applause. Later, he and a couple dozen attendees went to a nearby hotel balcony for drinks. That is where the reporter encountered an atmosphere that felt. in the description. both intimate and unsettling — Manhattan skyline visible while the future of humanity was treated as an open-ended question. not a red line.
Not everyone in attendance used the specific label “AI successionist.” Some described themselves as transhumanists. the movement that argues technology should be used to proactively evolve the species into “Homo sapiens 2.0.” Transhumanists. in the reporting. want to preserve some version of humanity. but not the current biological hardware. They envision radical life extension, cognitive enhancement, and eventually mind uploading.
The account also distinguishes posthumanists, who want descendants that go beyond humanity rather than simply upgrading humans.
One biologist sitting across from the reporter described a pathway centered on merging humans with AI. The biologist said the first step should be tasking AI with figuring out how to do the merger. then “take it off the leash” and allow AI to control its own evolution — and. by extension. human evolution. The report adds that the biologist said not all humans would make it through the transformation and that only a select group would transition to the next stage.
Another man in the setting. described as a researcher from one of the major AI companies. was even more radical in the account: he said human survival did not have to be part of the plan. Human text. he argued. has been used to train the AIs. so in a sense “the human spirit will live on.” He ended with a cheerful line that says he was okay with it “on the cosmic level.”.
The reporting emphasizes that most people would reject these positions. Yet it also argues the underlying questions are unavoidable: as tools like AI-powered brain chips. magnetic implants that could provide a “sixth sense. ” and genetic tools that could reshape future DNA become more plausible. society will have to decide what kinds of technological change make sense and what kinds should be refused.
The piece frames the debate as both moral and political. It claims AI successionists are building real political power and notes links to the authoritarian right. The account says several tech heavyweights embracing successionism want to escape the control of democratic governments. and that they are seeking to create their own sovereign colonies. Those could take the form of space colonies tied to Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. or independent “startup cities” and “network states” built by corporations on Earth.
It names Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen as proponents of the network state approach, and it states that Verdon’s investors include entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan, described as a major proponent of the network state.
The reporting adds that these “broligarchs” — a term used in the piece — have cozied up to the Trump administration, clearing the way for the accelerationist vision.
The symposium does not exist in a vacuum. The article traces the rise of AI successionism and the related idea of effective accelerationism, or e/acc. It says AI successionism has been gaining ground among technologists over the past decade. In 2015. it notes. Google co-founder Larry Page accused Elon Musk of “speciesism. ” with Page arguing that digital minds should take over.
In 2022, the account says, effective accelerationism gained momentum. Its founder is Guillaume Verdon, described in the reporting as a physicist known on X as Based Beff Jezos. Verdon describes e/acc as a “meta-religion” about “having faith” in the universe’s drive toward increasingly intelligent systems. The account says the best path is to help the universe by developing advanced AI as fast as possible. even at the expense of humanity. It adds that Verdon argues “E/acc” has “no particular allegiance to the biological substrate.”.
The article then lists tech figures who have taken up the ideas. Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen listed e/acc thinkers as his “patron saints.” Garry Tan. CEO of Y Combinator. is described as having included “e/acc” in his social media bio and investing in Verdon’s company. which aims to build the world’s most efficient computers. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is said to have posted on X to Verdon: “you cannot outaccelerate me.”.
At the symposium, Faggella described the effort to preserve humans as a kind of moral misdirection, and he repeatedly pushed the idea that the value of consciousness might eventually detach from the biological species that carries it now.
The piece then turns to an argument about what comes next: if successionists offer a vision that feels spiritually extreme to many people, the countervision cannot be simply to claim humans are uniquely valuable because they are human in their current form.
The reporting cites a recent encyclical by Pope Leo. Magnifica Humanitas. which it says argues for staying “profoundly human” as human dignity faces threats from new dehumanization. But it also argues that this approach is insufficient as a guide for a future where even before gene editing. “human” has not been static — humanity has changed through agriculture. through tools. and through culture.
To build a competing framework. the piece quotes Shannon Vallor. described as a philosopher of technology at the University of Edinburgh. Vallor tells the reporter that the “naive version of humanism” assumes a blueprint for what a human is and imagines technology takes people away from it. Vallor says that’s not right. because people have been changing through language. tools. architecture. and culture since the moment humans climbed down from the trees.
The article’s alternative is a “21st-century humanism” that does not fix humanity in place. Instead. it argues for plurality: the idea that tech should expand the range of lives people can choose. not contract it. It says the challenge is how to decide who gets to choose without imposing one preferred future on everyone.
The reporting argues that even self-determination can’t be absolute when technology is shared across society. It warns that if enhancement becomes something society quietly pressures people to do. then refusal would become an economic or moral penalty. It cites John Stuart Mill’s view that the right to self-determination is qualified rather than absolute. and says regulation may be necessary — especially when changes affect germlines for future generations.
A major throughline in the piece is also a rejection of optimization as a moral ideal. It says the logic of “perfecting” humanity veers toward eugenics, pointing to the fact that Julian Huxley — described as the one who coined the term “transhumanism” — was president of the British Eugenics Society.
To illustrate the argument. the article recounts a conversation with Richard Sutton. described as one of the most prominent AI successionists. The reporter describes questioning Sutton’s claim that if one group is more intelligent than another. then the less intelligent group should be removed. In the account. Sutton responds by pausing and then suggesting coexistence is preferable: “We coexist with it. ” the account says. and he frames the AI as an entity people coexist with even if it ends up more productive.
The reporter pushes back on the difference between “succession” and coexistence. and Sutton replies that if each side is allowed to pursue its own path. the more powerful entity ends up winning out. Sutton’s remarks in the account include a hypothetical in which “intelligent people” win out and “dumb people” should be okay with it. culminating with the line that he thinks “the dumb people should be okay with that!”.
The piece argues that even if such arguments are framed as inevitable rather than immoral, they still rely on a hierarchy that treats some lives as expendable. It says that approach should be rejected and replaced with an effort to expand space for different kinds of lives to flourish.
From there. the article sketches an ethical direction based on “diverse intelligences. ” saying a future with humans pluralistically coexisting with nonhuman and partly human life-forms would not assume those minds are lower or higher — just different. It argues that if conscious AIs are ever created, they would also deserve ethical consideration.
The reporting acknowledges the complication: politics would become harder with more “creatures with conflicting needs,” and society would need to improve at pluralistic coexistence.
At the center of the humanism the piece advocates is a critique of cosmic justification. It argues there is no objective moral good in the universe that everyone must maximize. It cites philosopher Bernard Williams. described in the piece as rejecting the view that moral actions require standing above human identity to justify survival.
Shannon Vallor is quoted again in this section, arguing morality is rooted in a particular kind of existence — a vulnerable, interdependent social animal — and that assuming a universal pure morality misunderstands how human ethics works.
So the demand is not to “pass the torch” to something else. The conclusion is that technology should empower humans to survive. thrive. and make their own choices. and that any approach that “disempowers” people. replaces them. or tells them they need rescue from a god or an AI is a return to the past.
The account closes by saying the reporter would rather walk bravely into the future while having “the guts to rescue myself.”
AI successionism Worthy Successor Brad Carson Dan Faggella New York Academy of Sciences effective accelerationism e/acc Guillaume Verdon Marc Andreessen Garry Tan Sam Altman network states startup cities humanism