Humans have created artificial intelligence (AI), not the other way around. This statement is deceptively obvious. In this note, we decided to challenge this statement as a small, lighthearted Gedankenexperiment. We ask a simple question: in a world driven by evolution by natural selection, would neural networks or humans be likely to evolve first? We compare the Solomonoff--Kolmogorov--Chaitin complexity of the two and find neural networks (even LLMs) to be significantly simpler than humans. Further, we claim that it is unnecessary for any complex human-made equipment to exist for there to be neural networks. Neural networks may have evolved as naturally occurring objects before humans did as a form of chemical reaction-based or enzyme-based computation. Now that we know that neural networks can pass the Turing test and suspect that they may be capable of superintelligence, we ask whether the natural evolution of neural networks could lead from pure evolution by natural selection to what we call evolution-bootstrapped simulation. The evolution of neural networks does not involve irreducible complexity; would easily allow irreducible complexity to exist in the evolution-bootstrapped simulation; is a falsifiable scientific hypothesis; and is independent of / orthogonal to the issue of intelligent design.

The beauty of evolution lies in two complementary forces: simplicity and complexity. From a simple rule--survival of the fittest--comes the astonishing array of critters that populate Earth. It doesn't matter if you've got two legs or four legs or no legs at all, there's no one right way to be on this planet. Same goes, as it happens, for robotics. You and I are living on the verge of what you might call the Cambrian Explosion of robotics. Just in the last year, robots have been escaping en masse the factory and the lab to walk and roll and fly among us.

The human species is about to change dramatically. That's the argument Yuval Noah Harari makes in his new book, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. Harari is a history professor at Hebrew University in Israel. He tells NPR's Ari Shapiro that he expects we will soon engineer our bodies and minds in the same way we now design products. The three main ways of doing that, first of all, is to take our organic body and start tinkering with it with things like genetic engineering, speeding up natural selection and actually replacing it with intelligent design -- not the intelligent design of some God above the clouds, but our intelligent design.

Under normal circumstances, this tweet wouldn't be so surprising: Lamar Smith, the chair of the committee since 2013, is a well-known climate-change denier. But these are not normal times. The tweet is best interpreted as something new: a warning shot. It's a sign of things to come--a declaration of the Trump Administration's intent to sideline science. In a 1946 essay, George Orwell wrote that "to see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."

Now, I think it's a projection of alpha male's psychology onto the very concept of intelligence. If we create intelligence, that's intelligent design. I mean our intelligent design creating something, and unless we program it with a goal of subjugating less intelligent beings, there's no reason to think that it will naturally evolve in that direction, particularly if, like with every gadget that we invent we build in safeguards. As we develop smarter and smarter artificially intelligent systems, if there's some danger that it will, through some oversight, shoot off in some direction that starts to work against our interest then that's a safeguard that we can build in.