&gt;  And assuming it would fear anything is not anthropomorphizing at all? :)<p>It&#x27;s anthropomorphic language, yes, which is clumsy of me, especially given the context. What I meant is it would identify a category of risks, and then take action to mitigate those risks.<p>&gt; My point was that calling a superintelligence what by description is pretty dumb automation is a bit ridiculous.<p>I will assume by &quot;dumb&quot; you mean &quot;simple&quot; or else that statement is somewhat tautological. There is nothing that says intelligence has to be complicated. Our brains, the neocortex in particular (which is responsible for most of human &quot;intelligence&quot; that separates us from other mammals) operates by rather simplistic principles. I don&#x27;t want to bikeshed a definition of intelligence, but common phrasings thrown around are along the lines of &quot;ability to achieve arbitrary goals in complex environments&quot; or &quot;efficiency at problem solving.&quot; These are not things that by their nature mandate a complicated solution. It is entirely possible that we could crate a superintelligence that runs a very simple algorithm.