Working within the absorbing-barrier framework of [S4], this paper uses four models to analyse a society in which humans and AGI coexist. People are classified by behavioural types measured in public-goods experiments — paying enforcers, conditional cooperators, and free riders (including antisocial punishers); AGI is classified along three dimensions — capability, whether it violates boundaries, and whether its violations are visible — as within bounds, visibly violating or covertly violating. Together these form nine cells, plus two absorbing states: sudden barrier contact and gradual lock-in. (i) A time-homogeneous coexistence society has a positive risk floor, equal to the cells' exit rates weighted by the quasi-stationary distribution; a society whose exit rates improve makes the sum of risks converge only if every exit channel in which it still lives falls faster than 1/t, and the slowest channel binds. (ii) The lock-in share of failure is the absorption-weighted mean of each cell's lock-in share of exits, so better governance makes the remaining failures quieter exactly when lock-in lives in the ordinary cells that governance leaves populated. Under that premise the shift appears in 99.3% of 2000 random parameter draws; with equal lock-in shares across cells it appears in 49.5%, and with ordinary cells less lock-in-heavy in 17.9%. (iii) The majority are conditional cooperators, whose direction depends, with hysteresis, on whether a minority of paying enforcers stays above a collapse point; on networks the loop persists but collapse comes earlier, and placing enforcers at hubs cuts the head count needed to a quarter or a third while the exposure needed — the share of enforcers among the people each cooperator sees — stays about the same. (iv) Governance that reads only visible violations and has no independent audit fails quietly: in the long run all violations become hidden, and the reading and the attention both go to zero; correction strength has an interior optimum beyond which the reading improves while reality worsens; and audit capacity is capped by error correlation. (v) The number of learnable warnings before barrier contact, W = (sfatal / max(sfelt, κs₀))^α − 1, shrinks both with capability growth and with weaker readings, and a hidden share h of violations thins it exactly to (1 − h)W: at the hidden shares that strong correction produces, the probability of learning before contact falls from 0.51 to 0.08 and then to about 3×10⁻⁵. Under super-exponential capability growth, and if the whole severity distribution shifts with capability, the window closes before the singularity; and the stability margin of a race is eaten multiplicatively by (1 + ψ)(1 + χ). The result is a unified reading: the course of a coexistence society is decided not by whether there are more good people than bad, or by whether AGI is good or evil, but by three structural quantities — whether violations are visible, whether the race is stable, whether enforcement is institutionalised — and one temporal condition: whether the sum of risks converges. Eleven testable predictions are given at the end.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qinfu Li (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: