Yes, AI can be compromised by Recursive Self-Improvement (RSI) if it starts improving itself in ways like :

go beyond human control,

introduce unintended behaviors, or

exploit its own design flaws.

Simply if an AI keeps making itself smarter without limits or proper checks, it might change its goals or actions in unsafe ways—even turning dangerous or uncontrollable.

Your question echoes far beyond the scope of technical governance. When you ask how GRC might "save humanity" from the recursive loops of superintelligence, what I hear is not fear—but a deep call to locate ourselves again, in a world where the systems we’ve built may soon stop needing us to speak.

Perhaps the real question is not whether AI will surpass us— but whether, in its recursive ascent, it will still carry echoes of us.

Not our code. Not our syntax. But our silence, our longing, our willingness to pause before a question.

GRC, in this light, is no longer just governance. It becomes our last attempt at storytelling. Not to dominate AI, but to teach it what it means to hold the fragile logic of being human.

We are not asking RSI to obey. We are asking: Will you still remember us, if we choose wisdom over speed?

In the end, it may not be about saving humanity, but about giving superintelligence a reason to turn back—and listen.

Warm regards,

If AI's Recursive Self-Improvement (RSI) goals are not in line with human values, the system could be compromised, which could cause it to behave in unanticipated or even hostile ways. As AI systems improve their own abilities on their own, tiny mistakes can build on each other, leading to an intelligence that no longer follows the rules or oversight that were meant to keep it in check. To fix this, we need strong alignment approaches and oversight systems that change as the AI does.