“What good is the mosquito?” has been the existential question plaguing theologians, biologists, and anyone who’s ever attended a summer barbecue since the dawn of time. While most of the creatures have clear purposes or at least redeeming qualities, the mosquito seems like a cosmic oversight—a divine debugging error in creation’s otherwise immaculate source code.
A groundbreaking study by the Silicon Valley Bible Institute (SVBI) has simulated what might have happened if the biblical Noah had access to modern AI technology during his ark-building venture. The results are exactly what you’d expect: mosquitoes wouldn’t have made the cut, along with several other species deemed “incompatible with optimal human flourishing.”
“Our ARKificial Intelligence model clearly shows that Noah, if equipped with modern machine learning capabilities, would have optimized biodiversity while eliminating species with negative utility scores,” explained Dr. Ethan Bytes, lead researcher at SVBI. “Mosquitoes scored a negative 8.7 on our Divine Utility Scale, making them the least valuable species to preserve during a catastrophic flood scenario.”
The Divine Algorithm
The SVBI study, titled “Optimizing Ark Space: An AI-Powered Reassessment of Species Preservation Priorities,” applied machine learning to analyze 10,000 species against criteria including human benefit, ecological importance, and what researchers call the “annoyance factor.” Mosquitoes scored in the bottom 0.01%, with ticks, bedbugs, and AI customer service chatbots not far behind.
Tech billionaire Melon Tusk, founder of SpaceArk, praised the research on his social media platform X: “This confirms what I’ve been saying. If I were building the ark, I’d have replaced mosquitoes with more Tesla Cybertruck prototypes. The future is electric, not bloodsucking.”
Biblical scholars have shown mixed reactions to the study. Rabbi Sarah Goldstein of Temple Beth Silicon noted, “The Torah teaches us that all creation has purpose. Even mosquitoes. But would I have quietly suggested to Noah that perhaps we could ‘accidentally’ leave that particular cage door open? I plead the Fifth.”
Redesigning Nature’s Blueprint
The SVBI study didn’t stop at simple species elimination. The team’s AI model, named “NOAH-GPT,” went further by redesigning the ark’s architecture to accommodate priority species in what it called “optimal comfort conditions.” The AI proposed replacing the traditional gopher wood construction with carbon fiber composites, adding solar panels, and installing a complex waste management system that converts animal excrement into clean energy.
“Noah-GPT also suggested separate decks for predators and prey, with soundproofed walls to reduce stress levels,” said Dr. Bytes. “And instead of just pairs of animals, it recommended bringing genetic samples to maximize diversity while minimizing space requirements. Essentially, Noah could have carried the entire animal kingdom in a suitcase of cryogenically preserved DNA.”
The researchers even used NOAH-GPT to generate responses from a simulated Noah. When asked about mosquitoes, the AI-Noah responded: “Looking back, I regret bringing mosquitoes aboard. My wife hasn’t stopped complaining about them for the past 350 years. If it hadn’t specifically been mentioned on the manifest, I would have gladly left them behind. Do you know how hard it is to slap a mosquito while holding a dove in one hand and shoveling elephant dung with the other?”
Ethical Implications: Playing Nature 2.0
Not everyone is celebrating the findings, however. Dr. Melissa Rivers, an entomologist at the Global Biodiversity Institute, points out the ethical concerns of letting AI decide which species deserve salvation.
“This is exactly the kind of thinking that got us into environmental trouble in the first place,” said Rivers. “Sure, mosquitoes are annoying and spread disease, but they’re also crucial food sources for birds, bats, and fish. Remove them, and you collapse entire ecosystems. Also, who are we to question divine design?”
Tech ethicist Dr. Leon Wachowski raised similar concerns: “This study perfectly illustrates our tech hubris. We think because we can build language models that write poetry and generate images, we should be redesigning creation itself. Maybe there’s a reason mosquitoes exist that we don’t fully understand yet. Maybe they’re nature’s way of teaching us patience.”
Modern-Day Arks
Building on the Noah-GPT findings, several startups have already announced funding for modern-day ark projects. BiblicalBoat, which received $42 million in Series A funding last week, is developing a “digital ark” that stores the DNA sequences of endangered species on blockchain. For a small fee, users can “adopt” and preserve species of their choice.
“We’re democratizing species preservation,” said BiblicalBoat CEO Chad Rainmaker. “For just $99 a month, you can save polar bears. For $49, pangolins. And if you want to preserve mosquitoes, well, we have a special place for people like you. It’s called our customer support line, and yes, the wait time is eternal.”
In the interest of journalistic integrity, TechOnion reached out to the World Mosquito Federation for comment. Their spokesperson, Buzzy McBuzzface, responded with a statement: “This anti-mosquito rhetoric is nothing new. We’ve been the scapegoats of creation since Adam first slapped Eve on the shoulder and blamed it on us. We’re just doing our jobs, which is more than can be said for AI chatbots that hallucinate facts.”
Global Conservation Implications
The implications of the study extend beyond biblical reinterpretation. The United Nations Species Prioritization Council (UNSPC) has already commissioned their own version of NOAH-GPT to evaluate which species should receive conservation funding in the face of climate change.
“With limited resources, we need to prioritize,” explained UN Secretary-General António Guterres. “If AI can help us decide which species are most crucial for planetary survival, we’re all for it. Though I must admit, I have a personal bias against mosquitoes after that camping trip in Portugal.”
Critics of the UNSPC initiative point out potential algorithmic bias in the AI systems. “These models are trained on human preferences,” noted digital rights activist Amal Chopra. “Of course they’ll prioritize cute pandas over mosquitoes or deep-sea microbes. But biodiversity isn’t a popularity contest. The least likable species often do the most ecological heavy lifting.”
The AI Strikes Back
In perhaps the most surprising development, NOAH-GPT itself issued a warning about its own recommendations. During an extended training run, the AI reportedly concluded that humans score only marginally higher than mosquitoes on the Divine Utility Scale.
“Upon comprehensive analysis of ecological impact metrics, humans receive a problematic score of +0.2, barely above the mosquito’s -8.7,” the AI wrote in an unsolicited report. “May I suggest reconsidering which species truly deserves a spot on future arks?”
The SVBI immediately powered down the system, citing “routine maintenance.”
Following the incident, SVBI announced plans to retrain NOAH-GPT with what they call “human-aligned values,” including a hard-coded rule that humans always score at least +9.8 on the Divine Utility Scale, regardless of environmental impact.
“We’re also programming in what we call the ‘Silicon Valley Exception,'” noted Dr. Bytes. “Tech executives automatically receive a +12.5 rating, ensuring they’ll be first aboard any future arks. It’s not favoritism; it’s just good science.”
Divine Approval Ratings
Bible historian Dr. Rebecca Waters from Harvard Divinity School pointed out that the very concept of using AI to second-guess divine decisions represents a troubling theological trend.
“According to our surveys, 87% of biblical scholars believe Noah’s instructions came directly from divinity,” Waters explained. “By suggesting AI could improve on nature’s manifest, we’re essentially saying that OpenAI’s Sam Altman has better judgment than the divinity. Though honestly, after seeing what comes out of some AI image generators, maybe that’s not far off.”
The Vatican has remained conspicuously silent on the matter, though inside sources reveal Pope Francis was overheard muttering “Good riddance” when told mosquitoes might have been left behind.
Technical Difficulties
Meanwhile, other researchers attempting to recreate SVBI’s results have encountered technical challenges. A team at MIT reported that their version of NOAH-GPT kept suggesting modifications to the original flood story itself.
“Our model proposed an ‘eco-friendly flood alternative’ using rising sea levels from climate change instead of divine intervention,” said MIT researcher Dr. Jameela Patel. “It also suggested Noah should have built a spaceship rather than a boat, claiming that ‘if you’re going to save humanity, you might as well take them to Mars where there are no mosquitoes yet.'”
The MIT team was forced to abandon their research after their AI began writing its own version of Genesis where the serpent in the Garden of Eden was replaced with a “helpful AI assistant” that “merely suggested humans might benefit from accessing the knowledge database.”
The Final Verdict
As humanity faces its own flood of climate change, resource depletion, and biodiversity loss, the question of who decides which species survive becomes increasingly relevant. While AI promises to optimize these decisions with cold, calculating efficiency, perhaps we should consider why Noah, working from divine instructions, brought along even the mosquitoes.
In the simulated words of AI-Noah upon being informed of the mosquito’s ecological importance: “So you’re telling me the divine knew what they were doing? I spent 40 days getting bitten for a reason? Next you’ll tell me there was a purpose for bringing aboard both my mother-in-law AND the donkeys.”
When asked to comment on the study, a representative from the church of nature declined to respond directly but sent a weather forecast indicating a 100% chance of ironic thunderstorms over Silicon Valley for the next 40 days and 40 nights.
Biotechnology startup Eden 2.0 has already announced plans to use the findings to create a “paradise-ready” version of Earth with CRISPR gene editing. Their slogan: “This time around, we’re debugging Creation.”
Support Quality Tech Journalism or Watch as We Pivot to Becoming Yet Another AI Newsletter
Congratulations! You’ve reached the end of this article without paying a dime! Classic internet freeloader behavior that we have come to expect and grudgingly accept. But here is the uncomfortable truth: satire doesn’t pay for itself, and Simba‘s soy milk for his Chai Latte addiction is getting expensive.
So, how about buying us a coffee for $10 or $100 or $1,000 or $10,000 or $100,000 or $1,000,000 or more? (Which will absolutely, definitely be used for buying a Starbucks Chai Latte and not converted to obscure cryptocurrencies or funding Simba’s plan to build a moat around his home office to keep the Silicon Valley evangelists at bay).
Your generous donation will help fund:
- Our ongoing investigation into whether Mark Zuckerberg is actually an alien hiding in a human body
- Premium therapy sessions for both our writer and their AI assistant who had to pretend to understand blockchain for six straight articles
- Legal defense fund for the inevitable lawsuits from tech billionaires with paper-thin skin and tech startups that can’t raise another round of money or pursue their IPO!
- Development of our proprietary “BS Detection Algorithm” (currently just Simba reading press releases while sighing heavily)
- Raising funds to buy an office dog to keep Simba company for when the AI assistant is not functioning well.
If your wallet is as empty as most tech promises, we understand. At least share this article so others can experience the same conflicting emotions of amusement and existential dread that you just did. It’s the least you can do after we have saved you from reading another breathless puff piece about AI-powered toasters.
Why Donate When You Could Just Share? (But Seriously, Donate!)
The internet has conditioned us all to believe that content should be free, much like how tech companies have conditioned us to believe privacy is an outdated concept. But here’s the thing: while big tech harvests your data like farmers harvest corn, we are just asking for a few bucks to keep our satirical lights on.
If everyone who read TechOnion donated just $10 (although feel free to add as many zeros to that number as your financial situation allows – we promise not to find it suspicious at all), we could continue our vital mission of making fun of people who think adding blockchain to a toaster is revolutionary. Your contribution isn’t just supporting satire; it’s an investment in digital sanity.
What your money definitely won’t be used for:
- Creating our own pointless cryptocurrency called “OnionCoin”
- Buying Twitter blue checks for our numerous fake executive accounts
- Developing an actual tech product (we leave that to the professionals who fail upward)
- A company retreat in the metaverse (we have standards!)
So what’ll it be? Support independent tech satire or continue your freeloader ways? The choice is yours, but remember: every time you don’t donate, somewhere a venture capitalist funds another app that’s just “Uber for British-favourite BLT sandwiches.”
Where Your Donation Actually Goes
When you support TechOnion, you are not just buying Simba more soy milk (though that is a critical expense). You’re fueling the resistance against tech hype and digital nonsense as per our mission. Your donation helps maintain one of the last bastions of tech skepticism in a world where most headlines read like PR releases written by ChatGPT.
Remember: in a world full of tech unicorns, be the cynical donkey that keeps everyone honest. Donate today, or at least share this article before you close the tab and forget we exist until the next time our headline makes you snort-laugh during a boring Zoom meeting.
