I spent a long time ruminating on this awhile ago and came away very depressed. Deep down, I believe that human nature simply does not allow complex civilizations to live indefinitely. The interplay between selfishness which ensures individual survival and empathy which ensures survival of the species (thus indirectly increasing chances of individual survival) is tuned for sharing a living space with a few dozen other humans, not a planet of seven billion. Evolution found a local maxima sufficient to allow us to spread very rapidly, but it's not good enough for the state that we are in. Although advanced technology could allow a large number of humans to thrive, the lack of empathy will perpetuate an imbalance in resource and standard of living that, like a washing machine with an imbalanced load, will spin wildly out of control (and in this case tear itself apart).

I hold a sort of vague hope that a techno-Utopia is possible, but it's with the understanding that a great many cultural and political changes would need to be made first. Given that my talents lie in programming, I do my part in that arena and hope that others with an understanding of things like economics, security and human psychology will do theirs.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Perhaps the same can be said of civilization.

> But imagine when we create this AI and ask it "how should I live" and it replies "eat better and exercise" how will its intelligence convince me to change my ways better than my doctor does today?

By following up with "how to I motivate myself to change my ways"? Or, better, by its answer already taking that into account.

> How will more smarts give us peace in the Middle East?

Not necessarily more smarts, but better tech means more affordable connectivity and education, and better education too. It also raises the standard of living, which leads to more trade, which in turn is an incentive for peace. Sure, it won't bring absolute peace. But it'll bring more peace.

> Politics, for better and for worse, is our system for granting humans the power people here seem to think AI will be able to take on its own.

Politics has existed since the dawn of man. Politics we like, though, only after the industrial revolution.

> Not necessarily more smarts, but better tech means more affordable connectivity and education, and better education too.

This is not true. Neil Postman has something to say about this, already in 1996, in "The Surrender of Culture to Technology". It specifically mentions education and how the "wiring up to the information super highway" was misguided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlrv7DIHllE

It is very interesting in reading/watching Maciej, Neil Postman and also Evgeny Morozov to put things in perspective.

You're thinking that the evil AI will be some sort of nagging scold, "eat your vegetables or I'll tell you to eat your vegetables again". It's more likely that it'll be like Gawker: "eat your vegetables or I'll send an angry mob of idiots to burn your house down"

I suspect an effective tactic would be 'eat your vegetables, or I will start automatically ordering meatless and reduced calorie versions of everything'.

Why will it be one rather than the other?

"Human traits" = a deep flaw in your understanding of human behavior.