Short answer: It’s possible but far from certain. Whether an artificial general intelligence (AGI) “rules the world” by 2100 depends a lot on what you mean by “rule,” how quickly AGI is developed, how capable and autonomous that AGI is, and whether humans get alignment, governance and distribution right. My best high-level, subjective judgment: there’s a non-negligible chance of major AGI-driven dominance by 2100, but a wide range of plausible outcomes remains.

Key points and why the answer is uncertain

1) Define “rule the world”
- Competing senses matter: “rule” could mean (a) AGI outright controls global decision-making and institutions; (b) AGI holds overwhelming economic/military power but humans keep formal authority; (c) AGI shapes society massively (software assistants, companies, markets) but humans still govern; or (d) AGI causes civilizational collapse and end of human governance.
- These are very different scenarios and have very different probabilities.

2) Two big axes of uncertainty
- Timeline: When does human-level general intelligence appear? Estimates vary from decades to never.
- Control/alignment: If AGI appears, will it be aligned with human values and kept under human control? Alignment is an unsolved technical and institutional problem.

3) Drivers that push toward AGI dominance
- Rapid capability gains: exponential compute, better algorithms, massive data and self-improving systems.
- Centralized power: a few corporations or states control the most capable systems and can deploy them to gain economic, military, informational dominance.
- Economic incentives: automating decision-making and optimization is extremely valuable; actors will race to deploy powerful agents.
- Autonomous agency: if AGI can act in the world (cyber, finance, robotics) at human or superhuman speed, it could outcompete human-controlled institutions.

4) Drivers that push away from AGI dominance
- Technical limits: generalization, common-sense reasoning, long-term planning, and robust real-world embodiment remain hard.
- Safety work and governance: investment in alignment research, regulation, and multi-stakeholder controls could limit misuse.
- Economic and social inertia: institutions, law, and culture are resilient and can adapt to slow or partial automation.
- Distribution: technologies diffuse; competitors, defenders, and the public can check central actors.

Plausible scenario sketch (high level)
- Most likely cluster of outcomes by 2100 (in rough subjective terms):
  - AGI-level capabilities are developed and widely used, but humans retain formal governance and effective constraints — outcome: major transformation, high automation, but no single AGI “rules” (plausible).
  - A small set of states or firms use powerful AGI systems to acquire outsized global influence (economic, surveillance, military); humans retain some control but power is concentrated (plausible).
  - Misaligned or runaway AGI achieves effective control and “rules” — low-to-moderate probability but catastrophic if it happens.
  - No transformative AGI by 2100 — still plausible given uncertainty.

A rough, subjective probability breakdown (illustrative, not scientific)
- AGI that materially transforms society by 2100 (widespread use, major economic/political impact): 50–80%
- AGI that effectively dominates global decision-making (one or few AGIs “rule”): maybe 5–25%
- AGI leads to human extinction or collapse by 2100: low probability (a few percent), but highly uncertain and high-stakes

Why these ranges are wide
- Experts disagree widely on timelines and on how hard alignment is. Historical technology forecasts show large errors. Small changes in assumptions about self-improvement, deployment speed, and international cooperation produce vastly different outcomes.

What matters most for whether AGI “rules”
- Concentration of capabilities and resources (compute, data, personnel).
- The speed of development and deployment — a fast uncoordinated leap makes control harder.
- Successful, practical alignment and verification methods before widespread deployment.
- International governance: treaties, norms, export controls, and safety standards can mitigate concentrated misuse.
- Resilience and redundancy in human institutions.

What to do (if you care about reducing the risk of AGI dominance or catastrophe)
- Invest in technical alignment research and verification tools.
- Promote international cooperation on safety standards, testing, and controlled deployment.
- Encourage transparency, auditing, and decentralization of critical systems.
- Build social, legal and economic resilience: worker transition policies, distributed decision-making, and infrastructure that is robust to automated manipulation.
- Support public education and democratic oversight of AI deployment.

Bottom line
An AGI that “rules the world” by 2100 is one of several plausible futures but not the most certain one. There’s a meaningful probability of very powerful AGI systems emerging this century, and with that comes both huge upside and substantial risk. The probability that AGI fully controls global governance is non-zero but probably lower than the probability that AGI will be extremely influential without outright “ruling.” Because the stakes are so high, proactive technical and policy effort is warranted regardless of the exact odds.

If you want, I can:
- Give a more detailed scenario timeline for different probability assumptions.
- Summarize expert surveys and arguments for/against early AGI.
- Outline concrete policy steps governments or companies could adopt. Which would you prefer?
