[tablespoon]

> Or maybe the AI is sufficient to act as a filter, but insufficient to surpass it itself. It stagnates.

> After all, an AI that can destroy a civilization isn't necessarily "intelligent" in the same way humans are. Or even capable of self-improvement. It could be sophisticated enough to (accidentally?) destroy its creators, but no more than that, and without evolutionary pressure, it may let itself die.

It doesn't even need to be AGI. It could be that some less-advanced "AI" technologies of a certain sophistication create perverse incentives or risks that cause their parent civilizations to collapse.

Think asshole billionaire hording all productive the resources, but doing nothing useful with them, while the rest of civilization starves and collapses. Or, AI becoming an irresistible opiate that causes individuals to retreat into some unproductive state then eventually die (e.g. into some VR videogame or something). Or weapon of mass destruction trivially created and deployable by any old wacko.