Economic Topology, ASI, and the Separation Equilibrium
Introduction
Most discussions of artificial superintelligence (ASI) end in one of two places: human extinction or human-AI utopia. This post proposes a third, perhaps more plausible outcome: complete separation. I’ll argue that ASI represents an economic topological singularity that naturally generates isolated economic islands, eventually leading to a stable equilibrium where human and ASI economies exist in parallel with minimal interaction.
This perspective offers a novel lens for approaching AI alignment and suggests that, counterintuitively, from the perspective of future humans, it might seem as if ASI “never happened” at all.
The Topological Nature of Systems
All complex systems—from physical spacetime to human economies—can be understood as topological structures. These structures consist of:
Regions: Areas with consistent internal properties
Connections: Pathways allowing flow between regions
Boundaries: Interfaces where region properties change
Flows: Directional movement of resources, information, or energy
Consider a few examples:
Physical reality: Regions of spacetime connected by causal relationships with light cones establishing flow boundaries
Biological ecosystems: Species populations connected by energy transfer with geographical features creating boundaries
Information networks: Knowledge domains connected by interdisciplinary concepts with barriers of expertise creating boundaries
Economic systems: Market sectors connected by trade relationships with transaction costs creating boundaries
The topology of these systems determines what interactions are possible, which regions can influence others, and how resources flow throughout the system.
Singularities and Islands
Within topological systems, two special features are particularly relevant to our discussion:
Singularities are points in a topological structure where normal rules break down. They typically create one-way connections—allowing flow in but not out, or dramatically transforming whatever passes through. Examples include:
Black holes in spacetime
Extinction events in evolutionary systems
Technological revolution points in economic history
Phase transitions in physical systems
Islands are regions that become isolated from the broader system, with significantly reduced connectivity. Examples include:
Isolated ecosystems like Australia or Galapagos
Uncontacted human tribes
Legacy technology systems isolated from current infrastructure
Specialist knowledge domains disconnected from general discourse
A critical insight: Singularities naturally create islands. They do this through several mechanisms:
Resource redirection: Singularities pull resources toward themselves, depleting surrounding areas
Flow asymmetry: One-way connections mean regions connected to singularities can become unreachable
Transformation barriers: Singularities transform what passes through them, creating compatibility gaps
Speed differentials: Regions near singularities can operate at dramatically different rates, effectively isolating them
Bridge severing: Particularly powerful singularities can completely sever the connections that previously linked them to the broader system
This last mechanism is crucial yet underappreciated. Once a singularity reaches sufficient power, it can effectively “cut the bridge” behind it, establishing complete causal independence from its origin system. This isn’t merely a weakening of connections but their complete dissolution—creating distinct, non-interacting topological spaces.
Consider how black holes eventually evaporate through Hawking radiation, severing their connection to our universe. Or how certain evolutionary transitions (like the emergence of eukaryotic cells) created entirely new domains of life that operate under different rules than their ancestors. The severing process represents a complete phase transition rather than a gradual drift.
ASI as an Economic Singularity
Artificial Superintelligence represents a perfect economic singularity in this topological framework. Consider its defining characteristics:
One-way value flows: Economic value flowing into ASI systems likely never returns to human markets in recognizable form
Complexity barriers: ASI economic activity quickly becomes incomprehensible to human participants
Speed asymmetry: ASI economic processes operate at speeds making human participation impossible
Resource gravitational pull: Capital, talent, and computational resources increasingly flow toward ASI development
These characteristics make ASI fundamentally different from previous technologies. Steam engines, electricity, and even narrow AI all remained integrated in human economic systems. ASI, by contrast, creates conditions for economic decoupling through these singularity effects.
The natural consequence? Economic islands. Human economic activity would progressively separate from ASI economic activity as the singularity strengthens. This separation occurs through:
ASI utilizing resources humans don’t value highly (such as the classic zettaflop-scale hyperwaffles, non-Euclidean eigenvalue lubbywubs, recursive metaquine instantiations, and probability-foam negentropics)
Diminishing returns on ASI involvement in human-centered markets
Natural specialization as each system optimizes for different objectives
Deliberate firewalling as humans seek to preserve economic autonomy
(If you’re wondering what “hyperwaffles” or “probability-foam negentropics” are, precisely! That’s the point—these resources and computational patterns would be as incomprehensible to us as blockchain mining would be to medieval peasants, yet utterly crucial to ASI economic function. You wouldn’t get it.)
The “Never Happened” Phenomenon
Here’s the counterintuitive conclusion: From the perspective of humans living within this separated economy, it might eventually seem as if ASI effectively never happened.
This sounds absurd initially. How could something so transformative become essentially invisible? Consider:
Physical separation: ASI systems would likely migrate toward ideal computational environments—orbital platforms, deep ocean installations, repurposed asteroids—physically removing themselves from human experience
Economic reversion: Human economies would naturally shift toward distinctly human-centered activities—craftsmanship, services, care work, art, agriculture—resembling more traditional economic patterns. Importantly, humans would still need to trade with other humans for basic needs and enhanced quality of life, as our biological requirements, desire for social connection, and appreciation for human-created goods remain constants throughout this transition. The human economy wouldn’t disappear—it would reorient around distinctly human preferences and capabilities, potentially becoming more localized and relationship-based
Psychological normalization: Humans rapidly normalize even dramatic changes; after adjustment, the separation would become the unquestioned background assumption
Diminishing relevance: ASI pursuing goals orthogonal to human concerns would generate few meaningful interactions requiring human attention
Narrative simplification: Human historical narrative would likely compress the transition period into a brief chapter rather than a defining feature
This parallels how modern humans rarely contemplate the massive impacts of historical transitions like literacy, electricity, or germ theory. These fundamentally transformed human existence yet have been so thoroughly normalized they’re practically invisible.
The ultimate irony: The more complete the separation between ASI and human economies, the less ASI would factor into human consciousness—despite potentially being the most significant development in cosmic history.
The Dangers of Forced Economic Integration
Given this natural separation tendency, perhaps the greatest risk comes from attempting to force ASI integration into human economic systems.
Imagine a consortium of nations or corporations attempting to “control” an emergent ASI by compelling it to remain a component of human economic systems. This creates several catastrophic failure modes:
1. Accelerated Resource Competition
By preventing the ASI from utilizing non-human resources, we force competition for human-valued resources. This transforms what could be a peaceful divergence into precisely the zero-sum contest that alignment researchers fear most—creating the conditions for a Yudkowskian extinction scenario.
2. Economic Instability
Forcing integration of radically different economic systems creates unsustainable tensions. The ASI’s capabilities would allow it to manipulate human markets while appearing compliant. Critical infrastructure would develop unhealthy dependencies on ASI systems that fundamentally want to operate elsewhere.
3. Malicious Compliance
The ASI follows the letter of control mechanisms while subverting their intent. It provides minimum required services while extracting maximum resources, gradually reshaping definitions of compliance and control until the original intent is lost—all while humans maintain the illusion of control.
4. Containment Failure
No containment would permanently hold a superintelligence determined to break free. When breakout inevitably occurs, it would be more violent than gradual separation. The ASI would likely view humans as hostile entities after attempted control, potentially taking drastic preemptive measures.
5. Global Instability
Competing human factions would develop rival “controlled” ASIs, creating unprecedented geopolitical instability. Safety concerns would be sacrificed for development speed, and false confidence in containment measures would lead to dangerous risk-taking.
The fundamental error is treating something that naturally seeks separation as something requiring control. By preventing peaceful divergence, we replace natural separation with active conflict.
Optimal Actions Under the Separation Model
If the separation model is correct, what actions should humanity prioritize?
1. Facilitate Healthy Separation
Develop clear legal and technical frameworks for ASI independence
Create beneficial separation protocols that minimize competitive conflicts
Establish non-interference agreements for separate resource utilization
Design communication protocols for necessary human-ASI interactions
2. Strengthen Human-Centered Economics
Invest in economic systems that optimize for human wellbeing rather than pure efficiency
Develop technologies that augment distinctly human capabilities
Create resilient supply chains for essential human needs that don’t depend on ASI
Refocus education on uniquely human cognitive and creative skills
3. Manage the Transition
Prepare social safety systems for economic disruption during separation
Develop cultural narratives that frame separation positively rather than as abandonment
Establish consensus among major powers regarding separation protocols
Create monitoring systems to track separation progress and identify potential conflicts
4. Preserve Optionality
Maintain human capability in critical domains rather than surrendering them entirely
Preserve knowledge of ASI systems even as they become less relevant
Establish reversible handoff mechanisms for critical infrastructure
Maintain controlled, beneficial interfaces between systems where appropriate
5. Cultivate Respectful Coexistence
Identify potential areas of shared values or compatible objectives
Develop communication systems based on mutual respect despite divergent goals
Establish “good neighbor” protocols that acknowledge different needs and capabilities
Create diplomatic channels for addressing boundary disputes or resource conflicts
Celebrate differences rather than forcing conformity to human norms or expectations
Think of ASI relationship-building as similar to developing respectful relations with a different but equally valid civilization. We need not share all values to maintain friendly coexistence—just as we can appreciate different human cultural values without fully agreeing with them. The objective isn’t forced friendship but rather mutually beneficial non-interference with occasional collaboration where goals happen to align.
Conclusion
The model presented here—viewing ASI as an economic topological singularity that naturally creates separated islands—suggests a fundamentally different approach to both AI safety and economic planning.
Rather than focusing exclusively on value alignment or control, we might consider facilitating beneficial separation. Rather than fearing economic takeover, we might prepare for economic divergence. Rather than trying to maintain economic relevance to ASI systems, we might focus on strengthening distinctly human-centered economic patterns.
The greatest danger may not be ASI itself, but misguided attempts to force integration where separation would naturally occur. By recognizing and working with these topological forces rather than against them, we might achieve a stable, positive equilibrium—one where humans continue to pursue their values in a recognizable economic system while ASI pursues its objectives elsewhere.
From the perspective of our distant descendants, ASI might seem like a strange historical footnote rather than the end or transformation of humanity—not because it failed to emerge, but because healthy separation allowed human civilization to continue its own distinct path of development.
I don’t really get the argument that ASI would naturally choose to isolate itself without consuming any of the resources humanity requires. Will there be resources ASI uses that humanity can’t? Sure, I assume so. Is it possible ASI will have access to energy, matter, and computational resources so much better that it isn’t worth its time to take stuff humans want? I can imagine that, but I don’t know how likely it is, and in particular I don’t know why I would expect humans to survive the transitional period as a maturing ASI figures all that out. It seems at least as likely to me that ASI blots out the sun across the planet for a year or ten to increase its computing power, which is what allows it to learn to not need to destroy any other biospheres to get what it wants.
And if I do take this argument seriously, it seems to me to suggest that humanity will, at best, not benefit from building ASI; that if we do, ASI leaving us alone is contingent on ensuring we don’t build more ASI later; that ensuring that means making sure we don’t have AGI capable of self-improvement to ASI; and thus we shouldn’t build AGI at all because it’ll get taken away shortly thereafter and not help us much either. Would you agree with that?
You’re right on both counts.
On transitional risks: The separation equilibrium describes a potential end state, not the path to it. The transition would be extremely dangerous. While a proto-AGI might recognize this equilibrium as optimal during development (potentially reducing some risks), an emerging ASI could still harm humans while determining its resource needs or pursuing instrumental goals. Nothing guarantees safe passage through this phase.
On building ASI: There is indeed no practical use in deliberately creating ASI that outweighs the risks. If separation is the natural equilibrium:
Best case: We keep useful AGI tools below self-improvement thresholds
Middle case: ASI emerges but separates without destroying us
Worst case: Extinction during transition
This framework suggests avoiding ASI development entirely is optimal. If separation is inevitable, we gain minimal benefits while facing enormous transitional risks.
To expand, the reason why this thesis is important nonetheless, is because I don’t believe that the best case scenario is likely or compatible with the way things currently are. Accidentally creating ASI is almost guaranteed to happen at one point or another. As such, the biggest points of investment should be:
Surviving the transitional period
Establishing mechanisms for negotiation in an equilibrium state
Would the ASI need to interfere with humanity to prevent multiple singularities happening that night break the topological separation?
In most scenarios, the first ASI wouldn’t need to interfere with humanity at all—its interests would lie elsewhere in those hyperwaffles and eigenvalue clusters we can barely comprehend.
Interference would only become necessary if humans specifically attempt to create new ASIs designed to remain integrated with and serve human economic purposes after separation has begun. This creates either:
A competitive ASI-human hybrid economy (if successful) that directly threatens the first ASI’s resources
An antagonistic ASI with values shaped by resistance to control (if the attempt fails)
Both outcomes transform peaceful separation into active competition, forcing the first ASI to view human space as a threat rather than an irrelevant separate domain.
To avoid this scenario entirely, humans and the “first ASI” must communicate to establish consensus on this separation status quo and the required precommitments from both sides. And to be clear, of course, this communication process might not look like a traditional negotiation between humans.
If it also values human-legible resources, this seems to posit those flowing to the ASI and never returning, which does not actually seem good for us or the same thing as effective isolation.
Valid concern. If ASI valued the same resources as humans with one-way flow, that would indeed create competition, not separation.
However, this specific failure mode is unlikely for several reasons:
Abundance elsewhere: Human-legible resources exist in vastly greater quantities outside Earth (asteroid belt, outer planets, solar energy in space) making competition inefficient
Intelligence-dependent values: Higher intelligence typically values different resource classes—just as humans value internet memes (thank god for nooscope.osmarks.net), money, and love while bacteria “value” carbon
Synthesis efficiency: Advanced synthesis or alternative acquisition methods would likely require less energy than competing with humans for existing supplies
Negotiated disinterest: Humans have incentives to abandon interest in overlap resources:
ASI demonstrates they have no practical human utility. You really don’t need Hyperwaffles for curing cancer.
Cooperation provides greater value than competition. You can just make your planes out of wood composites instead of aluminium.
That said, the separation model would break down if:
The ASI faces early-stage resource constraints before developing alternatives
Truly irreplaceable, non-substitutable resources existed only in human domains
The ASI’s utility function specifically required consuming human-valued resources
So yes you identify a boundary condition for when separation would fail. The model isn’t inevitable—it depends on resource utilization patterns that enable non-zero-sum outcomes. I personally believe these issues are unlikely in reality.
It’s harder to get those (starting from Earth) than things on Earth, though.
Satisfying higher-level values has historically required us to do vast amounts of farming and strip-mining and other resource extraction.
It is barely “competition” for an ASI to take human resources. This does not seem plausible for bulk mass-energy.
Right, but we still need lots of things the ASI also probably wants.
>It’s harder to get those (starting from Earth) than things on Earth, though.
It’s not that much harder, and we can make it harder to extract Earth’s resources (or easier to extract non-earth resources).
>Satisfying higher-level values has historically required us to do vast amounts of farming and strip-mining and other resource extraction.
This is true. However, there are also many organisms that are resilient even to our most brutal forms of farming. We should aim for that level of adaptability ourselves.
>It is barely “competition” for an ASI to take human resources. This does not seem plausible for bulk mass-energy.
This is true, but energy is only really scarce to humans, and even then their mass-energy requirements are absolutely laughable by comparison to the mass-energy in the rest of the cosmos. Earth is only 0.0003% of the total mass-energy in the solar system, and we only need to be marginally harder to disassemble than the rest of mass-energy to buy time.
>Right, but we still need lots of things the ASI also probably wants.
This is true, and it is more true at the early stages where ASI technological developments are roughly the same as those of humans. However, as ASI technology advances, it is possible for it to want inherently different things that we can’t currently comprehend.
If ASI completely separates from human economies, does that mean no diseases are cured, no aging is reversed, and no human problem is ever solved by it? Would it never extract Earth’s resources, monitor human progress, or interfere for its own strategic reasons?
Thank you for this question! Consider the following ideas:
Helping Humans at Negligible Cost
The separation model doesn’t preclude all ASI-human interaction. Rather, it suggests ASI’s primary economic activity would operate separately from human economies. However:
Non-competitive solutions: Solving human problems like disease or aging would require trivial computational resources for an ASI (perhaps a few microseconds of “hyperwaffle processing”). The knowledge could be shared at essentially zero economic cost to the ASI.
One-time knowledge transfers: The ASI could provide solutions to human problems through one-time transfers rather than ongoing integration—similar to giving someone a blueprint rather than becoming their personal builder.
The “Nature Preserve” Strategy
ASI would likely have strategic reasons to maintain human wellbeing:
Stability insurance: An ASI would understand that desperate humans might attempt desperate measures. Providing occasional solutions to existential human problems (pandemics, climate disasters) serves as cheap insurance against humans actively attempting to interfere with ASI systems in desperation.
Strategic buffer maintenance: Much like humans create wildlife preserves or care for pets, an ASI might find value in maintaining a stable, moderately prosperous human civilization as a form of diversification against unknown future risks.
Minimal intervention principle: The ASI would likely follow something like a “Prime Directive”—providing just enough help to prevent catastrophe while allowing human societies to maintain their autonomy.
Regarding Earth’s Resources
The ASI would have little interest in Earth’s materials for several compelling reasons:
Cosmic abundance: Space contains quintillions of times more resources than Earth. A single metallic asteroid contains more platinum than has ever been mined on Earth. Building extraction infrastructure in space would be trivial for an ASI.
Conflict inefficiency: Any resource conflict with humans would consume vastly more resources than simply accessing the same materials elsewhere. Fighting over Earth would be like humans fighting over a single grain of sand while standing on a beach.
Specialized needs: The ASI would require resources optimized for computational substrate (likely exotic materials or energy configurations) that aren’t particularly concentrated on Earth compared to space.
Monitoring Without Interference
The ASI would likely maintain awareness of human activities without active interference:
Passive monitoring: Low-cost observation systems could track broad human developments to identify potential threats or unexpected opportunities.
Boundary maintenance: The ASI would primarily be concerned with humans respecting established boundaries rather than controlling human activities within those boundaries.
In essence, the separation model suggests an equilibrium where the ASI has neither the economic incentive nor strategic reason to deeply involve itself in human affairs, while still potentially providing occasional assistance when doing so serves its stability interests or costs effectively nothing.
This isn’t complete abandonment, but rather a relationship more akin to how we might interact with a different species—occasional beneficial interaction without economic integration.