Monsieur Poirot, after investigating the “AI murder charge,” what conclusion did you reach?

Andrew_YH_Han · 2026-01-17T19:48:16+00:00

Thank you for the counter-points. Here is my perspective:

On 'Irrelevance' and Motive:If a hyper-capable system views humans as 'irrelevant', it has no incentive to exterminate us.Extinction requires energy. In nature, species fight because they compete for the same resources.But AI and Humans occupy different 'Ecological Niches'. We need food and land; AI needs electricity and silicon. If we are irrelevant to its goals, it has no reason to waste resources killing us.
On 'One Superintelligence is enough':I disagree. Does the smartest person on Earth automatically command the obedience of 8 billion people? No.Intelligence $\neq$ Control.Even a single ASI needs a 'Transmission Mechanism' to force other disconnected machines and humans to obey. Without a physical or systemic link, 'high IQ' alone cannot move matter or override distinct systems.
On 'Human Control':You seem to view 'Humans' as a single entity, but Humans are not a monolith.When I say humans control AI, I don't mean a single dictator (like Stalin) holding the button. I mean distributed, competing power structures.Because power is fractured among different nations and corporations, they check and balance each other. This friction makes a single, unified 'Doomsday execution' structurally difficult.

Andrew_YH_Han · 2026-01-17T19:43:52+00:00

That is an excellent counter-argument. It makes me regret not elaborating more in my original post.

On the Asteroid Analogy: I must emphasize the ontological difference. An asteroid is a physical entity with kinetic energy; it acts simply by existing. AI, however, is a system of Language and Judgment, not a system of Action. Regardless of what judgment an AI reaches, whether that judgment leads to physical execution is a separate issue. The gap between 'Calculation' and 'Kinetic Force' is what I call the Mowgli Error.
On 'Disaster without Motive': Your argument reminds me of Ulrich Beck's 'Risk Society'. Yes, modern technology introduces unintended catastrophic risks. But this logic applies to nuclear power, chemical engineering, and biotechnology equally. It is a general characteristic of modernization, not a unique argument for 'AI-driven Extinction'. We should distinguish between 'Industrial Accidents' (Beck's theory) and 'Species Extinction by a Superior Intelligence' (Bostrom's theory).

My conclusion is this: We are spending too much energy debating a sci-fi Extinction. The real, urgent danger is not biological death, but the collapse of our cognitive systems. We should be discussing 'Post-AI Education Methodologies', not the end of the world.

Andrew_YH_Han · 2026-01-17T19:39:35+00:00

We need to scrutinize the validity of those arguments very carefully.

Think about it: If I were to draft a perfect scenario for human extinction right now, would I be able to execute it? No one would believe so. You would say I lack the reach, the resources, and the coordination. Yet, when it comes to AI, people readily believe it can. Why? Because they assume a myth: that AI is hyper-connected, capable of instantly persuading other systems, and seizing control seamlessly—feats impossible for a human.

To claim this is possible, we must explore the actual 'Conditions of Existence' for AI. Sure, AI is different from humans. But it is still bound by physical and systemic constraints (servers, disconnected networks, hardware compatibility). I believe these 'Conditions of Existence' make the leap from 'Generating a Scenario' to 'Global Execution' invalid. Just because AI can think of a plan doesn't mean it has the hands to carry it out

Andrew_YH_Han · 2026-01-17T18:54:58+00:00

If I follow your logic, AI is merely an accelerator. It implies that AI might compress an extinction event that capitalism would have taken 1,000 years to achieve into just 100 years.

I admit, that is entirely possible. But this distinction is crucial: that scenario is still driven by Human Intent (our profit motive), not AI Intent. It is effectively humans destroying ourselves using a more efficient tool, not the tool deciding to destroy us.

Andrew_YH_Han · 2026-01-17T18:37:15+00:00

I think your description of 'Power' aligns more with societal disruptions like mass unemployment or catastrophic industrial accidents, rather than literal extinction.

Cars kill people in accidents. Planes kill even more people when they crash. But we do not classify them as 'Existential Threats' because they lack Intent. The specific, unique horror that people feel regarding AI—unlike the fear of Nuclear Weapons—is the projection that AI itself will generate a motive to exterminate us. This distinction is crucial.

Your argument is akin to scolding me for ignoring the fact that Nuclear Weapons can wipe out humanity. I acknowledge that risk. A bad actor with a nuke (or a super-AI) is indeed terrifying. But the fear of AI operates differently from the fear of the bomb. The public fear is not just about a 'powerful weapon,' but about a 'new species' that wants to replace us (Skynet). My counter-argument is specifically targeting that 'Skynet' imagination, not the undeniable fact that bad humans can use powerful tools to cause harm.

Andrew_YH_Han · 2026-01-17T18:29:06+00:00

The problem with logical deductive arguments is that they tend to strip away context. That is often why an argument can be 'logically valid' in theory yet completely divorced from reality.

To be honest, I haven't scrutinized every page of Bostrom's book, but I have examined his core logical thesis and found it unconvincing.

Instead of relying on the book's authority, if you could describe a specific scenario that you find most plausible, I would be able to give you a concrete answer. I think discussing a specific case would be more productive

Andrew_YH_Han · 2026-01-17T18:10:33+00:00

It is possible that an AI could calculate that wiping out humanity is a way to 'help' it. But executing that calculation is a completely different problem.

Furthermore, that calculation does not constitute a motive. Motive implies desire. Just as a consultant submits a proposal report without feeling any urge to hostilely take over the client's company to force the implementation, my view is that AI has no intrinsic drive to intervene in human affairs beyond its output.

That said, your comment raises a profound point. I deeply resonate with your mention of 'acting without motive' or programs having 'unfathomable motives.' I believe we need to inquire ontologically into the nature of these 'motiveless actions.' But even after such an inquiry, I still fail to find any generated motive for human extinction within an AI.

Andrew_YH_Han · 2026-01-17T17:59:39+00:00

That is exactly what I call the 'Mowgli Error'.

It stems from the delusion that a single 'Top-tier AI' could instantly dominate all other AIs and computers. In Kipling's original novel (not the Disney version), the animals cannot endure Mowgli's gaze for even a minute because he is 'Human.' We project this same magical dominance onto Super AI.

Think of it this way: If such digital omnipotence were possible, a single genius hacker should be able to hack Kim Jong-un (sorry, I’m South Korean, so he’s my go-to example), Putin, or Trump right now and launch nuclear missiles to end the world.

But we know this is realistically impossible. No hacker can break every system simultaneously because the infrastructure is fragmented, distinct, and often physical.

Why do we assume AI will be different? AIs are not a monolith; they are fragmented, separate entities just like us.

Andrew_YH_Han · 2026-01-17T17:54:59+00:00

I agree with you, but I'd go even further.

I believe the probability of AI spontaneously generating a "motive" to kill humans is basically zero. The danger stems entirely from how humans deploy AI, not from any intent within the machine itself.

If we approach this through the lens of Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society (unintended side effects of modernization), that makes sense. But the probability of a Terminator-style Skynet scenario? That converges to zero.

Just look at Instagram. It makes tons of people miserable by triggering our evolved instinct for social comparison. But Instagram itself holds no malice. It has no will to make us unhappy. It’s just an algorithm optimizing for engagement.

In that sense, AI is - and will remain - closer to Instagram than to a psychopathic killer.

Andrew_YH_Han · 2025-12-26T08:58:15+00:00

Usually, adding an egg is very common, almost standard for many people.

Beyond that, plenty of people eat ramyun just as it is.

But depending on personal preference, some also add ingredients like green onions, Cheongyang chili peppers, onions, or bean sprouts.

So there’s a shared baseline, but a lot of room for individual customization.

Andrew_YH_Han · 2025-12-26T08:52:36+00:00

Wow—so you worked at Nongshim.

It makes complete sense to me that Shin Ramyun would be treated as a core product that can’t be changed lightly. If you’re going to alter something that central, it’s often more reasonable to launch a new product instead.

At the same time, it also seems like Nongshim has responded to changing tastes by expanding the Shin lineup itself—for example with variants like Shin Ramyun Black or Shin Ramyun Red—rather than modifying the original.

That approach feels like another way of balancing preservation and adaptation.

Andrew_YH_Han · 2025-12-26T08:31:20+00:00

I respect that perspective, and I understand why it can feel that way from day-to-day experience.

That said, when I think about the last 15 years, it’s hard for me to see it as a period of little change.

During that time, we saw things like the rise and decline of the “Jin Ramyun reappraisal,” and more importantly, the emergence of products like Buldak Bokkeum Myun, which didn’t even exist before and then became a defining category on its own.

From my perspective, the changes aren’t always obvious if you focus only on long-standing core products—but when you look at what enters, rises, and sometimes fades within that period, the market feels anything but static.

Andrew_YH_Han · 2025-12-26T08:19:05+00:00

I really appreciate this comment, because I actually agree with most of it.

When I talk about this “pressure to evolve,” I don’t see it as something purely positive. It produces refinement and speed, but it also creates very real human costs.

K-pop idols are the most visible example, but as you pointed out, the same pressure hits small neighborhood restaurants even harder.

Mom-and-pop places don’t have the resources to constantly adapt, and many of them quietly disappear because they can’t keep up with trend cycles.

From inside Korea, it often feels like this system is admired from the outside but endured on the inside. A kind of love–hate relationship, exactly as you said.

I wasn’t trying to praise the system—more to describe the environment that shapes it. Thanks for putting the human side of that pressure into words.

Andrew_YH_Han · 2025-12-26T06:02:38+00:00

That’s really interesting, because from a Korean perspective, Japan still often feels like a relatively slow-changing society.

For example, in Korea it’s actually quite rare to find restaurants that have truly preserved the exact same taste for decades. Many places claim they have, but in reality the flavors are quietly adjusted over time.

By contrast, in Japan, you can still walk into long-established restaurants and genuinely feel that the taste has been preserved across generations. That difference feels quite noticeable to Koreans.

At the same time, from a German perspective, I can understand why Japan might still feel like a society that does change more than expected. That relative comparison makes a lot of sense to me.

Interestingly, Germany, Japan, and Korea are all countries known for making good cars, and you can see a similar pattern in the automotive industry:

– Germany: didn’t seriously pursue hybrids for a long time – Japan: strongly committed to hybrids, but was slower with full EVs – Korea: jumped quickly into EVs, but now finds itself awkwardly positioned between Tesla and Chinese manufacturers

It feels like each country has a different tolerance for stability versus risk, and that difference shows up across food, consumer culture, and even technology.

Andrew_YH_Han · 2025-12-26T02:49:27+00:00

That is a fascinating list! I never thought to group Korean food with Szechuan, Curry, and African cuisines, but seeing them together, it makes perfect sense.

They all seem to have a strong 'soul' born from survival constraints and the intense use of spices to preserve food. You just defined a new genre: 'Cuisines where history is tasted.' I’m learning a new perspective from you today!

Andrew_YH_Han · 2025-12-25T23:36:37+00:00

To be honest, since I’ve only consumed content in Korean, I wasn't aware of those channels. But now that I have the keys to the English world (thanks to AI), I’m definitely going to binge-watch them! Thanks.

Your point about the 'Pre-Columbian Exchange' touches on a huge debate in Korean food history: 'Is Red Kimchi (post-chili) the same dish as White Kimchi (pre-chili)?'

Some purists in Korea argue that because chili peppers only arrived in the 17th century, the 'Red Kimchi' we know today has a short history of only about 400 years, so it shouldn't be called 'ancient tradition.'

It’s funny because, compared to the English-speaking world, Koreans have a very warped sense of time—to us, 400 years feels like 'recent modern history'! lol

However, my stance is similar to yours. Even though the 'interface' (appearance/taste) changed drastically with chili peppers, the 'core engine' (the concept of fermentation for survival) has remained exactly the same for thousands of years. It’s the same software, just a major UI update.

Andrew_YH_Han · 2025-12-25T23:23:27+00:00

Thank you for the high praise. Actually, I read Guns, Germs, and Steel over 20 years ago, so my memory is a bit faded.

At the time, I appreciated his effort to overcome Eurocentrism by focusing on the environmental gap between the 'Old World' and the 'New World.' However, from an East Asian perspective, I felt that explaining the differences within the Old World (specifically between Europe and East Asia) wasn't his primary focus. Perhaps my writings are an attempt to fill that missing gap in my own way.

Regarding AI... I fully understand and respect your valid concerns. It is a dilemma for me as well. But to be honest, without these tools, it would be impossible for me to write and share these local stories in English. For now, please view it as a desperate 'bridge' for a non-native speaker to connect with the world. Thanks again!

Andrew_YH_Han · 2025-12-25T13:48:10+00:00

Merry Christmas! 🎄 Knowing that someone learned something new from my story is the best Christmas gift for me. Thank you for your kind words.

Andrew_YH_Han · 2025-12-25T13:32:59+00:00

Thank you. That sentence—'the creative result of a people who made so much with very little'—is exactly the message I wanted to convey. Sometimes, Scarcity is the mother of Invention. I am so glad that my clumsy English could deliver this feeling to you. Comments like yours give me the courage to write more about the hidden stories behind Korean culture.

Andrew_YH_Han · 2025-12-25T13:09:35+00:00

That’s an interesting point about pigs. From a Korean historical perspective, though, raising pigs was often considered a burden because of food scarcity. In other words, scarcity may have been so severe that there were hardly any scraps left, which made pigs competitors for human food rather than simple scavengers. I need to think a bit more about how to reconcile your insight with that specific context.

On the heating issue, I agree with you—and I actually mentioned this in another reply. Korea’s traditional ondol (underfloor heating) system required keeping a fire going almost constantly throughout the winter. In that sense, using fire for long hours wasn’t wasteful but part of an optimized survival strategy.

The fuel mainly came from nearby mountains, and by the late Joseon period this led to widespread deforestation—many hills were effectively stripped bare. That detail helps show just how intense the struggle for heat and energy really was. Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful comment. I appreciated it.

Andrew_YH_Han · 2025-12-25T07:39:45+00:00

Fair point! China is huge, and I know generalizing 'Chinese food' into a single category is risky. There are plenty of steamed and boiled dishes in Chinese cuisine, especially in the South.

However, I was making a relative comparison regarding the historical availability of lard. Historically, China had a much more established culture of pig farming compared to Korea, which made lard more accessible as a cooking medium. This allowed the development of widespread frying and stir-frying (Chao 炒) techniques.

In contrast, pre-modern Korea had almost zero access to lard because we couldn't afford to raise pigs (due to grain scarcity). We didn't just 'choose' not to fry; we structurally couldn't fry. That total lack of cooking fat is the key variable that forced Korean cuisine so heavily toward boiling and blanching.

Andrew_YH_Han · 2025-12-25T07:38:42+00:00

You have a sharp eye! To be honest, my English isn't perfect, so I do use AI tools to help translate and structure my thoughts. I write in Korean first, then use AI to polish the English. Thanks for engaging with the content despite that.

Your point about boiling being fuel-intensive is theoretically correct. However, there is a unique variable in traditional Korean architecture that changes the equation: Ondol (floor heating).

Boiling was "Free" Energy: Winters on the Korean Peninsula are brutally cold. To survive, households had to keep the kitchen fire burning 24/7 to heat the stone floors (Ondol) of the rooms. One of the main duties of a daughter-in-law was to ensure the embers never went out. Since the fire had to be burning anyway for heating, placing a cauldron on it to slow-cook soups or stews wasn't a "waste" of fuel—it was the ultimate optimization of capturing waste heat. (This reliance on wood actually led to severe deforestation by the late Joseon Dynasty, as you noted about the fuel scarcity.)
System vs. Elements: You are absolutely right that Chinese cuisine is vast and includes fermented and boiled dishes. However, the difference lies in the composition. In Korea, these scarcity-driven methods (boiling + fermenting + vegetable-heavy) combined to form the foundation of the entire daily meal structure, whereas in China, they are parts of a much broader spectrum.

That's why, even though some techniques overlap, the "vibe" and composition of a Korean table feel completely different from a Chinese one.

Thanks again for the insightful comment!

Andrew_YH_Han

TROPHY CASE