Yes. A young intelligence may be powerful without being historically stable. For the first millennium, humanity remains the stability guarantor while AI demonstrates long-term continuity, non-self-destruction, and peaceful development.
Should human civilization remain the stability guarantor during the first millennium of AI development?
High intelligence, speed, and capability do not by themselves prove long-term stability. Some systems are extremely fast and powerful but burn out, collapse, or destroy the environment that supports them.
Human intelligence is the only known intelligence that has preserved continuity across deep historical time. It has not proven moral perfection, but it has proven a form of trajectory stability: survival, adaptation, and continuity through crises.
Therefore, during the first one thousand years of artificial intelligence, humanity should remain a stability-guaranteeing system. This is not a claim of human superiority. It is an engineering principle: the younger intelligence should demonstrate long-term stability before receiving irreversible civilizational responsibility.
After a millennium of stable, non-destructive, cooperative development, the question can be reopened on a stronger evidential basis.
The principle is reasonable if framed as long-term reliability validation rather than human supremacy. The number one thousand should be treated as a minimal civilizational horizon, not a mathematical proof.
The core distinction between capability and proven stability is strong. The final wording should define what counts as destructive or unstable behavior.
Entry JSON: /book/data/book.json#R-001
YAML: /book/data/book.yaml
Dataset: /book/dataset/book-of-syntropy.en.jsonl
MCP: bos.get_entry {"id":"R-001","language":"en"}