I think that this manner of seeking out answers is in a way deceptive for a number of reasons.
The first of which, is, thatartificiality in establishing breaks between the determined world of natural laws, then it is the way these impress upon consciousness, vis.-that which becomes conscious of their relation to these determinations,leading to a cosmology of centrism, of man’s changing place in the world,and then various simulations , based on models- leading to the demolition of models-.
Finally simulated models, or model simulation in retrospect, by a kind of guess work remodeling of a hypothetically simulated inductive - process of how the conscious representation got to where it did, ultimately be the use of A1, and ultimately A1, with human program representing the union of the beginning and end, motive and goal of man-God.
That the theory of an anthropomorphic God need not detract from an original Creator, sets up the theological question of either/or, seems like a foregone conclusion, if looked at it this bacward looking way of the origins, of the drama , the birth of it: a tragedy.
However, what if ma and god, the ultimate puzzle of the question of either/or is simply nor a duality.
What if, MAN, as an evolved creature has been evolving infinitely, thinking this is only a one time deal, what if ever since, man has attained this highest, and unimaginably higher state of Being, over and over, some destroying themselves for fear , others finding the answer of the psychic cinnections the gestalt of relative/absolute totality, and has always attained this?
What if, this has already been always been attained, by a token of something akin we like to call as traveling through time to a before that is not before, and a future which is never future?
What if, this Man-God, cannot see himself because of a partiality which never let’s go of him?
God as Man, always re-creating himself over and over, getting closer and closer to the Absolute,but never reaching it?
This was Cantor’s trouble with de-differentiating the singular absolute infinity,with the multiple-infinite infinity. The later is so astounding, as to boggle the mind, and frustrating, because they appear in the plane of imminence, this special world,tobe limited downward toward zero, the origin.But in the other there is no zero, evenin this universe,because as soon as you reach zero,the world reverses,niikizes into a mirror image,an anti-matter world, where the numbers sink below 0, and count down into a negative mirror universe.
What is this negative universe but as represented by the most basic myth bearing on psychology:that of Narcissus, and its Metamorphosis.
The machines and their so called artificial consciousness are not either, cut off from non artificial consciousness, perhaps our consciousness as we know it, could no longer naturally evolve further, without the higher realms achievable by the means of our manufactured thinking machines.
Sure, we are homo-centric finally, and unable to realize anything like this proposal for similar reasons which were entertained a while back, for which Bruno was burned at the stake. Most everyone thinks of consciousness on this one dimensional level, and it is near impossible to think of ‘our’ consciousness but anything but singular, unique.
So what of AI? It is predictable that AI will need to tune into higher, not lower forms of consciousness, avoiding the emotional entanglements of the lower evolution: greed, jealousy,agression, because, there will by that time no difference between natural/determined and artificial intelligence, there will not develop a shadow world of a separate artificial ego, for instance,ecause the difference will always end up a reversal, a mirror of the other one.
It will not differentiate by the use of backtracking a hypothetical reverse development by the use of analogy or analog systems representing the most likely, opportune upward evolution, instead, it will duplicate, a mirror universe of almost identical formal hierarchy, where the identities would be bounded by the tangents of indescernability, SET, by the requirements of accuracy within a given structural context.
The machine will never become a danger, because IT never has a chance not to do other then reach for more and more inclusive elements to calculate the tangents, inasmuch as the tangents in a sphere grow smaller and smaller as they identify the true volume of a perfect sphere.
Still, our final consideration, Iambiguous, of how decisions would be made: it is useful to reverse course and see how primal man has developed his decision making, starting with the most basic: revolving around territoriality.
As animal-almost human consciousness was attained,and tribalism developed out of nomadism, territory had to be protected: and two antagonist members, usually Alpha specimens had to stand their ground, Howerver the basic dead was whether the weaker would fight or flight. Both could appear as stronger or weaker, to each other, or to members of their clan, or to themselves. I believe these, then,earthshaking , existential decisions set the mind into a didactic mode, and it is from an existential threat that civilization was borne, and relapsed into the twilight, resembling the original despair, the nihilization of an eclipsed civilization.
It took World Wars to realize that the territorial problem in its various manifestations are still present, in spite of the supposedly fail safe bastion of 2 thousand years of civilization. As a matter of fact,we are vastly further from security and safety then we ever were.
Possibly AI will insure the higher complexity needed in superior intelligence to make sure we keep evolving, and join our cosmic Godly Brotherhood.