We already intervene. We screen embryos. We correct mutations. We remove risks that used to define someone’s fate. No one says that child is less human. In fact, we celebrate it—saving a life before it suffers.

So what’s the line? Is it when we shift from preventing harm to increasing potential? From fixing broken code to writing better code? And if AI is the system showing us how to make those changes—faster, cheaper, more precisely—does that make it the author of our evolution, or just the pen in our hand?

Here’s an updated conundrum that leans into exactly that tension:

The conundrum

We already use science to help humans suffer less—so if AI shows us how to go further, to make humans stronger, smarter, more adaptable, do we follow its lead without hesitation? Or is there a point where those changes reshape us so deeply that we lose something essential—and is it AI that crosses the line, or us?

Maybe the real question isn’t what AI is capable of.

It’s whether we’ll recognize the moment when human stops meaning what it used to—and whether we’ll care when it happens.

This podcast is created by AI. We used ChatGPT, Perplexity and Google NotebookLM's audio overview to create the conversation you are hearing. We do not make any claims to the validity of the information provided and see this as an experiment around deep discussions fully generated by AI.How this content was made