Artificial Intelligence and Understanding the Universe
Last week, Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI introduced its new chatbot, Grok-3. The model attracted considerable attention for its performance, but what stood out during its launch panel was the slogan displayed behind the team: “Our mission is to understand the universe.” This phrase reflects a vision Musk has frequently articulated since the company’s founding. But what does it mean to understand the universe? Is this the ultimate goal of artificial intelligence?
Beyond the mechanical workings of the universe, the question of meaning has long occupied philosophers, scientists, and theologians. Questions such as Does life have a purpose? If so, where does this meaning come from? How did the universe come into being? What is our purpose within the cosmos? have long been central to human thought.
Musk, either referencing this historical context or perhaps unaware of it, emphasized the idea of understanding the universe during Grok-3’s launch, stating:
“The mission of xAI and Grok is to understand the universe. We want to answer the biggest questions: Where are the aliens? What is the meaning of life? How does the universe end? To do this, we must rigorously pursue truth.”
Musk’s approach—that the ultimate reality of the universe can be discovered through the scientific method—differs significantly from classical philosophical and theological traditions. While philosophy and theology typically address questions of meaning through metaphysical, ethical, and ontological arguments, Musk frames his questions entirely within the scope of scientific discovery.
Musk reduces the search for meaning to a form of scientific exploration, yet he does so by posing deeply metaphysical questions. To transform a foundational philosophical question like What is the meaning of life? into a mere scientific inquiry is to miss the point. A scientific search for meaning remains confined to observable phenomena. Yet meaning may not be solely a product of the physical world.
Indeed, claiming that an artificial intelligence model can undertake the search for meaning is itself a bold assertion. Using AI to conduct original scientific research, solve unsolved mathematical problems, or generate new knowledge about physical phenomena does not seem an unreachable goal. But does all of this amount to understanding the universe? Can the aspects of humanity that transcend machines ever be captured by machines?
Artificial intelligence can make extraordinary discoveries by analyzing data sets too vast for the human mind to process, yet interpreting and evaluating these discoveries still appears to be the domain of human judgment. Understanding the nature of the universe is not limited to solving physical laws or producing mathematical formulas. Human experience, consciousness, morality, and the search for meaning may not be concepts reducible to computational power alone. Therefore, we must ask: in the context of artificial intelligence, what lies beyond computation that bestows meaning upon us?
Setting Aside AI Safety to Discuss Opportunities
Recently, a summit on artificial intelligence, hosted by France and India in Paris, brought together many high-profile speakers. The most striking address was delivered by U.S. Vice President JD Vance. His central message was that the focus on AI should now shift from risks and security concerns to its opportunities:
“I am not here to talk about AI safety, as was the theme of conferences just a few years ago. I am here to talk about the opportunities of artificial intelligence.”
This shift in the focus of AI discourse highlights a clear transformation in perspective. Rather than being viewed as a shared concern for humanity’s collective future, artificial intelligence has increasingly become a key front in interstate competition.
Under the shared concern framework, AI is treated as a technology that must be developed for the benefit of all humanity and whose potential risks must be mitigated. In contrast, the competitive approach prioritizes accelerating innovation and securing technological superiority. Thus, the first perspective emphasizes ethical oversight and regulation to ensure safe development, as seen in previous summits that stressed “safety.”
The second perspective, however, views AI as an economic, military, and political force multiplier. Within this competitive framework, ethical concerns and safety regulations are seen as obstacles slowing progress. Instead of regulation, the priority becomes rapid advancement and the establishment of dominance.
In recent times, the rhetoric and policies of major states have demonstrated that AI is increasingly perceived as a tool of competition. Consequently, developments that might otherwise provoke dystopian alarm are presented in Vance’s speech with optimism and enthusiasm.
Vance also emphasized the need to increase AI literacy and ensure that regulations enhance AI’s capabilities rather than restrict them. The fundamental assumption underlying regulated human-AI interaction is that humans must remain at the center of AI’s instrumental use. This implies a rather naive belief that a technical process evolving through democratic user adoption can be effectively governed—namely, the unwavering hope that humans will supply the content necessary for machines to think, while machines merely execute mechanical processes.
Vance’s speech suggests that we should use artificial intelligence to compensate for our own shortcomings. But the more intriguing question is: what kind of future does he envision for us alongside machines? According to Vance and a large majority, it is possible to accept AI as a companion to our actions—for example, as an assistant to ourselves. Yet it remains unclear which tasks machines will accompany us in. Will they be personal assistants, surgeons performing operations, or providers of automation for daily tasks? It seems that AI can currently perform many tasks we can imagine. But which tasks will we allow it to perform? In which areas do we want it to assist us? What actions and intentions do we wish to improve, so that we can teach machines to carry them out?
Humanoid Robots: The Next Stage?
Regardless of debates over OpenAI falling behind in competition, when people think of artificial intelligence, it is not an exaggeration to say that ChatGPT immediately comes to mind. ChatGPT’s launch in 2022 made AI a part of millions of daily lives, and thus, in the public perception, AI has become largely synonymous with text-based and conversational interfaces. People ask these systems questions, seek information, or generate specific outputs.
Yet this is only one face of artificial intelligence. Moreover, the dominant image of AI in popular culture for decades has not been this one. From Terminator to Westworld and Ex Machina, science fiction has typically portrayed AI as a physical entity—often humanoid and autonomous machines. Today, significant developments in this area are becoming evident, and AI is beginning to move beyond screens to take tangible form in the physical world.
Recent developments support this trend. Figure AI, a physical AI developer partnering with OpenAI, has increased its valuation fifteenfold in the past month and continues to grow. NVIDIA, a major hardware producer in the AI sector, is also showing focused interest in this domain. The company’s Isaac platform provides access to resources that accelerate the development of autonomous mobile robots, robotic arms, manipulators, and humanoid AI robots. Meanwhile, major brands like BMW and Mercedes are continuing to enhance the capabilities of robots on their production lines through substantial investment.
This represents a dynamic that could profoundly disrupt the labor market. Humanoid robots appear capable of meticulously performing many tasks humans can do. Although automation systems are still under human control, it is clear that in the near future, thousands of people will lose their jobs or be forced to redefine them. What then becomes of the fate of a large population rendered functionally obsolete? When the human, whose labor has historically shaped production and defined civilization, is removed from production, where does humanity stand in history?
On the other hand, philosophical questions about AI are also likely to intensify. As our reality becomes increasingly simulated in digital environments, the possibility arises that cognitive abilities we possess could be imitated by humanoid robots. But does imitation imply possession of essence? For a robot to think like a human, is it enough for it to behave like us, or must it achieve conscious experience through genuine perception? And when we speak of humanoid robots, when will questions about robotic humans enter public discourse?