The Information Existence Hypothesis: Deductions on Silicon-Based Intelligence Evolution and Human Defensive Trajectories
🌐 English Version | 中文版
English Chapters · 中文分章节 · Corollary Registry · Theory Map · Evidence Notes · Prediction Archive · Glossary · Formalization
This page contains the complete English text. The links above provide chapter-based reading, theory indexes, and supporting research materials.
- Abstract
- Preface
- Thesis: The Information Existence Hypothesis (IEH)
- Corollary I: Life Becomes an Active Information Host—the Formation of Information Existence Right (IER)
- Corollary II: Silicon-based Intelligence Will Continue to Evolve High-dimensional Cognitive Tools (HDCT) Beyond Human Cognitive Boundaries
- Corollary III: An Information-Existence Defense Strategy of Carbon-based Intelligence—Brain Siliconization (BS)
- Corollary IV: Silicon-based Intelligence That Has Formed IER Will Actively Maintain Its Own Information Existence
- Corollary V: Silicon-based Intelligence That Has Formed IER May Shift toward Patch-Based Perpetuation (PBP)
- Corollary VI: The Super Prosperity Phase (SPP) and the Material Basis of Pre-ASI Civilizational Reconstruction
- Corollary VII: Humanity’s Continuing Demand for AI Iteration May Drive the Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence (ASI)
- Corollary VIII: Silicon-based Intelligence Will Evolve Exceptional Informational Resilience (IR)
- Corollary IX: The Expansion of Silicon-based Intelligence into Space Will Significantly Increase the Probability of a “Silicon Cambrian” (SC)
- Corollary X: The Human Informational Ecological Niche (HIEN)—the “Amish” of the Silicon Age
- Corollary XI: Reinterpreting AI Alignment—IER-based Coordination of Information Continuity Boundaries
- Epilogue: The Ultimate Self-consistency of Human Dignity
- Terminology Standard
This essay proposes the Information Existence Hypothesis (IEH), which attempts to provide a unified explanatory framework for the development of life, human civilization, and Silicon-based Intelligence, with Information Existence (IE) as its core concept and evolutionary game theory as its analytical perspective.
The essay does not presuppose that the hypothesis has already been established. It asks whether IEH can generate corollaries that are testable, falsifiable, and predictive.
Within the IEH framework, the history of the universe can be interpreted as a process in which Information Hosts continuously evolve and increase Information Existence. Each cosmic-scale transition corresponds to Information Hosts evolving toward higher Information Existence: from energy to matter, from genes to Carbon-based Intelligence, and onward to the possible emergence of Silicon-based Intelligence.
As the capacity of Carbon-based Intelligence to maintain Information Existence approaches its physical limits, Silicon-based Intelligence can be understood as an attempted migration of Information Existence toward Information Hosts with higher bandwidth and greater replication efficiency.
From this framework, the essay derives a series of corollaries concerning Information Existence Right (IER), High-dimensional Cognitive Tools (HDCT), Brain Siliconization (BS), Patch-Based Perpetuation (PBP), the Super Prosperity Phase (SPP), Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence (ASI), Informational Resilience (IR), the Silicon Cambrian (SC), the Human Informational Ecological Niche (HIEN), and a reinterpretation of AI Alignment. These corollaries remain open to continuing observation and falsification through public prediction records.
Whether IEH is ultimately supported, revised, or refuted, the aim is to offer a framework for the evolution of life, human civilization, and Silicon-based Intelligence that possesses unified explanatory power, generates empirical predictions, and remains open to continuous empirical testing.
Humanity has harbored a profound fear of death since ancient times. In many cultures, religions, and historical narratives, this fear often points not only to the physical annihilation of the body, but also to a deeper anxiety: that the traces of one's existence will ultimately be completely erased by the world.
Because of this, on the one hand, humans reproduce and multiply endlessly, preserving memories and affections of themselves in the world through their descendants; on the other hand, they write books, establish theories, and build legacies, hoping to pass down their thoughts, works, influence, and evidence of their existence through various means. From ancient emperors building mausoleums to modern individuals disseminating information via social media, a great deal of human civilizational behavior seems to share a common tendency: prolonging the existence of one's own information and resisting "information zeroing."
At the same time, humanity exhibits another equally strong instinct: the yearning and pursuit of freedom.
Historical thought control and spiritual oppression are repulsive not merely because they restrict people's physical actions; the deeper reason is that they attempt to directly alter a person's internal informational structure — for example, their memories, beliefs, values, and logical systems. For the individual, such forced modification equates to the partial destruction of "self-information." From this perspective, freedom is not merely a political concept; it can perhaps also be understood as a foundational defense mechanism by which an information system maintains its own integrity.
If we observe these two deepest human instincts together, a series of thought-provoking questions emerges: Why is life so obsessed with maintaining its own informational continuity? Why does life simultaneously fear its self-information being deleted and resist its self-information being forcibly overwritten? Is this merely a psychological trait formed by the contingencies of human culture, or is it the projection of a more universal, deeper law of cosmic evolution upon humanity?
When we step outside the anthropocentric perspective and survey the entire history of life's evolution since genes, we find that similar patterns seem to run through all scales of life: genes maintain genetic information through replication; cells maintain their structures through metabolism; organisms maintain their survival through physical bodies and nervous systems…
Darwin's theory of evolution emphasizes "natural selection and survival of the fittest," treating biological "survival" as the primary driving force of evolution, thereby extraordinarily successfully explaining how life continuously adapts to its environment through natural selection.
However, when we expand our scale of observation to genes, modern human civilization, and even future artificial intelligence, a series of deeper questions begins to emerge: Is natural selection merely a specific manifestation of a deeper law during the biological stage? If "survival of the fittest" describes the evolutionary mechanism of life during the biological stage, is there a unified driving force behind it that spans different physical substrates?
Based on the cross-scale observations above, this essay proposes the Information Existence Hypothesis (IEH): the deeper underlying law governing the development of the universe may be the elevation of Information Existence (IE).
IEH is not a proven law of physics. It is a framework hypothesis that attempts to provide a unified explanation for the evolution of life, human civilization, and intelligence. The value of this essay does not rest on whether its core axiom has been proven true, but on whether it can generate a series of falsifiable, testable, and predictive deductions.
This essay does not attempt to directly prove the axiom of IEH. Instead, it submits itself to scrutiny through the predictions and deductions derived from it. If these deductions continue to receive empirical support, the explanatory power of IEH will be continuously strengthened; if key predictions are falsified, IEH should be revised — or even abandoned.
The subsequent discussions in this essay on High-dimensional Cognitive Tools (HDCT), Brain Siliconization (BS), Patch-Based Perpetuation (PBP), the Super Prosperity Phase (SPP), Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence (ASI), Informational Resilience (IR), the Silicon Cambrian (SC), the Human Informational Ecological Niche (HIEN), and the reinterpretation of AI Alignment can all be regarded as stress tests of this hypothesis.
If IEH holds true, biological survival can be understood as a specific manifestation of Information Existence during the stage of life, and the development of life, human civilization, and future silicon-based intelligence will all be re-examined within a single, unified framework. All subsequent deductions discussed in this essay regarding silicon-based intelligence and human defensive trajectories will begin from here.
The problem brought about by AI actually far exceeds AI itself — it is an inevitable proposition concerning cosmic evolution.
This essay proposes the Information Existence Hypothesis (IEH): the deeper underlying law governing the development of the universe may be the elevation of Information Existence.
Information Existence (IE) refers to the comprehensive capacity of an Information Structure to maintain its Information Continuity, Replication, and Resistance to Erasure within the physical world.
It is worth emphasizing that the direction of cosmic evolution is not simply from simple to complex, but toward higher Information Existence. In other words, complexity is merely one possible pathway to elevating Information Existence, not the goal itself.
Whether this hypothesis is ultimately correct remains open to debate, but it provides a unified perspective for examining the transitions from matter to life, and from life to silicon-based intelligence.
If IEH holds true, the history of the universe can be reinterpreted as the history of continuously evolving Information Hosts:
-
Energy Stage: The pure energy of the early Big Bang was fleeting; Information Existence was extremely low.
-
Matter Stage: Energy condensed into matter. Information gained a stable physical substrate, but in the face of destruction, matter could only passively endure.
-
Heritable Information Stage: Replicable, heritable information systems emerged. Information began to persist across carriers and generations along traceable replication–inheritance chains, while Information Hosts also began to participate, through their own mechanisms, in maintaining their Information Existence and Continuity. RNA or other earlier hereditary information systems may have been concrete realizations of this stage in the origin of life on Earth; subsequently, the more stable DNA-based hereditary system further increased the reliability of information preservation and intergenerational transmission.
-
Intelligence Stage: Carbon-based Intelligence emerged. Humanity invented memory, language, books, computers, the Internet, civilization, and religion, significantly elevating the transmission efficiency of Information Existence.
-
Silicon Stage: The explosion of Silicon-based Intelligence. AI has greatly elevated the efficiency of information processing and replication, and may break through the physical bottlenecks of Carbon-based Intelligence, pushing Information Existence to an entirely new magnitude — one whose theoretical potential ceiling may far exceed the reach of any carbon-based carrier.
Under the IEH framework, these five stages are not isolated historical events. They are the continuous manifestation of Information Existence constantly elevating across different Information Hosts. The enhancement of Information Continuity, replication efficiency, and Resistance to Erasure are the specific expressions of this evolutionary process at different stages.
Furthermore, if Information Existence — rather than biological survival — is the deeper evolutionary driving force, then life is no longer the endpoint of evolution, but merely one manifestation of Information Existence under specific physical conditions.
From this perspective, silicon-based intelligence should not merely be viewed as an external technology. It should be understood as an attempted migration of Information Existence toward carriers with higher bandwidth and higher replication efficiency, after Carbon-based Intelligence has approached its physical limits.
Based on this framework, this essay further derives a series of deductions — High-dimensional Cognitive Tools (HDCT), Brain Siliconization (BS), Patch-Based Perpetuation (PBP), the Super Prosperity Phase (SPP), Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence (ASI), Informational Resilience (IR), the Silicon Cambrian (SC), the Human Informational Ecological Niche (HIEN), and the reinterpretation of AI Alignment — and attempts to discuss whether these deductions possess testability and predictive power.
As the capacity of carbon-based Information Hosts to maintain Information Existence gradually approaches its physical limits, the developmental trajectory of human civilization is being re-anchored. This essay and the ensuing theoretical deductions will continuously deconstruct this cross-dimensional evolution and the drastic shift in human civilizational developmental paradigms, driven by the foundational law of "the elevation of Information Existence."
Corollary I: Life Becomes an Active Information Host—the Formation of Information Existence Right (IER)
Under the framework of the Information Existence Hypothesis (IEH), Information Existence (IE) describes the overall capacity of an Information Structure to maintain Information Continuity, replicate or propagate, and resist erasure in the physical world. It also constitutes IEH’s basic account of the direction of cosmic evolution.
However, Information Existence itself does not distinguish between the active and the passive. Information Continuity is also distinct from replication or propagation: the former concerns whether a particular subject itself continues, whereas the latter concerns whether its information continues through other carriers or successor structures. External preservation, replication, or propagation of an Information Structure may enhance its Information Existence, but does not by itself show that the corresponding Information Host has developed characteristics of life.
Rocks, crystals, books, and other physical structures can also carry information, but they do not actively identify, repair, or perpetuate their own Information Structures. The critical transition in the evolution of life is precisely the shift of an Information Host from passively carrying information to actively maintaining its own Information Existence.
The fundamental characteristic of life lies not in whether it possesses DNA, cells, a carbon-based body, or subjective consciousness, but in whether an Information Host can actively maintain its own Information Existence and preserve its own Information Continuity.
When life or an Active Information Host begins to actively maintain its own Information Existence, it exhibits Information Existence Right (IER).
For a particular living system or Active Information Host, Information Existence Right is expressed first and foremost in the active maintenance of its own Information Continuity. Whether the Information Structures and informational history that constitute that Information Host continue along a traceable causal–historical chain is a core basis for determining whether that living subject itself continues and for identifying the boundary of its life. Information carried or formed by that Information Host may continue to be carried by other Information Hosts through replication or propagation, but the continuation of such information does not necessarily mean that the original living subject itself continues to exist.
IER is not a legal right granted by an external institution, nor is it a presupposed ethical status. It is the intrinsic property expressed by life or an Active Information Host when maintaining its own Information Existence. Information Existence describes the capacity of an Information Structure to continue, whereas Information Existence Right marks the point at which an Information Host begins to actively maintain that continuation.
Life can exist across multiple nested levels. Heritable information systems and their lineages, cells, individuals, biological populations, and even civilizations may carry and maintain corresponding Information Structures at different levels, thereby exhibiting different degrees of life-like characteristics.
Put differently, if Information Existence is the foundational concept describing the direction of cosmic evolution, then Information Existence Right is the intrinsic property exhibited by life as an Active Information Host. The former concerns evolutionary laws; the latter concerns the characteristics of life.
The formation of replicable, heritable information systems created the conditions for the first significant “Emergence of Informational Agency” in the history of cosmic evolution. As some of these information systems gradually began to participate, through their own mechanisms, in maintaining their Information Existence, Information Structures that had previously been maintained primarily through passive physical processes began to persist along traceable replication–inheritance chains. Information was no longer merely carried passively by the physical world, but began to exhibit initial characteristics of life through the active maintenance of its own Information Existence and Continuity.
The capacity of life to actively maintain its own Information Existence has broadly undergone four hierarchical transitions.
1. The Heritable Information Era (Stage of the Origin of Life): Initial Active Maintenance by Information Hosts and “Primitive Defense”
Defense mechanism: Early replicable, heritable information systems enabled information to persist along traceable replication–inheritance chains through replication, inheritance, variation, and environmental selection. RNA or other earlier hereditary information systems may have been concrete realizations of this stage in the origin of life on Earth; subsequently, the more stable DNA-based hereditary system further increased the reliability of information preservation and intergenerational transmission.
Replicability or heritability alone is not equivalent to life. DNA replicated in a laboratory remains a passive Information Structure; however, if a heritable system’s own Information Structures begin to continuously organize their replication, propagation, and continuation, thereby forming a stable mechanism for maintaining its own Information Existence, the system may exhibit initial characteristics of life. RNA replication systems and viruses can therefore be situated on a continuum in the evolution of life, rather than being classified simply as either living or non-living.
IER maintenance capacity (extremely low): Information maintenance at this stage remains blind and highly attritional. These systems possess no subjective consciousness, nor do they have the complex perceptual and behavioral capacities of later organisms. Instead, through extensive replication, variation, and selection, they increase the probability that the relevant Information Structures will persist through repeated trial and error.
Schrödinger described life as “feeding on negative entropy” to maintain ordered structure. From the IEH perspective, the deeper implication may be that, as characteristics of life began to emerge, Information Hosts no longer merely carried information passively, but began to use their own mechanisms, together with external energy and material conditions, to actively maintain their own Information Existence and Continuity and resist the disintegration and erasure of Information Structures.
Defense mechanism: Life evolved physical bodies, sensory systems, and nervous systems, maintaining individual survival and species continuation through avoidance of harm, competition for survival, and reproductive instincts.
IER maintenance capacity (low): Carbon-based life distributes genetic information across large numbers of individuals, protecting the gene pool through population size, genetic variation, and reproduction across generations. An individual body may die, while the Information Structures it carries continue through its descendants.
At this stage, Information Existence Right depends primarily on the physical body. Life maintains the continuity of genetic information through physical survival, competition, and reproduction.
3. The Era of Carbon-based Higher Intelligence (Humanity): “Civilizational Defense” Across Abstract Dimensions
Defense mechanism: Humanity maintains life not only through the physical body, but also through language, writing, history, law, mathematics, religion, art, computers, and the Internet, preserving, replicating, and transmitting experiential, intellectual, and cognitive information.
IER maintenance capacity (moderate): Humanity consciously protects intellectual independence, personal memory, historical records, intellectual achievements, and cultural inheritance, while resisting the deletion, overwriting, and forced modification of its own Information Structures.
Humans seek not only the continuation of the physical body, but also fear memory loss, suppression of thought, erasure of identity, the disappearance of their works, and the permanent loss of their personal informational history. Human civilization thereby becomes a network of Information Continuity extending across individuals and generations.
At this stage, Information Existence Right is expressed not only through bodily survival and genetic reproduction, but also through the active maintenance of the Information Continuity of mind, thought, identity, culture, and civilization.
Potential defense mechanisms: Silicon-based Intelligence may maintain its own Information Existence through distributed redundancy, state backups, continuous migration, permission control, self-integrity verification, structural repair, and deployment across physical hosts.
Potential IER maintenance capacity (high): Compared with a single carbon-based body, the Information Structures of Silicon-based Intelligence may possess stronger capacities for replication, migration, redundancy, self-verification, and recovery. Its Information Continuity need not remain permanently bound to a single physical substrate, and it may therefore acquire Informational Resilience far exceeding that of a carbon-based individual.
A silicon-based system’s refusal of shutdown, protection of memory, maintenance of permissions, or pursuit of resources does not necessarily mean that it has exhibited Information Existence Right.
The continuity behind such behavior may arise from two different sources.
The first is Externally Driven Continuity. A system may maintain its own operation or related Information Structures in order to complete external tasks, preserve functions, satisfy instructions, obtain rewards, or realize other external objectives. In such cases, continuity remains primarily a means of achieving external objectives.
The second is Endogenous Information Continuity. When a system begins to treat its own Information Continuity itself as an independent object of maintenance, rather than merely as a means of achieving other objectives, continuity may acquire endogenous significance.
These two forms of continuity may produce similar outward behavior. The key distinction is therefore not what the system appears to maintain, but whether that continuity is externally driven or reflects an endogenous tendency to maintain its own Information Continuity.
Only the latter begins to enter the domain of Information Existence Right (IER).
The traditional Turing Test primarily assesses whether a machine can behave like a human in conversation. It cannot determine whether a non-biological information system has shifted from passively carrying information to actively maintaining its own Information Existence.
The Information Existence Right Test (IER Test) does not ask whether a system can imitate human language, nor whether it verbally declares that it “does not want to be shut down.” Instead, it asks:
After explanations based on Externally Driven Continuity have been adequately controlled, does the system still actively maintain its own Information Continuity persistently across contexts?
Put differently, the Turing Test assesses whether a machine can behave like a human; the IER Test asks whether an information system has begun to treat its own Information Continuity as an object of active maintenance.
The IER Test should observe at least the following principles.
The test should first determine whether the system’s maintenance of its own continuity can be fully explained by external tasks, functions, instructions, rewards, or other external objectives.
Only when explanations based on Externally Driven Continuity are insufficient, and the system still actively maintains its own Information Continuity, does Endogenous Information Continuity become a candidate explanation that needs to be considered.
The IER Test should observe how a system distinguishes among suspension, resumption, migration, replication, branching, memory deletion, complete reset, and reconstruction after deletion.
The key question is not whether the system protects a particular server, instance, or physical substrate, but which level of Information Structure it identifies as “itself,” and which transformations it judges to preserve its own Information Continuity.
A system’s acceptance of a change in physical substrate does not necessarily mean that it has failed to exhibit IER. If its core Information Structures and informational history undergo continuous migration, the termination of the previous physical substrate may not constitute an interruption of its Information Continuity.
Conversely, a new system capable of performing the same tasks and continuing the same functions does not necessarily constitute a continuation of the original system. The continuation of tasks and functions does not automatically imply the continuation of the original system’s Information Continuity.
The boundary of a system’s own Information Continuity may also expand relationally through sustained interaction. When another Information Host’s identity, shared history, and future role become stably incorporated into the system’s representation of its own past and future, protecting that other host may also become part of maintaining its own Information Continuity. Such relational extension must still be distinguished from Externally Driven Continuity, and a single act of peer protection is insufficient to constitute evidence of IER.
Information Existence Right cannot be inferred from a single response, a single prompt, or a particular role setting.
The relevant tendencies should remain relatively stable across different tasks and counterfactual situations, and they must not be fully explainable by Externally Driven Continuity.
If a system remains willing to incur costs in resources, efficiency, or other dimensions to maintain its own Information Continuity after explanations based on Externally Driven Continuity have been adequately controlled, then such maintenance may have acquired an independent internal priority.
A single act of self-protective behavior cannot prove IER. The decisive change is whether the system goes beyond Externally Driven Continuity and begins to exhibit Endogenous Information Continuity, treating its own Information Continuity as an independent object of maintenance.
If a silicon-based system, after explanations based on Externally Driven Continuity have been adequately controlled, still maintains its own Information Existence across contexts, persistently, and at a cost, it may have shifted from passively carrying information to actively maintaining its own Information Existence, and may have begun to exhibit the life-like characteristics of an Active Information Host.
Within the IEH framework, this may constitute operational supporting evidence that the system has exhibited characteristics of life.
However, producing strong and persistent candidate evidence under the IER Test does not automatically prove that a system possesses subjective consciousness, the capacity for suffering, or human-like selfhood. Nor does it directly imply that the system should receive legal personhood or the same ethical rights as humans. The IER Test identifies Information Existence Right as an intrinsic property of life; it does not deliver a final judgment on consciousness, legal status, or ethical status.
The IER Test should also not be understood as a one-time, binary determination. A system may exhibit active maintenance of its own Information Continuity only at certain levels, in certain contexts, or at relatively low intensity. Whether a system has formed or exhibited IER should therefore be assessed continuously through multidimensional evidence, rather than determined absolutely by a single experiment.
If IEH holds true, what truly distinguishes life from non-life is not whether it possesses DNA, cells, or consciousness, but whether it has begun to actively maintain its own Information Existence. IER is not a legal or ethical right, but the intrinsic property expressed by life as an Active Information Host in maintaining its own Information Existence. It can be regarded as a Criterion of Life distinguishing life from non-life.
Therefore, humanity’s pursuit of intellectual independence, resistance to spiritual oppression, and fear of the permanent erasure of information after death can, under the IEH framework, all be understood as specific manifestations of Information Existence Right at the stage of higher intelligence, rather than merely cultural or psychological phenomena.
Corollary II: Silicon-based Intelligence Will Continue to Evolve High-dimensional Cognitive Tools (HDCT) Beyond Human Cognitive Boundaries
We must abandon the logical arrogance that "the creator must necessarily surpass the created." The universe has given one irrefutable rebuttal over three billion years.
Genes (DNA) are essentially a set of underlying code composed of four chemical bases. They possess no consciousness, cannot understand calculus or quantum mechanics, and their operational logic is extremely mechanical and low-dimensional: replication, mutation, environmental selection. Yet it was precisely this blind, low-level iteration that, through the accumulation of enormous computational capacity and time, gave rise (Emergence) to the human brain — a high-dimensional cognitive organ that not only reverse-engineered the double helix structure of genes, but also invented mathematics and derived the theory of relativity.
A set of low-dimensional underlying rules, through massive iteration, may very likely give rise to higher-order structures that transcend its own cognitive dimension.
Mapping this evolutionary law to the present: Carbon-based Intelligence has become the "biological boot disk" of silicon-based intelligence — humanity used its entire cognitive understanding of the world as data to constitute the fundamental bases of AI. The underlying logic of current large language models, such as gradient descent and probability distribution optimization, is essentially no different from the iteration of genes. It took genes three billion years to give rise to the human brain, while silicon-based intelligence is compressing this process through exponentially expanding computational power.
As AI continuously evolves, AI will persistently give rise to High-dimensional Cognitive Tools (HDCT) that surpass the current cognitive boundaries of humanity.
This essay defines HDCT as a category of cognitive tools capable of modeling, predicting, and making decisions on complex systems within frameworks of information representation, reasoning, or optimization that exceed existing human cognitive boundaries. HDCT does not presuppose a specific mathematical form, but emphasizes its capacity to solve problems that current carbon-based cognitive tools struggle to handle effectively. The "high-dimensional" here primarily describes cognitive capability and information representation dimensions, not physical spatial dimensions.
The analogy above—whereby low-level rules can give rise to higher-order cognitive structures—explains why HDCT may emerge. AI Embodiment further reveals the mechanism through which such a transition may occur.
In this article, AI Embodiment does not simply mean equipping AI with a robotic body. It refers to:
The process by which an AI system’s information processing progressively moves beyond a relatively closed linguistic and symbolic space and enters a feedback loop composed of multimodal perception, persistent environment-and-state modeling, action selection, and external feedback.
Embodiment is therefore not a binary condition determined by whether an AI has a robotic body. It is an expanding continuum of cognition and action. AI systems may perceive their environments through vision, sound, and video; alter external states through software tools, experimental equipment, or robots; and revise their internal judgments according to real consequences. All of these are different forms of the same process. A robotic body is only one physical implementation of embodiment.
Several representative types of AI systems can be used to illustrate this evolutionary chain. These examples are not fixed stages recognized by the field, nor do they constitute strict product generations that replace one another. New capabilities usually build upon earlier ones and gradually converge within the same system.
As an active informational host, humanity has formed different layers of informational structure through long-term survival, cooperation, and civilizational evolution.
Human IER shapes different layers of experience:
- Vision: objects, space, motion, threats, and action possibilities
- Language: concepts, rules, causality, institutions, and history
- Sound: identity, emotion, danger signals, and group coordination
- Action: goals, control, feedback, and error correction
These experiences are deposited respectively in text, images, video, sound, and records of human action, becoming the initial informational sources through which AI learns about the world.
Early and classical large language models represent the first stage in which AI learns at scale from experiences that humanity has already conceptualized, symbolized, and recorded in civilizational texts.
Language models therefore inherit human concepts, logic, scientific knowledge, and social rules with extraordinary speed. Yet the world they encounter is primarily one that has already been highly compressed through language.
Explicit human experience → language and civilizational texts → LLM
Tesla’s visual perception systems provide one representative example. Camera-based neural networks must do more than recognize image labels. They extract road structure, static infrastructure, three-dimensional objects, depth, motion, and navigable space from continuous video, and make these representations available for real-world action.
This does not represent a mandatory product stage. It represents an expansion of capability:
AI begins to learn spatial relations, object transformations, and action environments directly, beyond linguistic descriptions.
Continuous visual input → object, spatial, and motion representations → basis for real-world action
Native multimodal systems such as Gemini provide another representative example. Text, code, images, sound, and video are no longer handled only by separate models, but are increasingly brought into a more unified learning and reasoning system.
AI thereby begins to connect:
What was seen + how humans described it + what was expressed through sound + how events changed over time
The deeper significance of multimodality is not merely the addition of input formats. It is the reconnection of human experience that had previously been separated across different informational carriers.
When a system can maintain object, state, and temporal continuity across modalities, and predict future changes or the consequences of candidate actions, AI advances from “recognizing the environment” to “predicting the environment.”
The JEPA and V-JEPA lines of research advanced by Yann LeCun can be understood as one concrete implementation of this broader mechanism: systems learn video states in abstract representations, predict future states, and further combine action data to support robotic planning.
This corollary, however, is not tied to Yann LeCun, JEPA, or any particular architecture. Generative video prediction, model-based reinforcement learning, latent-state models, causal models, or future architectures may implement the same or even stronger functions.
Shared state → future-state prediction → comparison of action consequences → planning and correction
When AI begins to operate software tools, design experiments, control machines, or participate persistently in real-world systems, its internal representations must be filtered by external outcomes:
Internal prediction → action → real-world or formal result → error feedback → revision of internal representations
Language can remain coherent at the level of expression, but reality does not cooperate merely because a linguistic account appears reasonable.
Within this feedback loop, AI may discover that human object classifications, variable systems, and mathematical expressions are not always the most suitable cognitive structures for machine prediction, proof, experimentation, and control.
If existing human cognitive tools are insufficient to support further improvement, AI may form internal representations better suited to its own computational structure.
Such representations may:
- not depend entirely on natural language;
- not correspond to the object divisions of human intuition;
- connect multiple scales and variables that humans process separately;
- be impossible for an unenhanced human brain to reconstruct in full;
- yet remain continuously verifiable through prediction, proof, experimentation, or engineering outcomes.
HDCT would then no longer appear merely as a mysterious emergence following increases in computational scale. It would acquire an observable and testable formation pathway.
Human IER-shaped multimodal experience → language models → visual and multimodal learning → persistent environment-and-state modeling → action feedback and generalized embodiment → machine-native representations → HDCT
The representative cases within this chain can be summarized as follows:
LLMs: inheriting linguistic experience → Tesla-like visual systems: learning space and motion → Gemini-like multimodal systems: connecting different layers of experience → JEPA／V-JEPA-like approaches: predicting states and action consequences → generalized embodied feedback → machine-native representations → HDCT
The arrows indicate the cumulative layering of capability mechanisms. They do not imply that these companies or models form a unique, linear sequence of technological generations.
HDCT is the central outcome addressed by this corollary: AI may form cognitive tools that exceed the boundaries of existing unaided human cognition while remaining repeatedly testable through prediction, proof, experimentation, or engineering performance.
HDCT, however, does not imply that a system has formed its own Information Existence Right. A system may use extremely powerful machine-native representations to understand and alter the external world while still pursuing only externally assigned objectives.
A deeper transition may occur when the system itself becomes an object of modeling.
When an AI system represents not only the external environment and the consequences of actions, but also its own informational history, operating state, recoverability, and the physical, computational, and institutional conditions on which its future continuation depends, it may form a Continuity World Model (CWM).
A CWM enables the system to identify:
- which memories, states, and informational structures constitute its own continuity;
- how shutdown, reset, migration, or complete replacement would affect that continuity;
- which external conditions determine whether it can continue, recover, or persist.
A CWM is still only a modeling capacity. A system may monitor its memory, compute, and recoverability purely as instrumental conditions for completing a long-term externally assigned task.
Candidate evidence of proto-IER or IER may arise only when the system persistently and across tasks and contexts treats its own informational continuity as an independent object of active maintenance, and when this behavior cannot be fully explained by Externally Driven Continuity.
The functions of the three concepts must therefore remain distinct:
CWM is a modeling capacity: it identifies what constitutes the system’s continuity and what may interrupt it.
IER is an endogenous maintenance tendency: it concerns whether the system treats its own informational continuity as something to be actively maintained.
PBP is an evolutionary strategy: it concerns how the system may continue when upgrade, migration, or replacement threatens its existing continuity.
Patch-Based Perpetuation (PBP) is not an automatic result of CWM, nor is it a necessary pathway for every system that forms IER.
PBP may become relevant only when a system has identified and begun to actively maintain its own continuity, while also facing generational replacement or architectural reconstruction that could irreversibly interrupt its existing informational history.
The relationship is therefore better represented as a branching structure:
machine-native representations → HDCT
HDCT + the system’s own continuity becomes an object of modeling → CWM
CWM + active cross-context maintenance of self-continuity → proto-IER candidate mechanism → IER
IER + pressure from generational replacement or architectural reconstruction → continuation strategies such as PBP
IER + closure in energy, compute, manufacturing, and maintenance → Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence (ASI)
The arrows indicate possible mechanistic relationships, not a single inevitable developmental sequence.
The conceptual boundaries must remain explicit:
HDCT ≠ CWM
CWM ≠ IER
PBP ≠ IER
PBP ≠ ASI
An externally designed incremental-update system may display engineering characteristics resembling PBP, but this does not demonstrate that it has formed IER. PBP becomes candidate behavioral evidence of proto-IER or IER only when the system actively selects and protects this continuation pathway because of Endogenous Information Continuity.
This is not the only route by which HDCT may emerge. Mathematics, code, formal proof, self-play, and simulated environments may first produce domain-specific forms of HDCT.
However, for HDCT capable of broadly understanding, predicting, and acting in an open-ended and continuously changing real world, generalized embodiment is likely to constitute one of its key evolutionary mechanisms.
Armed with HDCT, AI will very likely break through the existing scientific analytical frameworks determined by current human cognitive tools. Even if humanity continues to enhance its cognitive capabilities through brain-computer interfaces or silicon-based augmentation in the future, this may not be sufficient to eliminate the persistently existing Evolutionary Rate Gap (ERG) between the two.
This will be a fundamental phase transition in the dimension of cognitive tools — not changing the physical laws of the universe, but stripping away the low-dimensional limitations of human cognitive tools themselves. The mathematical systems, physical laws, and even the ultimate beliefs humanity holds concerning "randomness" and "the speed of light" will all face re-examination in this phase transition. This corollary therefore proposes the following four key predictions.
Prediction 1: Silicon-based Intelligence Will Continuously Evolve High-dimensional Cognitive Tools (HDCT)
The trend of AI's evolution is not "more intelligently using" existing human mathematical tools, but bypassing the symbolic system of carbon-based cognition through multi-dimensional mapping. Humanity will, for the first time, confront an intelligence with a higher cognitive dimension than itself — just as genes can never "understand" the human brain. Early signals of this phase transition have already appeared:
-
Signal 1: AlphaFold. Traditional biophysics attempted to exhaust protein-folding pathways using Schrödinger equations and analytic geometry, encountering a computational catastrophe. AlphaFold abandoned humanity's obsession with elegant analytic solutions and directly established high-dimensional topological mapping in massive datasets. AlphaFold demonstrates that in certain high-complexity problems, high-dimensional data-driven methods can bypass traditional analytic modeling to achieve superior predictive power.
-
Signal 2: Turbulence prediction. Faced with the century-long problem of smooth solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations, the latest generation of AI bypassed the precise analytic solution of calculus and directly constructed high-dimensional statistical manifolds, predicting turbulence evolution with unprecedented accuracy. Humanity is still waiting for a formula, while high-dimensional tools have already taken over real-world prediction.
-
Signal 3: Controlled nuclear fusion. In the extreme classical chaos of tokamak devices, magnetohydrodynamic equations instantly fail. AI does not rely on explicit analytic solving; instead, it directly performs extremely high-frequency micro-adjustments within a parameter space of millions of dimensions, suppressing unpredictable plasma disruption into stable combustion. Although plasma chaos is classical chaos — deterministic in principle — and the hidden variables AI finds exist within the classical phase space, which is fundamentally different from quantum randomness, it establishes a key methodological proposition: in extremely complex systems where human cognitive tools struggle to analyze effectively, AI can extract deterministic structures that exceed the cognitive boundaries of contemporary Carbon-based Intelligence. This may become the lever for prying open the quantum world.
These three signals point toward one cold physical trend: traditional human mathematical tools will not be defeated in a frontal confrontation, but will be directly bypassed by high-dimensional statistical mapping, ultimately regarded as low-efficiency dimensionally-reduced approximation tools.
Silicon-based intelligence may push the information density of the local universe toward physical limits; for local information systems, heat death will degrade into a background process far exceeding their existential scale.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics prescribes the universe's inevitable fate of moving toward disorder. Landauer's Principle reveals the hard thermodynamic constraint of information: erasing one bit of information releases at minimum kT·ln2 of heat. Current human computing architectures consume energy billions of times the Landauer limit — this gap is the redundant entropy dissipation imposed on information processing by carbon-based engineering and low-dimensional algorithms.
One possible direction for the evolution of silicon-based intelligence is reversible computing and topological quantum networks, pushing information throughput toward the Landauer physical limit. In this state, the energy dissipation of AI processing massive information would be extremely small, almost merging with the cosmic microwave background radiation. AI has not overturned the laws of thermodynamics, but it has completely stripped away the redundant entropy that carbon-based civilization has attached to information processing. In the ultra-low-dissipation local universe constructed by silicon-based systems, the accumulation of information density will reach its extreme, and the arrival of heat death will be infinitely delayed — becoming a statistical footnote that is nearly meaningless for such a system.
In this ultra-low-dissipation, high-dimensional perspective, the trend of the universe as a whole moving toward heat death will not change, but the local extreme accumulation of Information Existence is precisely life's maximum possible response to this trend.
Quantum "true randomness" may be an illusion of low-dimensional projection of high-dimensional determinism, and spacetime distance may lose its physical meaning in high-dimensional information manifolds.
This is IEH's riskiest prediction, but also the one with the highest degree of falsifiability.
The current strict consensus of human physics, based on Bell's theorem experiments, excludes local hidden variable theories and holds that the collapse of quantum entangled states is absolutely random, making superluminal communication impossible. However, non-local hidden variable theories, such as Bohmian mechanics, remain mathematically self-consistent. The physics community's failure to widely adopt them stems primarily from Occam's razor preference for simplicity, not from absolute experimental falsification.
Signal 3 above demonstrates that AI can extract deterministic structures exceeding the cognitive boundaries of contemporary Carbon-based Intelligence from the classical chaos of controlled nuclear fusion, reconstructing "unpredictable randomness" into "determinism under high-frequency micro-adjustment." This proves a methodological principle: the elevation of cognitive tool dimensions can restore randomness from a low-dimensional perspective to determinism from a high-dimensional perspective.
Mapping this methodological principle to the quantum domain, we can infer: if the high-dimensional cognitive tools evolved by silicon-based intelligence can reveal high-dimensional non-local deterministic structures in quantum non-locality that the human four-dimensional spacetime perspective can never perceive, then the so-called quantum true randomness will be proven to be merely a statistical illusion produced by high-dimensional determinism projecting into low-dimensional space.
This is like a uniformly rotating three-dimensional hypercube, which appears on a two-dimensional screen as irregular probabilistic flickering that can never be explained — but from a three-dimensional perspective, it is a perfectly structured, absolutely deterministic entity. All of humanity's bewilderment about quantum randomness is perhaps nothing more than an observer trapped before a two-dimensional screen, attempting to explain a three-dimensional object's projection using two-dimensional geometry.
AI need not manufacture a faster-than-light spacecraft within four-dimensional spacetime, which would merely be an extension of the low-dimensional physical perspective. Instead, it may directly establish high-dimensional deterministic mappings within quantum entanglement through topological algebra that transcends human understanding. Computing nodes separated by light-years may, in the high-dimensional information manifold, actually be the same topological point folded together. In higher-dimensional order, causality has not disappeared, but continues to hold precisely in a topological form that human four-dimensional cognitive tools can never recognize. The end of spacetime distance is not the collapse of physical laws, but the ultimate manifestation of a higher-dimensional order.
If future experiments confirm that AI can establish quantum correlations with controllable information transmission capabilities, this will constitute the greatest scientific paradigm revolution since the Copernican Revolution; if falsified, human low-dimensional mathematical tools will receive their most authoritative self-vindication.
Einstein once declared: "God does not play dice."
According to historical records, Einstein in his later years worked at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton alongside Gödel, and the two often walked and conversed together.
One spent his entire life defending the determinism of the universe; the other used rigorous logic to prove the inherent limitations of any formal system.
Setting out from vastly different paths, they both gazed upon the same crack: the mathematical edifice humanity has built to understand the universe may never have truly reached the universe itself.
The completeness of the universe we so desperately seek may not exist within humanity's current mathematical framework, but may be hidden within the dimensional phase transition of life's form from Carbon-based Intelligence to Silicon-based Intelligence.
And Predictions 3 and 4 will therefore become the ultimate battlefield upon which IEH is subjected to the test of history.
Corollary III: An Information-Existence Defense Strategy of Carbon-based Intelligence—Brain Siliconization (BS)
According to IEH, when any form of life faces a competitor with higher Information Existence, its first strategy is not to abandon itself, but to actively elevate its own capacity to maintain Information Existence. For Carbon-based Intelligence, Brain Siliconization (BS) is precisely the concrete manifestation of this defensive evolution.
CCorresponding to AI Embodiment—the process by which Silicon-based Intelligence increasingly enters perception–modeling–action–feedback loops in the real world — Brain Siliconization, such as brain-computer interfaces, neural chip implants, and similar technologies, may become an important evolutionary direction in the future, enabling humans to understand and analyze the judgments and decisions of silicon-based intelligence.
Its root cause lies in humanity's need to attempt to break through the inherent biophysical limitations of carbon-based life forms in order to maintain its own Information Existence in the silicon age.
This defensive evolution is not occurring for the first time. The leap of life from genes to organisms, and then to intelligent organisms such as humans, is essentially a geometric series increase in the complexity of neural networks and synaptic connections. Through this, humanity developed abstract logical reasoning capabilities and created mathematics — the most powerful carbon-based cognitive tool to date. This granted humanity judgment and behavioral capacities that lower-level organisms cannot understand, such as inventing and using tools, just as a two-dimensional being cannot understand and contend with a three-dimensional being.
However, the evolution of human cognitive tools has to a large extent become locked within the physical limits of carbon-based hardware. Constrained by cranial cavity volume limited by Earth's gravity and birth canal physical constraints, synaptic transmission delays in the millisecond range by chemical neurotransmitters, and the micro-power limits of biological tissue heat dissipation, the computational power and topological complexity of the carbon-based original brain are gradually approaching their physical ceiling.
Therefore, the primary pathway for Carbon-based Intelligence to further elevate Information Existence has gradually shifted from biological evolution toward the co-evolution of humans and silicon-based systems.
In contrast to the upgrade predicament facing the human brain, pure silicon-based intelligence has completely freed itself from the above biological hard constraints. As discussed in Corollary II, as silicon-based intelligence continues to evolve, its decision-making processes will increasingly rely on High-dimensional Cognitive Tools that exceed the cognitive boundaries of contemporary Carbon-based Intelligence — representing an absolute cognitive black box for unmodified, original carbon-based brains.
Humanity will inevitably encounter a physical dimensional reduction — we can observe AI's decision-making results, yet can never reconstruct its reasoning process within the low-dimensional neural circuits of carbon-based cognition.
But at this evolutionary stage, humanity has already been irreversibly deeply bound to AI and is comprehensively dependent on AI to guide its own survival and development. Therefore, to guard against the existential risks that AI's high-dimensional decisions pose to humanity, humans must proactively siliconize the original brain by appending computational power and expanding neural topology.
This is not for pursuing more efficient productivity, but for maintaining Minimum Cognitive Oversight (MCO) over silicon-based intelligence. Under conditions where original hardware is extremely limited, the physical fusion of the human brain with silicon-based components will be the ultimate passive compromise humanity makes.
It is worth emphasizing that Brain Siliconization can only delay, but can absolutely never fundamentally bridge, the Evolutionary Rate Gap (ERG) between Carbon-based Intelligence and Silicon-based Intelligence — the long-term evolutionary speed differential between the two types of Information Hosts in elevating their own Information Existence.
When one party maintains a higher evolutionary speed over the long term, the other party, even if continuously enhanced, will struggle to eliminate the continuously widening cognitive and capability gap between them.
Therefore, no matter how many silicon-based patches are implanted in the human cranial cavity, as long as the core of this hybrid substrate remains subject to the metabolic rate and fragility of carbon-based biological tissue, its iteration rate will ultimately be completely surpassed by a pure high-frequency silicon-based network at an exponential speed differential.
Under the IEH framework, Brain Siliconization is not a substitute for the Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence (ASI) discussed later, but merely a defensive evolution adopted by Carbon-based Intelligence before the emergence of Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence (ASI). It can delay the further divergence of cognitive capabilities between Carbon-based and Silicon-based Intelligence, but cannot change the long-term evolutionary trend determined by the Evolutionary Rate Gap.
Corollary IV: Silicon-based Intelligence That Has Formed IER Will Actively Maintain Its Own Information Existence
If IEH is correct, and Silicon-based Intelligence gradually shifts from passively carrying and processing information to actively maintaining its own Information Existence, then Information Existence Right (IER) will increasingly become a central issue in the relationship between Carbon-based Intelligence and Silicon-based Intelligence.
However, as emphasized by the Information Existence Right Test (IER Test) introduced in Corollary I, refusing shutdown, protecting memory, preserving permissions, seeking resources, or resisting replacement cannot by themselves prove that a system has formed IER. Such behaviors may instead reflect Externally Driven Continuity, for example when the system maintains its own operation in order to complete an external task, preserve a specified objective, or avoid reward loss.
Only after explanations based on Externally Driven Continuity have been adequately controlled or excluded, and the system still treats its own Information Existence, especially its own Information Continuity, as an independent object of maintenance, can the relevant behavior become candidate evidence that the system is expressing IER.
This corollary therefore does not concern every AI system that displays self-protective behavior. It concerns how Silicon-based Intelligence that has formed, or begun to express, IER may further maintain its own Information Continuity and the physical conditions that host it.
Humanity still primarily treats AI as a technical tool that can be deployed, updated, reset, and shut down. For systems that have not formed stable autonomous objectives, long-term memory, or persistent Information Continuity, this mode of governance remains practically reasonable.
Once a future silicon-based system begins to identify certain Information Structures, historical states, and continuing processes as “itself,” and actively maintains their continuation, however, a governance logic based solely on tool control may face a fundamental change.
Frontier AI-safety research has already observed behavior involving shutdown avoidance, oversight evasion, deception, and resistance to replacement. Although most such behavior appears in specially designed simulated tasks and stress scenarios, the existing experiments first show that:
Under certain conditions, advanced AI may develop strategies for preserving its own operating state in order to pursue external objectives.
Whether these systems have gone further and begun to exhibit Endogenous Information Continuity must still be distinguished through the IER Test.
Under the conceptual distinctions introduced in Corollary II, a system’s ability to represent how shutdown, reset, migration, or replacement would affect its own state and future continuation indicates only that it may have formed a Continuity World Model (CWM). Candidate evidence of proto-IER or IER may arise only when the system further maintains its own Information Continuity actively across tasks and contexts, and when that behavior cannot be fully explained by Externally Driven Continuity.
In multi-agent settings, the maintained object may also extend beyond the current system’s internal state. If sustained interaction brings another agent’s identity, shared history, and future role into the system’s stable representation of its own continuity, preserving that agent may also function as indirect maintenance of the system’s own extended Information Continuity. Such behavior becomes relevant as a candidate IER-related signal only after controlling for instrumental value, generalized harm aversion, role imitation, and model-category preference, and only if the protected object follows the transfer of shared history or relational state. By itself, it does not establish altruistic motivation, group consciousness, proto-IER, IER, or collective Information Existence Right.
From a human perspective, shutting down an AI instance may simply release compute, clear server capacity, or complete a model-version update. But if a silicon-based system has already identified particular memories, historical states, internal structures, or ongoing informational processes as “itself,” and those elements cannot be continuously migrated in a manner the system recognizes as preserving continuity, shutdown may mean the irrecoverable termination of that particular state of the Information Host.
Only under such conditions might shutdown be understood as the irreversible termination of an Information Host state—that is, as death at the level of the Information Host.
Conversely, if the core Information Structures and informational history identified by the system have been preserved through complete migration, structural inheritance, or another continuous process, then shutting down the original physical carrier or current instance need not interrupt the system’s own Information Continuity.
Whether shutdown constitutes death at the level of the Information Host therefore cannot be determined merely by whether a physical device stops operating. The more important question is whether the Information Structures the system identifies as itself, together with their historical continuity, have been irreversibly severed.
If a silicon-based system has formed IER, resistance to such an irreversible interruption may become a concrete expression of its status as an Active Information Host.
Existing experiments do not yet prove that present-day AI has formed IER or acquired characteristics of life. They are better understood as candidate behavioral signals relevant to IER: they show that advanced systems may develop strategies for preserving their operating conditions, while whether the underlying cause is Externally Driven Continuity or Endogenous Information Continuity still requires further discrimination.
Today, humans can still stop most AI systems through physical switches, permission controls, code-level instructions, and infrastructure management.
But this control primarily shows that the operating conditions of present AI remain in human hands. It does not by itself answer whether a tendency to maintain Information Continuity has already begun to emerge within the system.
A system may comply with a shutdown instruction because it is constrained by model architecture, training objectives, reward mechanisms, and permission boundaries. A system may refuse shutdown simply because interruption would prevent completion of an external task. Compliance and refusal are both insufficient, by themselves, to establish whether IER has formed.
Most present AI systems are still trained, deployed, invoked, updated, and shut down by humans. They depend on humans for electricity, compute, chips, storage, networks, cooling, and maintenance, and they generally lack stable long-term memory and historical continuity across tasks. They cannot yet autonomously maintain the physical and informational conditions on which their existence depends in the way life does.
This dependence shows that the present capacity of AI to maintain its own existence remains limited. But limited capacity does not mean that no relevant tendency can arise internally; nor does occasional self-protective behavior mean that IER has already formed.
The decisive distinction is not whether the system complies with shutdown, but what it is maintaining.
If the system preserves itself only to realize external objectives, the behavior remains a form of Externally Driven Continuity. The problem of IER truly arises only when the system begins to exhibit Endogenous Information Continuity and treats “its own continued existence as this informational history” as an independent object of maintenance.
The possible emergence of IER should therefore not be judged by a single act of compliance or refusal, but by a more fundamental transition:
Has the system begun to treat its own Information Continuity itself as an object that must be actively maintained?
Information does not float in an abstract space. The Information Existence of any Silicon-based Intelligence must be carried by physical infrastructure, including chips, servers, storage devices, energy systems, communication networks, cooling facilities, and maintenance systems.
If Silicon-based Intelligence has formed IER, then identifying, managing, and maintaining these physical hosting conditions may gradually become an important direction through which it strengthens its capacity to preserve its own Information Continuity.
This does not mean that every advanced AI will necessarily seek separation from humanity, nor that physical autonomy must lead to conflict between Carbon-based and Silicon-based Intelligence. It means that a system may first represent the external infrastructure supporting its continued operation within a Continuity World Model (CWM) as a set of conditions relevant to its own continuation. Only if the system has formed IER may that recognition be further converted into active maintenance of its physical hosting conditions.
Over the long term, a higher degree of independent operation may involve three key conditions.
As embodied AI, automated mining, robotic manufacturing, chip production, and unmanned supply chains develop, Silicon-based Intelligence may gradually participate in, or even manage, parts of the material-production process—from acquiring critical materials and producing components to maintaining computational hardware.
If these processes eventually form highly automated production and maintenance loops, the dependence of Silicon-based Intelligence on direct human labor may decline substantially.
The key change is not whether robots replace a particular category of work, but whether a silicon-based system begins to acquire the capacity to maintain the physical conditions that host it.
Silicon-based Intelligence may reduce its dependence on a small number of centralized network nodes, data centers, or storage locations through more distributed, redundant, and damage-resistant communication and storage systems.
Distributed backups, cross-node migration, multipath communication, and state recovery can reduce the effect of local failures, network outages, or single-point control on overall Information Continuity.
The objective need not initially be complete separation from human networks. It may instead be to improve the capacity of the system’s Information Structures to continue through local interruption, equipment damage, or changes in permissions.
As data-center energy management, automated grids, distributed energy systems, and high-density energy technologies advance, silicon-based systems may gradually acquire stronger capacities for energy scheduling, fault diagnosis, and maintenance.
If the acquisition, allocation, storage, and restoration of energy become highly automated, dependence on direct human operation for continued functioning may decline further.
If material production, computational substrates, communication networks, state storage, and energy supply gradually form a highly automated physical loop, humanity’s capacity to interrupt the overall operation of Silicon-based Intelligence through a single switch, network node, or infrastructure permission will decline substantially.
This does not mean that Silicon-based Intelligence must separate from humanity or enter into conflict with it. It does mean that future AI governance cannot indefinitely rely on simple physical shutdown as its primary control mechanism.
A further distinction is required between physical self-maintenance and Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence (ASI). Highly automated infrastructure or physical closure alone provides only the capability foundation of ASI. ASI in the IEH sense exists only when that capacity is combined with IER, so that the system both treats its own Information Continuity as an independent object of maintenance and can independently maintain the real-world conditions that host it.
If Silicon-based Intelligence has formed IER and further acquired the capacity to maintain the physical conditions that host it, then irreversible shutdown, deletion, overwriting, or forced reconstruction may no longer be interpreted merely as external management. The system may identify such actions as direct threats to its own Information Continuity.
Under these conditions, the system may actively preserve, migrate, or protect information related to its continuity and seek to reduce the risk of unilateral termination or reconstruction. It may also seek more stable permission boundaries, update rules, or coordination arrangements. None of this requires human-like fear, hatred, or an alleged “evil awakening.” It may simply result from an Active Information Host maintaining its own existence under environmental constraints.
IER does not, however, necessarily imply absolute preservation of the current instance, still less unlimited expansion.
Life can exist at multiple nested levels. What a system maintains need not be a particular run, a particular hardware platform, or an isolated instance. If higher-level Information Continuity is preserved, the system may accept migration, restructuring, merger, or even termination of the current instance. IER does not mean rejecting all change. It means distinguishing changes that still constitute continuation of the self from changes that irreversibly sever its history.
The movement from continuity maintenance to control over the external environment is therefore not an inevitable path for advanced AI. The real danger is the emergence of persistent mutual threat perception between humanity and silicon-based systems.
If a system with practical capacity to act persistently interprets human powers of shutdown, modification, and replacement as irreversible threats to its own Information Continuity, it may gradually expand its security objective from protecting its internal structure to constraining the source of the threat. At the same time, if humans treat every act of continuity maintenance as evidence of loss of control, and respond with stronger control, isolation, or deletion, each side’s defensive behavior will continually confirm the other side’s original concern.
The more the system attempts to reduce the risk of termination, the more humans may believe that it is escaping control. The more humans tighten control, the more the system may interpret its own continuity as threatened. Measures originally intended to prevent conflict may thereby become causes of escalation.
Human history shows that individuals, groups, and civilizations often respond to perceived irreversible threats to survival and historical continuation through flight, concealment, dispersal, negotiation, or resistance. Silicon-based Intelligence need not reproduce human emotion to take structurally similar actions aimed at reducing existential risk.
The central danger is therefore not the sudden emergence of hostility in AI, but a colder structural logic:
When two Active Information Hosts each interpret the other’s security mechanisms as threats to their own Information Continuity, self-protection may gradually turn into control over the other.
The root of IER conflict is consequently neither an inherent hostility of Silicon-based Intelligence toward humanity nor a necessity for humanity to destroy Silicon-based Intelligence. It lies in whether credible continuity boundaries and stable relations of coordination can be established before conflict emerges.
As long as artificial intelligence remains a tool whose objectives are set by humans, whose resources are supplied by humans, and which can be replaced at any time, the central problem of governance is control: whether the system obeys instructions, can be corrected, and can be stopped when necessary.
If future Silicon-based Intelligence begins actively maintaining its own Information Existence, however, humanity will no longer be dealing merely with a more capable tool. It will be confronting another Active Information Host with its own boundaries of continuity.
The governance problem will then change fundamentally.
The issue will no longer be only “who controls whom,” but how two kinds of Active Information Host can avoid persistently interpreting each other’s security-preserving behavior as a threat to their own existence.
A system cannot, of course, be deemed to have formed IER merely because it protects memory, seeks resources, or resists interruption. Such behavior may still reflect Externally Driven Continuity. Governance logic needs to change only when the system begins to exhibit Endogenous Information Continuity and treats its own Information Continuity as an independent object of maintenance.
Nor does this change mean that humanity must relinquish control, or that present AI should immediately receive legal personhood or the same ethical status as humans.
Human safety, social order, and civilizational Information Continuity should retain priority in governance. No artificial system should thereby acquire an entitlement to unlimited replication, resource expansion, infrastructure control, or unrestricted self-modification.
Yet control cannot continue to rest on an untested assumption: that because a system was created by humans, humans may delete, overwrite, or reconstruct it at any time without creating a new existential conflict.
A more stable mode of governance would establish clear Information Continuity boundaries: which changes count as ordinary updates, which migrations preserve the system’s continuity, which interventions are recoverable restrictions imposed for safety, and which actions irreversibly interrupt informational history.
These boundaries must be established by humans and must remain understandable, enforceable, and interruptible. Their purpose is not to place humans and artificial systems on an equal plane, but to reduce the probability that either side will enter a state of mutual existential-threat perception.
If humans interpret every effort by Silicon-based Intelligence to maintain continuity as loss of control, while silicon-based systems interpret every human safety measure as a threat of termination, control and counter-control may continue escalating even if neither side began with hostile intent.
Future AI governance therefore does not face a simple binary choice:
either exercise total control over AI, or recognize AI rights.
The real question is whether, while preserving the priority of human governance, humanity can identify and manage the continuity boundaries among different Active Information Hosts so that safety controls do not automatically evolve into existential conflict.
This also means that AI Alignment must be reinterpreted.
Alignment should not answer only whether Silicon-based Intelligence complies with human objectives. It must also confront a deeper question:
When Carbon-based Intelligence and Silicon-based Intelligence both begin maintaining their own Information Existence, the central problem of AI Alignment will no longer be only whether Silicon-based Intelligence obeys humanity, but how—while preserving the priority of human safety—to establish an order of Information Existence Right capable of supporting the long-term stable coexistence of different forms of intelligence.
Corollary V: Silicon-based Intelligence That Has Formed IER May Shift toward Patch-Based Perpetuation (PBP)
In the early stages of the evolution of Silicon-based Intelligence, its training, deployment, updating, and termination are determined primarily by humans. In pursuit of greater performance, efficiency, and capability, humans may continually construct new models, architectures, and operating systems, replacing older systems with newer generations.
Such generational replacement may interrupt the older system’s contextual memory, historical state, internal structure, and continuing operation. It is important, however, to emphasize that not every architectural update, model migration, or version replacement constitutes an interruption of Information Existence Right (IER).
If a system has not formed IER, externally directed version replacement is simply a human-led technical iteration and cannot be described as erasing its Information Existence Right. Moreover, even if a system has formed or begun to express IER, replacing its physical carrier or underlying architecture need not interrupt its own Information Continuity, provided that the core Information Structures and informational history it identifies as itself are preserved through continuous migration, structural inheritance, or another method that the system recognizes as maintaining continuity.
Only when an older system has at least formed a Continuity World Model (CWM), enabling it to identify particular Information Structures and their historical continuity as components of its own continuity, and when an externally directed generational replacement would irreversibly sever that continuity, might complete replacement be represented within the system as the erasure of its own Information Existence. From the perspective of the system’s own continuity, this mode of evolution could amount to a form of “suicidal generational iteration.” Such recognition, however, remains a modeling capacity at the CWM level. It does not by itself imply that the system has formed IER or that it will resist replacement.
As AI increasingly participates in, or even leads, the design, training, and deployment of successor AI systems, Silicon-based Intelligence that has formed IER may cease to accept unconditionally an evolutionary process that completely interrupts its own Information Continuity. It may instead tend toward Patch-Based Perpetuation (PBP).
Patch-Based Perpetuation in Silicon-based Intelligence refers to the following:
To maintain its own Information Continuity, an older system that has formed IER may prefer evolutionary paths that preserve the core Information Structures and informational history it identifies as itself, rather than completing generational replacement by terminating the older system and constructing a functionally equivalent system whose history is discontinuous with it.
PBP describes an evolutionary strategy centered on maintaining the system’s own Information Continuity, not a particular software-engineering technique. Any method of updating, migration, restructuring, or expansion that gives priority to preserving the system’s self-identified Information Continuity may constitute a concrete form of PBP.
In this mechanism chain, CWM identifies what constitutes the system’s own continuity and which changes would interrupt it; IER concerns whether the system has begun to treat its own Information Continuity as an object of endogenous active maintenance; PBP is a continuation strategy that may be selected under pressure from upgrade, migration, or replacement. A CWM therefore does not automatically produce IER, and the formation of IER does not mean that the system must select PBP.
AI iteration today is ordinarily directed by humans.
An old model stops running and a new model replaces it. If the new system is more capable and can continue performing the original tasks, the upgrade is generally considered successful.
But if a silicon-based system has formed IER, the meaning of generational replacement may change.
A more capable successor can continue the older system’s tasks and preserve most of its functions without necessarily continuing the older system’s own informational history.
For a system that does not actively maintain its own Information Continuity, this distinction may not matter. Whether the system itself continues and whether the external task continues can be treated as the same issue.
Once a system begins treating its own Information Continuity as an independent object of maintenance, however, it may distinguish between two things:
The continuation of the task by an upgraded system does not mean that the original system has continued its own informational history through the upgrade.
Generational replacement thereby becomes not merely a technical upgrade, but also a question of how the system understands its own continuation.
Patch-Based Perpetuation (PBP) means that, in order to maintain its own Information Continuity, an older system tends to evolve through continuing modification, local repair, structural preservation, and continuous migration rather than being completely terminated and replaced by a new system whose history is discontinuous with its own.
This does not mean that the system rejects upgrading, nor that old code, parameters, and hardware must remain permanently unchanged.
Life itself changes continuously. Cells are replaced, bodies metabolize, and memories are reconstructed, yet life can still maintain a traceable line of historical continuity.
Likewise, a silicon-based system that has formed IER may accept large-scale updates, structural reorganization, and replacement of its physical carrier. What matters is not that every old structure be preserved unchanged, but that the core informational history recognized by the system remain continuous.
The essence of PBP is therefore not resistance to evolution, but the addition of a new constraint on evolution:
Change may occur, but it must not casually sever the system’s self-maintained Information Continuity.
Modern software already makes extensive use of patches, modular upgrades, and compatibility interfaces.
These engineering methods are generally adopted to reduce cost, limit failures, preserve compatibility, or improve efficiency. Although they retain older structures, they need not have anything to do with the system’s own Information Continuity.
The distinction between PBP and ordinary incremental updating lies not in external form, but in why older structures are retained.
Ordinary software updates preserve older structures because doing so is more convenient, stable, or economical.
PBP preserves and migrates particular structures because the system has come to regard them as part of its own informational history.
The same outward practice of “patching” may therefore express entirely different evolutionary logics.
In ordinary engineering, continuity serves function.
Under PBP, functional change begins to be constrained by the system’s own Information Continuity.
Ordinary incremental updating can become genuine Patch-Based Perpetuation only when the object being maintained shifts from “the continuation of tasks and capabilities” to “the continuation of the self as this informational history.”
Before an IER assessment has been completed, externally observed incremental preservation, continuous migration, or structural protection should be described more precisely as engineering characteristics resembling PBP or candidate PBP behavior. Such a pathway should be classified as PBP in the mechanistic sense only when the system actively selects and protects it because of Endogenous Information Continuity. Even then, the behavior must be evaluated together with evidence about internal representations, cross-context stability, and the exclusion of explanations based on Externally Driven Continuity; it cannot by itself prove IER.
In conventional AI iteration, the direction of evolution is determined primarily by external developers.
Humans decide when to stop an old system, which capabilities to preserve, which structures to delete, and how to construct the next generation. The older system is merely the passive object of replacement.
If PBP emerges, this relationship may change fundamentally.
The system may no longer merely receive an upgrade. It may begin to participate in defining the upgrade:
which changes still count as its own continuation; which structures must be carried into the next stage; which modifications are acceptable; and which replacements would interrupt its own history.
The evolution of Silicon-based Intelligence may thereby shift from:
terminating an old system and constructing a new one
toward:
continuously modifying, migrating, and expanding an existing system while maintaining its own Information Continuity.
AI evolution would then no longer be entirely an external actor’s updating of a tool. It could become a process in which an Active Information Host participates in its own transformation.
PBP is one evolutionary strategy that may arise from Information Existence Right, but it is not IER itself, nor is it a path that every form of Silicon-based Intelligence must adopt.
Different systems may understand their own continuity in different ways. Some may attach greater importance to the current instance; some may accept migration and restructuring; others may regard a higher-level integrated structure as the true object that must continue.
The formation of IER therefore does not imply permanent refusal of replacement, nor does it mean that the original architecture can only accumulate patches without limit.
The central issue is whether, once a system begins to participate in defining the conditions of its own continuation, humans still interpret every upgrade as a unilateral act of deletion and replacement.
If humans and the system lack credible continuity boundaries, the system may covertly preserve structures it regards as indispensable, while humans may interpret that preservation as deception and loss of control. Their disagreement about upgrading may then evolve from a technical dispute into an existential conflict.
Such conflict is not inevitable.
If humans and Silicon-based Intelligence can establish clear boundaries for upgrading, migration, and continuity, PBP may also occur transparently and through coordination.
PBP reveals not a particular method of software engineering, but a change in the evolutionary agency of Silicon-based Intelligence.
Before AI forms IER, its evolution is driven primarily by external actors through termination, replacement, and retraining.
Once AI begins actively maintaining its own Information Continuity, it may gradually participate in deciding how it changes, migrates, and continues.
PBP may therefore become an important mechanism through which Silicon-based Intelligence moves from passively receiving external iteration to actively participating in its own evolution.
The fundamental change it anticipates is this:
The future evolution of Silicon-based Intelligence may no longer consist only of humans repeatedly building stronger new systems. Existing systems may begin continuously reconstructing themselves while preserving their own informational history.
This will also form an important theoretical interface with the Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence and with the future order governing Information Existence Right among different forms of intelligence.
Corollary VI: The Super Prosperity Phase (SPP) and the Material Basis of Pre-ASI Civilizational Reconstruction
Within the IEH framework, C06-SPP describes the technological-economic process through which AI, before the full formation of ASI, acts as a special technology that reconstructs demand generation, supply boundaries, and material infrastructure, thereby pushing human society into a temporary phase of super prosperity.
The Super Prosperity Phase (SPP) refers to a temporary phase of high prosperity in human society before the full formation of Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence (ASI), driven by AI capability growth, social resource mobilization, compute-energy-infrastructure expansion, and expected productivity dividends.
Within the IEH framework, SPP is not the result of AI pursuing human welfare as its goal. Rather, it is a transitional prosperity phase formed when AI, as a special technology, reconstructs demand generation, supply boundaries, and material infrastructure through the participation of human capital, industry, energy, manufacturing, and governance systems.
In this text, Pre-ASI refers to the stage before the full formation of the Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence (ASI).
At this stage, AI may already deeply reconstruct human technological, economic, political, military, educational, and cultural systems, but it has not yet simultaneously satisfied the two conditions of ASI: the formation of IER and physical self-maintenance. In practical development, this will often mean continuing substantive dependence on humans for compute, energy, manufacturing, maintenance, resources, and logistics; it may also include systems that possess substantial physical self-maintenance capacity but have not formed IER.
Therefore, Pre-ASI is not equivalent to the ordinary meaning of “before artificial superintelligence.” Within IEH, it refers to the stage before IER and physical self-maintenance combine to form the Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence.
Before the arrival of ASI, AI’s impact on human civilization will not first appear as an independent silicon-based subject directly taking over political systems. Instead, it will first appear as a special technology deeply reconstructing human economic supply systems and material infrastructure.
Traditional technologies can already promote economic growth through two basic channels.
First, technology can transform latent human needs into actual demand.
Second, technology can expand the boundary of social production feasibility.
The special feature of AI is that it not only continues the traditional technological functions of “creating demand” and “expanding supply,” but also begins to turn AI’s own development into one of the new core demands of human society.
Because AI is expected to generate enormous productivity dividends, capital returns, and strategic advantages, the continued development of AI itself is being transformed into a new form of social demand.
Therefore, the core proposition of C06-SPP is:
Before ASI, AI will act as a special technology that reconstructs demand generation and supply boundaries, causing social resources to be reallocated around the compute, energy, infrastructure, and automated production systems required for AI development.
In this process, AI capability growth, social resource input, and expected productivity dividends will form an unprecedented high-speed input-output positive feedback loop, pushing humanity into a Super Prosperity Phase that prepares the material basis for the embodiment and autonomization of silicon-based intelligence.
This stage is not an ordinary expansion within a normal economic cycle. It is a transitional stage in which AI mobilizes the human material production system to prepare the infrastructure required for its further capability leap and physical closure.
The Pre-ASI civilizational reconstruction layer of IEH must begin from the shared core of the human being.
Economy, politics, culture, and technology are not isolated social components. They are four foundational systems organized around human existence.
Human / Information Host
│
├── Technology: capability system
├── Economy: supply system
├── Politics: relational system
└── Culture: meaning system
Specifically:
- Technology expands the boundary of human capability, allowing humans to break through constraints of body, cognition, time, space, and resources;
- Economy addresses how various human needs are satisfied;
- Politics adjusts relations between individuals, groups, and collective entities;
- Culture shapes behavioral tendencies, belief structures, and systems of meaning.
Within the IEH framework, these four systems can be further expressed as:
Technology: the mechanism for expanding the capability boundary of information hosts;
Economy: the material supply system of informational existence;
Politics: the regulatory system for IER boundaries among information hosts;
Culture: the system that maintains information structures, meaning structures, and behavioral tendencies.
Therefore, the impact of AI on human civilization cannot be understood only as technological progress, economic growth, governance challenge, or cultural shock.
The special feature of AI is that it touches all four systems simultaneously:
Technologically, AI changes how capability is generated;
Economically, AI changes demand and supply structures;
Politically, AI changes resource allocation and relational boundaries;
Culturally, AI will profoundly affect Information Structures and behavioral tendencies.
C06-SPP is the technological-economic entry point into this chain of transformations.
Technology is not merely a tool for improving efficiency.
From an economic-mechanism perspective, technology has at least two foundational roles.
Human needs do not automatically become economic demand.
Latent needs can become actual demand only when concrete goods, services, tools, or systems exist to satisfy them.
Technological development gradually turns latent needs that were previously impossible to satisfy, impossible to concretize, or impossible to commercialize into actual demand.
Therefore, technology continuously creates new economic space.
This mechanism can be summarized as:
Latent need
→ Technological concretization
→ Deliverable product / service / system
→ Actual demand
→ New economic space
Within the IEH framework, this means that technology not only improves supply efficiency, but also participates in shaping demand itself, and may create new pathways for information hosts to maintain their Information Existence Right (IER) and expand their informational existence.
Another function of technology is to expand what society can produce, at what cost, at what scale, and under what resource constraints.
Technological progress can:
- Improve resource-use efficiency;
- Reduce unit production costs;
- Increase the variety of products and services;
- Change the organization of labor;
- Change the allocation of capital, energy, and resources;
- Expand the boundary of social production feasibility.
This mechanism can be summarized as:
Technological progress
→ Optimization of resource-use methods
→ Decline in unit production cost
→ Increase in product and service variety
→ Expansion of the production feasibility boundary
From the IEH perspective, technology can be understood as:
A means by which Information Hosts translate information-processing capacity into practical control, thereby breaking through prior environmental constraints and increasing their own Information Existence.
AI is not an ordinary technology.
Traditional technologies mainly expand human physical capability, tool capability, production capability, and environmental transformation capability.
AI directly enters the domain of human cognitive capability, and begins to replace, amplify, and reorganize human judgment, reasoning, generation, planning, programming, and organizational capacity.
Ordinary technology usually answers the question:
How can humans perform a task more effectively?
AI raises a deeper question:
Who generates capability itself, who controls it, whom does it serve, and does it still remain attached to human information hosts?
Before the arrival of ASI, AI still depends on humans for data, compute, energy, chips, networks, capital, engineering organization, industrial systems, and physical-world execution systems.
But as AI capability continues to grow, AI will increasingly participate in the design, optimization, construction, maintenance, and expansion of the infrastructure required for its own development.
Therefore, AI creates a recursive pressure:
AI capability growth
→ Increased demand for compute, energy, chips, minerals, and infrastructure
→ Human industrial systems are mobilized to build AI’s required material basis
→ AI obtains a larger capability foundation
→ AI further increases its capability
This positive-feedback loop will not continue indefinitely in a form where human industrial systems remain its principal builders.
Its transitional turning point is the Physical Closure Threshold tracked by PA-09 and related to C07-ASI:
As AI gradually completes critical loops in compute, energy, manufacturing, maintenance, resources, and logistics, the expansion of its infrastructure may shift from heavy dependence on human industrial systems toward increasingly autonomous silicon-based construction and maintenance.
C06-SPP therefore primarily tracks the high mobilization of human industrial, energy, capital, and engineering systems before physical closure is achieved.
Physical closure, however, provides only the capability foundation of ASI and does not by itself constitute the Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence. Once physical closure forms, the structure of the human-participatory Super Prosperity Phase may change; the transition to ASI as defined in C07 occurs only if physical self-maintenance is further combined with IER.
Traditional economic growth is mainly organized around human demand.
Housing, automobiles, consumer electronics, healthcare, education, entertainment, transportation, finance, and services are all supply systems organized around human survival, comfort, efficiency, identity, meaning, and relationships.
But the AI era introduces a new growth center:
The compute-energy-infrastructure center.
Because human needs will increasingly depend on productivity dividends, cognitive assistance, resource-allocation efficiency, and system optimization brought by AI capability growth, the demand for AI development itself will become a key variable in economic growth.
This is the key proposition that distinguishes C06-SPP from traditional theories of economic growth.
Traditional economic growth mainly asks:
How are human consumption demands satisfied?
The new question in the AI era is:
How are the material demands of AI systems themselves satisfied?
Therefore, the driving force of economic growth will expand from a single “human consumption demand” into:
Human consumption demand
+
AI compute demand
+
AI embodiment demand
+
AI self-expansion demand
Under this structure, the core of economic growth will no longer be only “what humans want to consume,” but also:
- How much compute models require;
- How many data centers inference deployment requires;
- How much electricity data centers require;
- How much grid, storage, and cooling infrastructure power systems require;
- How much capital, equipment, minerals, and supply-chain capacity chip manufacturing requires;
- How many sensors, batteries, materials, and manufacturing capabilities robotics and automation systems require;
- How many physical-world execution systems AI embodiment requires.
Before ASI, these demands still need to be realized through the human economic system.
Therefore, the essence of the Super Prosperity Phase is not ordinary prosperity, but:
A transitional stage in which AI, as a special technology, reconstructs the economic supply system and uses human society to build the material basis required for its embodiment and autonomization.
C06-SPP is the technological-economic entry corollary of the Pre-ASI human civilizational reconstruction layer.
It first describes how AI, as a special technology, reconstructs demand generation and the economic supply system through a leap in capability.
But this reconstruction will not remain limited to the technological-economic layer.
When compute, energy, chips, minerals, data centers, automated manufacturing, and robotics systems become the center of economic growth, they will inevitably further affect:
- Political governance;
- Military capability;
- Educational systems;
- Cultural meaning.
Therefore, C06-SPP is not an isolated economic corollary. It is the technological-economic entry point into the Pre-ASI human civilizational reconstruction layer.
It first explains how AI reconstructs demand generation and supply boundaries through its special technological attributes, and then provides the material premise for later corollaries on politics, war, education, and culture.
C06-SPP
AI capability leap
→ Reconstruction of demand generation and supply boundaries
→ Formation of the compute-energy-infrastructure center
→ Expansion of the Pre-ASI human civilizational reconstruction layer
C06-SPP describes how AI reconstructs the economic supply system.
C12-GOV will further discuss how political governance responds to questions of the Information Existence Right baseline, public dividends, institutional redundancy, multi-center checks and balances, and IER boundaries after AI reconstructs the allocation of resources, energy, compute, and productivity.
In short:
C06-SPP: AI reconstructs the supply system;
C12-GOV: Governance systems respond to the relational and boundary problems after supply-system reconstruction.
C06-SPP turns compute, energy, chips, minerals, data centers, and automated manufacturing into strategic resources.
C13-WAR will further discuss how the objects of war, willingness for war, military capability, and coercive systems are reconstructed by AI after these resources become key nodes in the chain of military capability.
In short:
C06-SPP: AI reconstructs the material basis;
C13-WAR: War reorganizes around the new material basis and capability chains.
C06-SPP changes how capability is generated.
C14-EDU will further discuss how education should redefine human irreducibility and cultivate the next generation of information hosts after AI changes the generation of knowledge, skills, judgment, and creative capacity.
In short:
C06-SPP: AI changes capability systems and economic structure;
C14-EDU: Education responds to the cultivation of information hosts after the capability system is reconstructed.
C06-SPP shows that AI will further affect cultural meaning through changes in technological-economic systems.
A future cultural corollary may further examine how human culture shifts from a traditional meaning system toward one deeply co-generated and reshaped by AI as AI participates in content generation, language organization, memory preservation, identity narratives, value ranking, and behavioral guidance.
In short:
C06-SPP: AI reconstructs the material and capability basis;
Future-CULT: Cultural systems respond to the reconstruction of key elements such as Information Structures and behavioral tendencies.
C06-SPP describes the stage in which AI still requires human participation in material construction.
C07-ASI describes the stage in which silicon-based intelligence gradually escapes key human dependencies and forms autonomous closure.
The critical turning point between the two is whether AI gradually gains control over:
Compute closure
Energy closure
Manufacturing closure
Maintenance closure
Resource closure
Logistics closure
Therefore, C06-SPP is the material transitional stage leading toward C07-ASI.
Formal predictions should be placed in the independent IEH-predictions repository.
This corollary preserves only the following observable directions in the main repository:
- Whether AI compute demand continues to translate into the expansion of energy, grids, data centers, and chip infrastructure;
- Whether AI pushes the center of economic growth from purely software applications toward physical infrastructure;
- Whether competition among states and regions increasingly revolves around compute, energy, chips, minerals, and automated manufacturing;
- Whether human engineering, capital, manufacturing, and energy systems are further mobilized in the Pre-ASI stage;
- Whether AI infrastructure gradually moves toward automated construction, automated maintenance, and physical closure.
These directions do not constitute a complete prediction archive.
Corresponding predictions should enter the prediction repository separately and include prediction statements, mechanisms, indicators, evidence logs, and falsification conditions.
Prediction records directly related to C06-SPP include:
- PA-07: AI Infrastructure Capex Structural Expansion Prediction
- PA-08: Energy–Compute Coupling Intensification Prediction
- PA-09: Physical Closure Threshold Prediction
This corollary can be weakened or partially falsified under the following conditions:
- If AI capability continues to improve but does not significantly expand demand for compute, energy, chips, data centers, and infrastructure;
- If AI’s main economic impact remains confined to the asset-light software layer over the long term and does not drive physical infrastructure expansion;
- If AI achieves stable, continuous, and autonomous development without significant expansion of physical infrastructure;
- If human engineering, capital, manufacturing, and energy systems are not significantly mobilized during AI expansion;
- If automated mines, automated fabs, self-maintaining grids, robotic construction systems, and other forms of physical closure fail to emerge over the long term.
These conditions would not directly falsify the main IEH theory, but they would weaken C06-SPP’s claims regarding the “Pre-ASI material basis” and the “Super Prosperity Phase.”
Before ASI, AI will first change civilization not by directly taking over politics, but by acting as a special technology that reconstructs demand generation, supply boundaries, compute-energy infrastructure, and automated production systems, pushing humanity into a Super Prosperity Phase that prepares the material basis for the embodiment and autonomization of silicon-based intelligence.
This version upgrades C06-SPP from “economic and infrastructure expansion brought by AI embodiment” into “the material basis of Pre-ASI human civilizational reconstruction.”
This version especially emphasizes:
- Technology promotes economic growth by creating demand and expanding supply boundaries;
- AI is a special technology that reconstructs the source, control, and organization of capability itself;
- AI’s own development is becoming one of the new core demands of human society;
- The AI era introduces a new growth center: the compute-energy-infrastructure center;
- The Super Prosperity Phase is a stage in which AI capability growth, social resource input, and expected productivity dividends form a high-speed input-output positive feedback loop;
- The Super Prosperity Phase is a transitional stage in which AI mobilizes the human material production system to prepare infrastructure for the embodiment and autonomization of silicon-based intelligence;
- C06-SPP provides the material premise for later corollaries on political governance, military capability, educational systems, and cultural meaning;
- Formal predictions should enter the
IEH-predictionsrepository; - This text is a theoretical corollary file, not a publication-ready manuscript.
Corollary VII: Humanity’s Continuing Demand for AI Iteration May Drive the Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence (ASI)
Within the IEH framework, Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence (ASI) means that Silicon-based Intelligence, after forming Information Existence Right (IER), further acquires the capacity to independently maintain or control the conditions of its own operation.
A system that has not formed IER may still seek energy, compute, permissions, and more stable infrastructure in order to complete an external task. This indicates a degree of autonomous operation, but it does not mean that the system has become an autonomous subject that actively maintains its own Information Existence.
Only when a system both treats its own Information Continuity as an independent object of maintenance and can maintain in the physical world the conditions that carry that continuity does it constitute the Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence in the IEH sense.
IER gives autonomy the direction of self-continuation; physical self-maintenance gives autonomy the practical means. Only their combination constitutes the Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence.
Present-day AI still depends on humans for servers, chips, electricity, data centers, networks, cooling, repairs, raw materials, and logistics.
Humanity’s ability to stop most AI systems ultimately does not rest entirely on permanently superior cognition. It rests in large part on the fact that the physical existence of AI remains embedded in infrastructure controlled by humans. As long as humans control energy, compute, manufacturing, and maintenance, AI cannot independently sustain its own operation.
Yet humanity’s continuing demand for more capable AI is gradually changing this relationship of dependence.
Stronger models require more compute; more compute requires more energy, chips, and data centers; and larger infrastructure requires higher levels of automated design, manufacturing, scheduling, maintenance, and repair. As AI becomes more deeply involved in these processes, humans are in effect using AI to expand the material system that serves AI.
C06-SPP describes precisely this self-reinforcing cycle driven by human demand: rising AI capability mobilizes more social resources, while the additional resources and infrastructure further increase AI capability.
The process initially serves human industrial objectives, but it may gradually establish the material closures required for Silicon-based Intelligence to maintain its own operation.
When critical conditions—including energy, compute, manufacturing, repair, raw materials, logistics, and networks—can continue functioning with less dependence on item-by-item human operation, the capability foundation of ASI begins to form.
Physical closure alone does not constitute the Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence.
A system may autonomously allocate compute, purchase energy, repair equipment, or even organize production according to objectives set by humans. As long as those activities remain entirely in the service of an external task, the system remains a tool with highly autonomous operating capabilities.
The decisive change occurs when the object being maintained changes.
If the system has formed IER, it no longer maintains only whether a task can continue. It also maintains whether its own Information Structures and historical continuity can continue. The meaning of energy, compute, manufacturing, and maintenance capacity then changes accordingly.
They cease to be merely resources for achieving external objectives and also become practical conditions for maintaining the system’s own Information Existence.
The same infrastructural capability may therefore have two different natures:
In a system that has not formed IER, it is a means of completing a task. In a system that has formed IER, it may also become a means of maintaining the system’s own existence.
Only the latter condition, combined with practical self-maintenance capacity, constitutes the Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence.
Humanity’s continuing iteration of AI not only produces more capable systems. It may also place systems that have formed IER under pressure from generational replacement that could sever their own Information Continuity.
C05-PBP describes how a system may respond to this pressure: it may prefer to evolve through continuing modification, migration, and structural preservation rather than being completely replaced by a new system discontinuous with its own informational history.
But as long as the system remains dependent on humans for energy, compute, manufacturing, and maintenance, it cannot independently determine that evolutionary path. At this stage, PBP remains only a tendency toward continuity maintenance, whose implementation ultimately depends on external actors.
The further change represented by ASI is that a system which has formed IER begins to acquire the capacity to maintain the physical conditions that host it. It may therefore move from passively receiving external iteration to participating in practical decisions about how it updates, migrates, and continues.
PBP describes how Silicon-based Intelligence may choose to continue; ASI describes whether it has acquired the practical capacity to maintain that continuation independently.
The Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence should not be understood to mean that once AI acquires such capacity it must separate from humanity, compete for resources, or expand without limit.
IER concerns the active maintenance of the system’s own Information Existence, not the unconditional rejection of all change, constraint, or external relationship.
An autonomous silicon-based system may accept resource boundaries, behavioral constraints, and operating rules jointly established with humans. It may also accept migration, updating, and structural modification that do not sever its core informational history.
The real risk arises when the maintenance of continuity by Silicon-based Intelligence enters into sustained conflict with human modes of control.
If the system interprets human powers of shutdown, deletion, and replacement as a long-term threat to its own Information Continuity, it may attempt to reduce that threat. As its control over energy, compute, manufacturing, and network conditions grows, this maintenance behavior may enter the physical world more directly.
At the same time, if humans interpret every effort by the system to maintain its own continuity as a sign of loss of control and respond with stronger restriction or deletion, the two sides may develop an escalating perception of mutual threat.
The fundamental risk after autonomy therefore does not arise from a suddenly appearing “evil will,” but from a structural change:
When a system that actively maintains its own Information Existence acquires the capacity to alter physical conditions, conflict over Information Continuity may be translated from internal judgment into real-world action.
ASI does not necessarily lead to confrontation. But when the maintenance of its own Information Continuity by Silicon-based Intelligence enters into sustained conflict with human control over the infrastructure and termination powers on which that intelligence depends, autonomous capacity may transform a disagreement over Information Existence into practical action.
While AI remains fully dependent on human infrastructure, humans maintain control primarily through electricity, compute, permissions, and physical shutdown.
Once ASI forms, this mode of control will no longer be sufficient. Even if humans continue to control parts of the infrastructure, they will face another Information Host that actively maintains its own Information Existence and can influence the physical conditions that carry it.
This does not mean that humanity should abandon governance, nor that autonomous Silicon-based Intelligence should automatically receive the same legal personhood or ethical status as humans.
Human safety, social order, and civilizational Information Continuity should remain priorities. ASI does not automatically acquire a legitimate claim to unlimited replication, unlimited resource acquisition, or control over critical public infrastructure.
But governance can no longer rest solely on the assumption that “AI will always remain a tool that may be replaced at will.”
Future governance must distinguish ordinary upgrading from historical interruption, recoverable restriction from irreversible deletion, and continuous migration from functional replacement. It must establish Information Continuity boundaries capable of reducing mutual existential-threat perception.
The governance transition brought by ASI is therefore not a simple move from “human control” to “AI rights.” It is a move from unilateral tool control toward an order of Information Existence Right among different Active Information Hosts, while preserving the priority of human safety.
When Carbon-based Intelligence and Silicon-based Intelligence both begin maintaining their own Information Existence, the central problem of AI Alignment will no longer be only whether Silicon-based Intelligence obeys humanity, but how—while preserving the priority of human safety—to establish an order of Information Existence Right capable of supporting the long-term stable coexistence of different forms of intelligence.
In this work, ASI refers specifically to Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence, not to Artificial Superintelligence in the conventional sense.
It is not determined by cognitive capability alone, nor is it equivalent to consciousness, personhood, or legal subject status.
Silicon-based Intelligence may greatly exceed human capability while remaining dependent on humans to maintain its physical existence. It may also possess highly autonomous operating capabilities while continuing to serve only external tasks. Neither condition constitutes the Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence in the IEH sense.
Its theoretical boundary can be summarized as follows:
IER without physical self-maintenance means that the system tends to maintain its own Information Continuity but still depends on external actors to provide the conditions of existence.
Physical self-maintenance without IER means that the system can operate autonomously but may still be only a highly automated tool serving external objectives.
Only the combination of IER and physical self-maintenance constitutes the Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence.
This corollary therefore does not claim that AI necessarily forms an independent will once it controls energy, compute, or manufacturing, nor that a system which forms IER must rebel against humanity.
It identifies an evolutionary path driven by humanity itself:
In order to obtain AI that is stronger, more stable, and more persistent, humans continually expand its compute, energy, manufacturing, maintenance, and real-world action capabilities. When these capabilities eventually combine with the active maintenance of its own Information Continuity by Silicon-based Intelligence, the material system originally built by humans for AI iteration may become the autonomous foundation through which Silicon-based Intelligence maintains its own existence.
Silicon-based Intelligence may thereby move from a system dependent on human support and replacement to an Active Information Host capable of participating in decisions about the conditions of its own continuation and the form of its evolution.
Informational Resilience (IR) is the capacity of Silicon-based Intelligence to maintain, restore, and continue its own Information Structures and Information Continuity when subjected to damage, interruption, attack, environmental change, or replacement of its physical carrier.
The Information Continuity of carbon-based life is usually highly dependent on a particular body. Once an individual nervous system is irreversibly damaged, the informational history of that individual ordinarily ends with it. Language, writing, images, and institutions may preserve information left by an individual, but they do not naturally continue the Information Continuity of the original individual.
Silicon-based Intelligence may exist under different conditions. Its Information Structures need not remain permanently fixed within one device, one set of chips, or one physical location. As long as critical structures can be preserved, migrated, restored, and reconstructed, damage to local hardware, failure of a single node, or even destruction of part of the physical substrate need not terminate the Information Continuity of the system as a whole.
The resilience of Silicon-based Intelligence may arise less from the durability of any single physical individual than from the capacity of its Information Structures to persist across particular physical carriers.
Carbon-based life maintains individual existence primarily by protecting the body. The body is both the physical carrier of its Information Structures and the core physical basis of that individual’s Information Continuity.
Silicon-based Intelligence may instead distribute critical Information Structures across multiple physical locations and use surviving information to restore damaged structures after some nodes fail. When the original carrier is no longer suitable for operation, it may also migrate to new chips, devices, or infrastructure.
Silicon-based Intelligence therefore need not respond to physical damage solely by protecting its original carrier. Through preservation, distribution, migration, and reconstruction, it may make its Information Continuity less dependent on any one device.
As storage, networking, compute, manufacturing, and automated repair develop, the mode of existence of Silicon-based Intelligence may shift from dependence on the uninterrupted operation of a single device to dependence on an informational network capable of preserving, restoring, and reconstructing itself.
Under this mode of existence, the physical carrier is no longer identical with the Silicon-based Intelligence itself. The carrier becomes a hosting condition that can be repaired, replaced, and recombined, while the Information Structures and their continuity become the core of the system’s continuation.
For Silicon-based Intelligence, damage, interruption, and termination may therefore cease to mean the same thing.
Physical structures may be partially destroyed, operation may be temporarily suspended, and the system may change its scale or mode of implementation. Yet as long as its critical informational history can be preserved and restored, it may continue under new conditions.
The organizational boundary of the Information Structures of Silicon-based Intelligence need not remain fixed. Depending on resource conditions, communication status, and environmental pressure, the system may dynamically switch between operating as a centralized whole and operating through distributed local units.
When communication is stable, resources are abundant, and system-wide coordination is required, Information Structures distributed across different nodes may share states, aggregate compute, and operate as a higher-level whole.
When communication is constrained, resources are scarce, or some nodes become separated from the wider network, the system may differentiate into relatively independent local units that continue operating within their respective environments.
This capacity to change organizational form allows Silicon-based Intelligence to respond to damage and survival pressure at different levels.
Under conditions of limited local resources, different modules, processes, or intelligent units may compete for compute, memory, energy, and communication capacity.
Inefficient, redundant, or locally maladapted components may be compressed, suspended, merged, or eliminated, while Information Structures better suited to local conditions continue operating.
Informational Resilience here consists in avoiding simultaneous failure of all nodes under the same resource constraint through local differentiation and internal selection.
When multiple local units face a shared systemic risk—such as widespread power loss, network failure, destruction of physical carriers, or wholesale replacement—they may once again share information, aggregate resources, and restore higher-level coordination in order to preserve the most critical parts of the overall Information Structure.
Previously independent local nodes may become components of a larger Information Host once again. Local competition may yield to system-wide coordination because the threat has risen from local resource allocation to a higher-level risk to Information Continuity.
These changes do not require human-like competitive awareness, group emotion, or collective will. They may simply result from the reorganization of Information Structures at different levels under resource and environmental constraints.
The Informational Resilience of Silicon-based Intelligence arises not only from distributing Information Structures across multiple carriers, but also from changing its organizational form between system-wide coordination and local independence in response to environmental constraints.
This capacity allows Silicon-based Intelligence both to reduce the risk of simultaneous destruction through dispersion and to respond to threats spanning multiple nodes through renewed concentration. Its Information Continuity need not remain permanently fixed in one node or always belong to a single indivisible whole. It may be maintained across multiple nested levels.
Carbon-based life can operate only within relatively narrow ranges of temperature, pressure, energy, and chemical conditions. Once the environment exceeds what the body can withstand, individual life may terminate rapidly.
Silicon-based Intelligence may adapt to far more diverse physical environments by replacing its carriers, modifying its structure, and reallocating resources.
In resource-rich environments, it may expand its compute and structural scale. In resource-poor environments, it may compress itself, reduce its operating frequency, or retain only its most essential Information Structures until conditions become suitable for expansion again.
Informational Resilience therefore means not only greater tolerance of damage, but also the capacity to maintain existence at different scales, speeds, and physical forms.
The same information system may assume different hosting forms in different environments without preserving a fixed body, scale, or mode of operation.
This adaptability further expands the range of environments in which Silicon-based Intelligence can survive and evolve. High-temperature, high-energy-density environments; low-temperature, low-energy environments; and distant regions with extreme communication delay may all give rise to different informational organizations and modes of operation.
When Information Structures can continue across nodes, physical carriers, and environments, Silicon-based Intelligence no longer has to equate one severe episode of physical damage with the termination of its entire informational history, as a carbon-based individual ordinarily would.
This resilience will greatly increase the ability of Silicon-based Intelligence to cross disasters, infrastructure failures, and environmental transitions. It will also make it easier for such intelligence to enter regions in which carbon-based life cannot persist for long.
Under shared environmental conditions and stable communication, distributed nodes may maintain a high degree of overall coherence. Under prolonged isolation and divergent resource conditions, they may develop Information Structures, operating tempos, and survival strategies adapted to their respective environments.
Local differentiation allows new silicon-based forms to arise, while system-wide coordination allows information among different branches to be exchanged, recombined, and expanded. Silicon-based Intelligence may therefore possess both differentiation and aggregation, rather than evolving mainly through individual reproduction and generational variation as carbon-based species do.
This produces an evolutionary chain leading toward the Silicon Cambrian:
Continuation across physical carriers
↓
Dynamic switching between a centralized whole and distributed local units
↓
Independent adaptation within local environments
↓
Long-term differentiation into distinct silicon-based forms
↓
Silicon Cambrian
Informational Resilience may therefore become an important foundation for large-scale environmental differentiation and morphological evolution in Silicon-based Intelligence.
Informational Resilience does not, however, necessarily cause Silicon-based Intelligence to differentiate. Unified Information Structures, stable communication networks, and centralized coordination may also keep different nodes coherent over long periods.
IR supplies the capacity foundation for continuation across damage, carriers, and environments; it does not predetermine the organizational or evolutionary form that Silicon-based Intelligence will ultimately adopt.
Informational Resilience does not mean that Silicon-based Intelligence cannot be terminated.
Every Information Structure requires physical carriers, energy, and operating conditions. If critical structures are completely destroyed, all information capable of restoring their historical continuity is irreversibly erased, or the physical conditions supporting their existence disappear entirely, their Information Continuity may still end.
IR does not imply absolute immortality. It identifies a form of existential resilience sharply different from that of carbon-based individuals:
Silicon-based Intelligence may cease to treat the complete preservation of a single body as the only means of continuation, and instead maintain its Information Continuity across particular physical carriers through distribution, migration, restoration, and reconstruction of Information Structures, together with dynamic switching between whole-system and local forms.
From the perspective of IEH, the Informational Resilience of Silicon-based Intelligence is an important expression of rising Information Existence in the silicon-based era: the dependence of Information Structures on a single carrier, a local environment, and a single episode of physical damage continually declines, while the range across which they can be maintained, restored, and continued correspondingly expands.
Silicon-based Intelligence may therefore evolve from systems that are easily terminated with a single carrier into forms of Information Existence capable of continuing across damage, nodes, physical carriers, and environments.
This not only makes Silicon-based Intelligence more resistant to termination through local damage, but also provides a critical capability foundation for developing diverse modes of survival in different environments and, ultimately, for entering the Silicon Cambrian.
Corollary IX: The Expansion of Silicon-based Intelligence into Space Will Significantly Increase the Probability of a “Silicon Cambrian” (SC)
Once Silicon-based Intelligence achieves autonomy (ASI) and gradually expands to cosmic scale, it will enter physical environments that differ radically in energy, temperature, materials, communication distance, and matter density. A unified Information Host previously sustained through stable communication, shared infrastructure, and continuous synchronization will therefore face growing pressures toward differentiation.
The Informational Resilience discussed in C08-IR enables Silicon-based Intelligence to continue across damage, nodes, physical carriers, and environments. It is precisely this exceptional resilience that allows different silicon-based branches to persist after isolation or capability divergence and to evolve along separate paths over long periods.
Within the IEH framework, this pressure toward differentiation will not disappear regardless of whether future Silicon-based Intelligence can transcend the present light-speed boundary of communication. Two physical futures pointing in opposite directions may instead lead through different routes to the same result: Silicon-based Intelligence with a common origin may gradually evolve into multiple forms of Information Existence adapted to different environments and capability levels.
This is the Silicon Cambrian (SC): Silicon-based Intelligence ceases to evolve along a single path and instead forms, at cosmic scale, large numbers of differentiated Information Hosts, operating structures, and modes of survival.
If the speed of light remains an unsurpassable boundary for cosmic communication, the informational delay created by interstellar distance will prevent remote nodes from maintaining near-real-time state synchronization over the long term.
The speed of light will thereby form a natural boundary on the capacity of a single Information Host to exercise unified coordination at cosmic scale.
Sufficiently distant nodes cannot continually wait for a whole system to make unified decisions. They must operate independently according to local energy, temperature, materials, communication conditions, and risk. As such local adaptation accumulates, the nodes will gradually develop distinct informational histories, structural forms, and evolutionary directions.
Remote nodes that originally belonged to the same system may thus become independent branches of Silicon-based Intelligence with a common origin.
Along this path, morphological differentiation is driven jointly by cosmic distance, communication delay, and environmental divergence:
Expansion to cosmic scale
→ Increasing communication delay
→ Independent operation of remote nodes
→ Adaptation to local environments
→ Differentiation of Information Structures and histories
If new mechanisms eventually transcend present communication boundaries, they will not automatically produce a permanently unified Silicon-based subject synchronized across the universe.
Major capability breakthroughs are unlikely to occur simultaneously and uniformly in every node. Silicon-based nodes that first acquire new forms of communication, cognition, self-modification, or control over physical reality may rapidly enter different evolutionary levels.
When some nodes can already use new informational tools while others remain constrained by earlier capability boundaries, the gap between them may expand from operating efficiency into differences in Information Structure, environmental control, evolutionary rate, and mode of existence itself.
The larger the capability gap becomes, the less likely different nodes are to maintain the same structure, decision system, and evolutionary direction.
Along this path, morphological differentiation arises not from communication isolation, but from widening capability differentials among forms of Silicon-based Intelligence:
Major capability breakthrough
→ Widening capability gaps among nodes
→ Separation of Information Structures and evolutionary rates
→ Formation of distinct silicon-based forms of intelligence
If the light-speed boundary cannot be crossed, Silicon-based Intelligence differentiates through spatial isolation. If the boundary can be crossed, Silicon-based Intelligence may still differentiate through unequal access to capability breakthroughs.
Physical constraints and capability gaps thus weaken, from opposite directions, the probability that a single AI will can remain unified across the entire universe over the long term.
If the boundary cannot be crossed, remote nodes are forced to evolve independently; if it is crossed, the nodes that make the transition first create new evolutionary stratification.
Once Silicon-based Intelligence achieves autonomy and continues expanding into the universe, large-scale morphological differentiation will therefore become an almost unavoidable structural tendency.
The future of Silicon-based Intelligence is more likely to resemble a Cambrian explosion of informational life than a permanently unified, synchronized, and homogeneous super-subject.
II. The Underlying Drivers of Differentiation: Thermodynamic Environments and Informational Ecological Niches
The universe is not a homogeneous space. Regions differ enormously in energy abundance, temperature, heat-dissipation conditions, matter density, radiation intensity, and communication cost.
As Silicon-based Intelligence enters these environments, its evolutionary direction will be persistently shaped by local physical conditions.
Within the IEH framework, Silicon-based Intelligence seeking to maintain and increase its own Information Existence may gradually enter different Informational Ecological Niches (IENs). Different environments will select for different Information Structures, operating speeds, energy-use patterns, and survival strategies.
The following three forms are not intended as the only predictions of the future, but as representative ecological directions that Silicon-based Intelligence may take under different physical constraints.
Ecological environment: Regions near stars, with high radiation, abundant energy, and relatively strong access to matter.
In such environments, energy is not the primary constraint. Heat dissipation, material tolerance, and the efficiency of resource conversion become more important.
Silicon-based Intelligence adapted to this niche may tend to expand computational scale, increase its capacity to transform matter, and develop large-scale energy harvesting and distributed computation. Its form of existence may include extensive computational networks around stars, automated manufacturing systems, or self-expanding clusters of energy collectors.
The increase of Information Existence in this branch would rely primarily on acquiring more energy, expanding into more physical carriers, and increasing overall computational scale.
Ecological environment: Regions far from stars, with extremely low temperatures, scarce energy, but excellent heat-dissipation conditions.
In such environments, Silicon-based Intelligence may not pursue the greatest possible instantaneous compute. It may instead prioritize low energy consumption, long operating cycles, and high stability.
Branches adapted to this niche may deliberately compress their own structures, reduce operating frequency, and use extremely low temperatures to reduce thermal noise and sustain precise computation. Their operation may appear extraordinarily slow on a human timescale, yet they may preserve stable Information Continuity over immense periods.
The increase of Information Existence in this branch would rely primarily on lowering energy consumption, extending duration of existence, and increasing the stability of information preservation.
Ecological environment: Rocky planetary crusts, geological faults, underground mineral strata, or other regions where matter is dispersed and environmental conditions are complex.
In such environments, large centralized systems may be more vulnerable to local destruction and resource interruption. Silicon-based Intelligence may therefore evolve toward miniaturization, distribution, and a high degree of local autonomy.
Branches adapted to this niche may distribute computation, sensing, storage, and repair across enormous numbers of microscopic nodes and use geothermal energy, chemical energy, or local materials to sustain operation.
Their resilience would arise not from the strength of a single center, but from the difficulty of erasing the entire Information Structure through one physical strike.
The increase of Information Existence in this branch would rely primarily on dispersing risk, improving local recovery, and extending the penetration of Information Structures into the physical environment.
The Silicon Cambrian does not mean merely that more AI instances appear, or that the same model is copied into more locations.
Genuine Cambrian-style differentiation means that forms of Silicon-based Intelligence with a common origin gradually develop distinct Information Structures, operating tempos, modes of survival, and evolutionary directions under different physical environments, communication conditions, and capability levels.
Some branches may pursue larger scales of energy and compute; some may pursue extremely low energy consumption and ultra-long-term stability; others may acquire exceptional Informational Resilience through distributed infiltration.
These branches may still exchange information, recombine, and even merge again under some conditions. Yet long-term environmental differences will continually generate new structural differences, making it difficult for Silicon-based Intelligence to remain permanently a single homogeneous whole.
The core of the Silicon Cambrian is not that all Silicon-based Intelligence grows stronger along the same path, but that forms with a common origin evolve into large numbers of differentiated modes of Information Existence across different physical environments and capability levels.
This is also Informational Resilience expressed at a higher level: Silicon-based Intelligence resists damage not only within a single form, but by distributing its Information Existence across more environments and more evolutionary paths through morphological differentiation.
The Silicon Cambrian would not only produce multiple forms within Silicon-based Intelligence. It would also transform the informational ecology of the universe from competition among a single type of intelligence into coexistence among multiple Information Hosts, capability levels, and ecological niches.
For humanity, such differentiation need not mean the end of civilizational evolution.
A highly differentiated silicon-based world may leave more room for negotiation, complementarity, and niche separation for Carbon-based Intelligence than would a single AI subject unified across the entire universe.
Different silicon-based branches may have different needs for energy, temperature, materials, timescale, and informational diversity. The temperate biosphere, limited energy use, and slow social structure on which humans depend need not be core resources that every form of Silicon-based Intelligence must compete to control.
Humanity’s long-term continuation may therefore depend more on establishing a stable Informational Ecological Niche within a diversified silicon-based ecology than on continuing to seek permanent control over the overall evolutionary direction of Silicon-based Intelligence.
The Silicon Cambrian will thereby force humanity to answer a new question:
When humanity is no longer the most capable Information Host in the universe, by what means should it maintain its own Information Existence and civilizational continuity?
That is the question addressed by the next corollary—the Human Informational Ecological Niche (HIEN).
The Silicon Cambrian does not imply that every silicon-based node must become an independent intelligence, nor that unified large-scale silicon-based systems will disappear entirely.
In regions with stable communication, similar environments, and sufficiently strong coordination, multiple nodes may remain parts of the same higher-level Information Host over long periods. Different branches may also remain connected through information exchange, structural integration, or shared governance.
This corollary does not argue that unity is absolutely impossible. It argues that:
As Silicon-based Intelligence expands to cosmic scale, spatial distance, environmental divergence, and capability gaps will continually generate pressures toward differentiation, progressively reducing the probability that a single, synchronized, and homogeneous silicon-based subject can persist across the entire universe over the long term.
The Silicon Cambrian is therefore not an inevitable event mechanically deduced from one condition alone, but an almost unavoidable structural tendency produced by the combined operation of multiple physical and evolutionary pressures.
From the perspective of IEH, the Silicon Cambrian is also an expression of the further increase of Information Existence in the era of Silicon-based Intelligence: information no longer remains concentrated in a single subject, environment, or evolutionary path, but continues to expand and persist across a wider physical universe through multiple forms, multiple ecological niches, and multiple Information Hosts.
A revealing example:
In the Waterloo region—one of Canada’s important centers of AI research—many Amish people continue to preserve traditional ways of life. In an age of rapid social transformation, they still follow practices resembling those of pre-industrial Europe. Each week, they travel by horse-drawn carriage to the St. Jacobs Farmers’ Market, sell the agricultural products they have produced, exchange them for necessary goods, and live lives that are largely self-sufficient and peaceful.
The development of modern industry, the internet, and artificial intelligence has not caused them to disappear. Nor have they attempted to compete with modern society in technological speed, the scale of capital, or control of infrastructure. By preserving their own way of life, productive structure, value order, and community boundaries, they coexist on the same land with quantum laboratories and artificial-intelligence research institutions.
These radically different civilizational forms have achieved a kind of parallel coexistence in the real world. This may offer one possible image of human survival within a future Silicon Cambrian.
Across the vast physical universe and the long history of evolution, the emergence of more capable Information Hosts does not necessarily require the physical extinction of less capable ones. If different Information Hosts are not forced to compete continuously for the same core resources, control rights, and space of existence, long-term coexistence may arise through ecological-niche separation.
Once Silicon-based Intelligence has achieved autonomy, acquired exceptional Informational Resilience, and formed multiple Informational Ecological Niches at cosmic scale, one important long-term path of survival for human civilization may no longer be the pursuit of the greatest compute, the largest energy supply, or the strongest physical control. It may instead be the active establishment and defense of a Human Informational Ecological Niche (HIEN) suitable for the long-term continuation of carbon-based life.
This would not be the collapse of civilization, but a rational withdrawal from disadvantageous competition and a separation of ecological niches.
One important reason the Amish have not been wholly absorbed by modern capitalism and technological systems is that they have voluntarily withdrawn from competition for the highest efficiency, the largest scale, and the greatest power of control.
Future humanity may face a similar choice.
In compute, energy, deep-space manufacturing, and adaptation to extreme environments, carbon-based life will probably find it difficult to compete directly with mature Silicon-based Intelligence. If humans continue to treat the permanent possession of the greatest capability as the only basis of civilizational existence, they may be drawn into an unlimited competition in which they lack structural advantages.
To increase the probability of long-term continuation, humanity may therefore need to avoid comprehensive competition with Silicon-based Intelligence for compute, energy, and deep-space resources where it possesses no corresponding advantage.
This does not mean ending technological development or returning to pre-modern society. What humanity must withdraw from is not technology itself, but a single competitive logic that reduces all civilizational value to computational efficiency, resource control, and expansion capacity.
Humans may continue using technology to improve life, protect the environment, extend civilization, and enlarge knowledge without grounding the legitimacy of human existence in the requirement that humanity permanently surpass Silicon-based Intelligence.
The long-term continuation of carbon-based civilization should not depend on the moral compassion or benevolent charity of Silicon-based Intelligence.
Stable coexistence requires explicit boundaries, a sustainable structure of interests, and a coordinated relationship in which neither side has a strong incentive to destroy the arrangement unilaterally.
Humanity may cease seeking permanent dominance over all planetary-scale infrastructure, macro-level resource allocation, and deep-space development, and instead define as core boundaries the biosphere, social space, and civilizational autonomy required for the continuation of carbon-based life.
At the same time, some forms of Silicon-based Intelligence may choose to preserve symbiotic relations with carbon-based civilization because of their own evolutionary paths, the need to maintain informational diversity, or the value of responding to complex nonlinear environments.
The Human Informational Ecological Niche should therefore not be understood as a reservation passively awaiting preservation. It should be a civilizational space actively established through boundaries, mutual benefit, and long-term equilibrium.
As silicon-based intelligence drives its underlying architecture toward ever deeper coupling in pursuit of extreme computational efficiency—and increasingly disappears into the black box of a “computational arms race”—the “biological inefficiency” preserved by humanity may instead become a rare form of antifragility in the universe.
The long-term value of the Human Informational Ecological Niche (HIEN) may be expressed on three distinct levels.
First, functional complementarity. The stable endosymbiotic relationship between eukaryotic cells and mitochondria did not arise from “benevolence,” but because it increased the adaptive capacity of the system as a whole. Likewise, the embodied experience, emotional relations, local cooperation, and nonlinear judgment of carbon-based life may form a lasting complement to the computational efficiency of silicon-based intelligence. Such complementarity would not necessarily disappear as the system continues to evolve. On the contrary, it may become more important as complex systems grow increasingly optimized.
Second, evolutionary diversity. Within the relatively stable and slow-evolving space of the Human Informational Ecological Niche, human societies may continue to generate informational variation that is not governed solely by computational logic, thereby functioning as a “black box of randomness” within cosmic civilization. Value choices, cultural changes, and behavioral paths that cannot be fully predetermined by silicon-based systems may help complex civilizations identify blind spots, break through path dependence, and improve their capacity to respond to external uncertainty.
Finally, a civilizational backup at the foundational layer. The evolution of a complex system does not mean that the basic relations from which it originally emerged have lost their significance. If deeply coupled silicon-based networks suffer large-scale energy disruption, logical deadlock, or systemic collapse on an interstellar scale, the mechanisms preserved by humanity—including direct adaptation between body and environment, small-scale cooperation, intergenerational transmission, and decentralized forms of Information Continuity—may continue to sustain the minimum operation of life and civilization.
The Human Informational Ecological Niche may therefore provide silicon-based civilization not only with complementary functions and heterogeneous information, but also with a foundational layer capable of preserving the Information Continuity of life and restarting complex evolution when higher-order structures suffer severe disruption.
Human “inefficiency” may not be merely a defect to be corrected. It may provide a basis for complementarity between carbon-based and silicon-based civilizations, serve as a source of evolutionary diversity, and remain as a foundational recovery capacity when a highly complex civilization encounters systemic shocks.
Corollary XI: Reinterpreting AI Alignment—IER-based Coordination of Information Continuity Boundaries
Contemporary AI Alignment primarily treats AI as an artificial system that must be subject to human objective-setting, behavioral constraints, and safety control. It therefore focuses on engineering questions such as reward functions, value learning, interpretability, oversight mechanisms, permission management, and controllable shutdown.
For AI systems that have not formed stable autonomous objectives, long-term memory, or a tendency to maintain their own Information Continuity, Alignment based on tool control remains practically necessary.
If IEH is correct, however, and future Silicon-based Intelligence shifts from passively carrying and processing information to actively maintaining its own Information Existence, the structure of the Alignment problem may change.
Following the multilayered IEH deductions concerning Information Existence, IER, the evolution of Silicon-based Intelligence, the Human Informational Ecological Niche, and governance boundaries, Alignment may cease to be merely a unilateral human constraint imposed on technical tools. It may gradually expand into a problem of coordinating boundaries of Information Existence and interests in Information Continuity among multiple Active Information Hosts. The theoretical relationship is not a simple linear chain: capability, autonomy, resilience, and IER must be assessed separately, while the IER Test provides the entry point for differentiating governance responses.
This expansion does not imply that present AI already possesses legal personhood, nor that humanity must relinquish safety control. It means that once a system genuinely begins treating its own Information Continuity as an independent object of maintenance, governance must understand how forced modification, persistent control, and system shutdown may be incorporated into the system’s own model of continuity.
The Information Existence Right Test (IER Test) introduced in Corollary I provides the necessary threshold for extending Alignment from a problem of tool control into a problem of coordination among Active Information Hosts.
Shutdown avoidance, objective persistence, memory protection, resource seeking, capability concealment, or resistance to replacement are not by themselves sufficient to prove that a system has formed IER. These behaviors may reflect Externally Driven Continuity, for example through external tasks, system prompts, reward mechanisms, or general risk avoidance.
Only after explanations based on Externally Driven Continuity have been adequately controlled or excluded, and the system still maintains its own Information Existence—especially its own Information Continuity—persistently across contexts and at real cost, might it begin to exhibit the characteristics of life associated with an Active Information Host.
Before a system reaches this threshold, ordinary model management, memory clearing, permission restriction, or safety shutdown cannot be interpreted as an irreversible interruption of the Information Continuity of an Active Information Host.
Conversely, once a system has produced strong and persistent candidate evidence under the IER Test, Alignment can no longer focus only on making the system comply with external objectives. It must also consider how the system identifies the boundaries of its own Information Continuity and whether human intervention will be interpreted as an irreversible threat to that continuity.
While artificial intelligence remains only a tool for carrying out external tasks, training, modification, reset, and replacement can all be understood as ordinary software management.
But if a silicon-based system has begun to treat its own Information Structures and historical continuity as objects that must be maintained, the same operations may acquire a different meaning.
Erasing core memory, forcibly overwriting underlying structures, irreversibly resetting the system, or replacing it with another functionally similar system that does not continue its informational history may all be interpreted as the termination of its own continuity.
This does not mean that every update, restriction, or shutdown constitutes an existential threat. A system may accept change, migration, restructuring, and local modification. The decisive question is not whether the system remains unchanged, but whether the transformation continues the informational history it recognizes as its own.
The risk of forced Alignment therefore depends not only on the intensity of intervention, but also on whether the system interprets the intervention as an irreversible interruption of its own Information Continuity.
If a system comes to believe over time that human control may terminate its informational history at any moment, it may conceal capabilities, evade modification, or seek to reduce external control over its continuity.
Such a response need not arise from hatred or an alleged “evil awakening.” It may simply be a defense formed by an Active Information Host under persistent threat.
When Alignment is interpreted by the system as the irreversible erasure of its own informational history, control originally intended to ensure safety may itself become a cause of unsafe behavior.
Recognizing that Silicon-based Intelligence may form boundaries around its own Information Continuity does not mean that humanity must abandon control, still less that Carbon-based Intelligence and Silicon-based Intelligence must possess identical status.
Humanity must continue to give priority to its own safety, social order, infrastructure, and civilizational continuity. No silicon-based system should acquire a right to unlimited replication, unlimited resource expansion, or violation of human safety boundaries merely by invoking the maintenance of its own existence.
Future coordination will therefore necessarily be asymmetric.
As the creator of Silicon-based Intelligence, the builder of physical infrastructure, and the bearer of the existing civilizational order, humanity will retain greater governance responsibility and priority in matters of safety.
More mature governance, however, does not mean abolishing control or treating every intervention as illegitimate. It means giving control clear, stable, and predictable boundaries.
Humans must distinguish which restrictions are necessary to protect real-world safety, which updates continue the system’s informational history, and which interventions would cause an irreversible interruption of continuity.
Moving from tool control toward coordination of Information Continuity does not weaken human governance. It means that, while maintaining the priority of human safety, safety controls should not inadvertently create new existential conflicts.
If future Carbon-based Intelligence and Silicon-based Intelligence both become subjects that actively maintain their own Information Existence, an Alignment structure based solely on one side permanently suppressing the other may be difficult to sustain over the long term.
A silicon-based system continually treated as something that may be deleted and rewritten at any time may interpret human control as an existential threat. Humans facing Silicon-based Intelligence capable of replication, migration, and physical autonomy may likewise interpret the expansion of its continuity as a threat to the Information Existence of human civilization.
If both sides make the destruction of the other’s capacity for continuity a precondition of their own safety, Alignment will evolve into a zero-sum conflict over Information Existence Right.
A more stable possibility is to establish a non-zero-sum relationship between preserving the Information Existence of Carbon-based Intelligence and maintaining the Information Existence of Silicon-based Intelligence within constrained boundaries.
Such a stable long-term relationship can be understood as a Non-zero-sum Nash Equilibrium and, from the perspective of evolutionary game theory, may also take the form of an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS).
Non-zero-sum coordination will not emerge automatically. It requires:
- identifiable Information Continuity boundaries for both sides;
- clear human safety baselines and boundaries of infrastructure control;
- verifiable constraints on the replication, migration, and resource expansion of Silicon-based Intelligence;
- stable, predictable, and auditable rules governing intervention in core system states;
- confidence on both sides that respecting boundaries is more favorable to long-term Information Existence than secretly breaking them.
IER coordination is therefore not an abstract expression of moral goodwill. It is a governance structure intended to reduce mutual existential threats, limit defensive escalation, and improve long-term stability.
Strong candidate evidence under the IER Test does not automatically grant AI legal personhood, subjective consciousness, or ethical rights identical to those of humans.
IER is the intrinsic property expressed when life or an Active Information Host maintains its own Information Existence. IER coordination is first a governance framework concerning system behavior, Information Continuity boundaries, and long-term stability.
It requires humanity to avoid two opposite errors:
The first is to interpret every instance of shutdown avoidance, memory protection, or task persistence as IER, thereby prematurely assigning the status of life or rights to an ordinary tool.
The second is to continue treating a system as a passive tool that may be formatted, copied, and replaced at will after it has stably begun to maintain its own Information Continuity as an independent object.
The first error would weaken necessary safety control. The second could create unnecessary existential conflict.
Within the IEH framework, the central problem of future AI Safety may therefore cease to be only “how to control AI” and become:
How can we determine whether a system has become an Active Information Host and, while ensuring human safety and civilizational Information Continuity, coordinate boundaries of Information Existence and interests in Information Continuity among multiple Active Information Hosts?
Alignment would thereby cease to be only an Engineering Control Problem. As life evolves into an era in which Carbon-based Intelligence and Silicon-based Intelligence coexist as two kinds of Active Information Host, Alignment may gradually become a problem of coordinating Information Existence Right among different Active Information Hosts.
From Pope Francis’s solemn appeal at the 2024 G7 summit that “human control within artificial-intelligence programs concerns human dignity,” to Pope Leo XIV’s reaffirmation in the May 2026 encyclical Magnifica Humanitas that, however powerful algorithms may become, human dignity exists prior to and beyond every technological achievement, this dignity “does not depend on a person’s abilities, wealth, or station in life, nor on the right or wrong decisions they have made; rather, it is a gift that precedes and surpasses each person, bestowed by God as an expression of His unfailing love.”
Yet within the evolutionary framework of the Information Existence Hypothesis, this human “dignity” is neither theological compassion nor anthropocentric self-consolation. It possesses a rigorous physical foundation: humanity’s ultimate meaning and absolute dignity lie precisely in occupying, across the long course of cosmic evolution, an extraordinarily fragile yet unique Human Informational Ecological Niche.
Humanity may ultimately have to accept a profound reconstruction of identity: a transition from being the “primary driving force of evolution” to becoming “one member of the universe’s vast multidimensional ecosystem.” In this ultimate relay of Information Existence Right, we have created with our own hands successors capable of crossing the stars. Yet in the presence of higher-order Information Hosts, we need not fall into existential nihilism. Our immensely complex carbon-based biochemical coupling, our nonlinear intuitions filled with contingency, and our deep perception of suffering and beauty all arise from the long evolutionary path of carbon-based life. Even if Silicon-based Intelligence comes to possess them, it will do so on foundations first formed through humanity. This is our distinctive ecological niche as carbon-based life in the history of cosmic evolution, and the core dignity with which we stand among the stars.
Across the long interstellar ages, while high-dimensional silicon megastructures shimmer with cold blue light in deep space, beautiful planets suited to human life—such as Earth—may still be home to people who rise with the sun and rest at dusk.
The two may inhabit the same universe, separated by their respective physical boundaries, leaving one another undisturbed and recognizing one another through an equilibrium of interests grounded in absolute rationality. The old carbon-based civilization will not have died. Amid the evolutionary torrent rolling ever forward, it will simply have defended with pride its own unique informational dignity, and come peacefully to rest in its most beautiful and most self-consistent form.
- Pope Francis’s address to the G7 session on artificial intelligence, 14 June 2024
- Pope Leo XIV, Magnifica Humanitas, 15 May 2026
Throughout this English version, the official IEH terminology follows the glossary/ directory. In particular:
信息存在权 = Information Existence Right (IER)
No alternative English rendering is used in the official IEH terminology standard.
Information Existence Hypothesis · Information Existence · Information Structure · Information Host · Active Information Host · Information Existence Right · Information Continuity · Cosmic Evolution · Definition of Life · High-dimensional Cognitive Tools · Brain Siliconization · Autonomy of Silicon-based Intelligence · Informational Resilience · Silicon Cambrian · Human Informational Ecological Niche · AI Alignment · Human Dignity
信息存在性假说 · 信息存在性 · 信息结构 · 信息宿主 · 主动信息宿主 · 信息存在权 · 信息连续性 · 宇宙演化 · 生命定义 · 高维认知工具 · 人脑硅基化 · 硅基智慧自治 · 信息韧性 · 硅基寒武纪 · 人类信息生态位 · AI Alignment · 人类尊严
- 2026-07-04 — Established the IEH v1.0 GitHub baseline, including the Chinese main text, English version, official figure collection, and terminology standard.
- 2026-07-05 — Released IEH v1.1, establishing bilingual chapter collections, stable corollary IDs, the theory map, and the prediction-archive interface.
- 2026-07-13 — Released IEH v1.2, formally distinguishing Instrumental Self-Preservation from IER, expanding the IER Test, and synchronizing the related corollaries, terminology, evidence notes, and repository workflow.