” Carroll did not know that some people had thought very carefully and thoroughly. After decades of debate, the answer is now very clear that it is impossible to find the best of both worlds. There are only two options for human beings, either limiting the development of artificial intelligence or preparing to bear all the consequences.

Only Jaan Priisalu's response was correct. He said: “Here is what we shouldn't do: Declare AI enhancement illegal. If we do this, the person who breaks the rules will have an enormous advantage.” That is, he opposed Haw- king's view of controlling AI. If we stop developing AI, it would be tantamount to self-destruction of the Great Wall. Some countries or terrorist organizations will do their utmost to research and then use these technologies to do bad things.

So what should we do? Jaan Priisalu said, “The best strategy can only be to actively shape the development of artificial intelligence and teach them to live in harmony with humanity in ways that are beneficial to each other.” But he did not say that he has no confidence in success. Jaan Priisalu also said, “Nor should we prepare to fight a self-aware AI, as that will only teach it to be aggressive, which would be a very unwise move. The best plan seems to be active shaping of growing AI. Teaching it and us to live together in mutually beneficial way.” In fact, active shaping of growing AI is to counteract growing AI, because for those who do not meet standard, if not eliminated, it means the shaping fails. We should work hard to educate robots, but this kind of education cannot guarantee that robots will be filial. Zhang Juzheng, a famous reformer of Ming dynasty in China, had severely disciplined the Emperor Wanli, but after Zhang died, Emperor Wanli ignored the goverment for thirty years. Jaan Priisalu may not realize that giving up fighting with AI means accepting results of shaping failure. If AI is intended to exterminate humanity or slaughter a portion of humanity, people have to give in.