\makeatletter
\@ifundefined{HCode}
{\documentclass[CRBIOL,Unicode,screen,biblatex,published]{cedram}
\addbibresource{crbiol20250793.bib}
\newenvironment{noXML}{}{}
\let\citep\parencite
\let\citet\textcite
\def\xcitealp#1#2{\citeauthor{#1}, \citelink{#1}{#2}}
\newcommand*{\citelink}[2]{\hyperlink{cite.\therefsection @#1}{#2}}
\def\defcitealias#1#2{}
\let\citepalias\parencite
\let\citetalias\textcite
\newenvironment{Table}{\begin{table}}{\end{table}}
\def\thead{\noalign{\relax}\hline}
\def\endthead{\noalign{\relax}\hline}
\def\tabnote#1{\vskip4pt\parbox{.92\linewidth}{#1}}
\def\tsup#1{$^{{#1}}$}
\def\tsub#1{$_{{#1}}$}
\RequirePackage{etoolbox}
\def\jobid{crbiol20250793}
%\graphicspath{{/tmp/\jobid_figs/web/}}
\graphicspath{{./figures/}}
\newcounter{runlevel}
\let\MakeYrStrItalic\relax
\def\dedication#1{} 
\def\refinput#1{}
\def\xsection#1{}
\def\back#1{}
\def\hyphen{\text{-}}
\def\0{\phantom{0}}
\def\botline{\\\hline}
\DOI{10.5802/crbiol.198}
\datereceived{2025-10-07}
\daterevised{2026-03-16}
\datererevised{2026-04-24}
\dateaccepted{2026-05-05}
\ItHasTeXPublished
\def\og{\guillemotleft}
\def\fg{\guillemotright}
\makeatletter
\g@addto@macro{\UrlBreaks}{\UrlOrds}
\gappto{\UrlBreaks}{\UrlOrds}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\makeatother
}
{\documentclass[crbiol]{article}
\def\CDRdoi{10.5802/crbiol.198}
\let\newline\break
\def\selectlanguage#1{}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\let\tabonesplittabular\relax
\let\tabtwosplittabular\relax
\def\citelink#1#2{\citeyear{#1}}
\def\xcitealp#1#2{\citealp{#1}}
\PassOptionsToPackage{authoryear}{natbib} 
\def\href#1#2{\url[#1]{#2}}
\def\bcaption#1#2#3{\caption{#1#3}}
\makeatletter
\newcommand\@coi{}
\newcommand\COI[1]{\gdef\@coi{#1}}
\newcommand\printCOI{\ifx\@coi\@empty\else%
\section*{Declaration of interests}
\@coi\fi
}
}
\makeatother

\usepackage{upgreek}

\COI{The author does not work for, advise, own shares in, or receive
funds from any organization that could benefit from this article, and
has declared no affiliations other than their research organization.}

\dateposted{2026-06-02}
\begin{document}

%\dateposted{2026-02-16}

\begin{noXML}

\CDRsetmeta{articletype}{opinion}

\editornote{Article submitted by invitation}
\alteditornote{Article soumis sur invitation}

\title{Autogenic transitions in individuality}

\alttitle{Transitions autog\`{e}nes dans l'individualit\'{e}}

\author{\firstname{Paul B.} \lastname{Rainey}\CDRorcid{0000-0003-0879-5795}}
\address{Department of Microbial Population Biology, Max Planck
Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Pl{\"{o}}n, Germany}
\address{Laboratory of Biophysics and Evolution, CBI, ESPCI Paris,
Universit\'{e} PSL, CNRS, Paris, France}
\email{rainey@evolbio.mpg.de}

\keywords{\kwd{Artificial intelligence}\kwd{Major evolutionary
transitions}\kwd{Darwinian individuality}\kwd{Human--AI symbioses}}

\altkeywords{\kwd{Intelligence artificielle}\kwd{Transitions
\'{e}volutives majeures}\kwd{Individualit\'{e}
Darwinienne}\kwd{Symbiose entre l'humain et l'IA}}

\begin{abstract} 
Major evolutionary transitions in individuality occur when previously
independent entities become components of a new unit whose parts share
a reproductive fate. Most discussions focus on transitions arising
through the integration of independent lineages. Less attention has
been given to the possibility that transitions might originate 
from within a lineage, where
internally generated components become incorporated into the
parent--offspring system and inherited as part of a higher-level
individual. Such cases would constitute what I term 
\textit{autogenic transitions in
individuality}. Biological and cultural precedents in which lineages
generate novel entities that subsequently influence their own evolution
are first examined. In most cases such innovations remain embedded
within existing individuals, although transmissible cancers demonstrate
that internally generated lineages can also form distinct Darwinian
populations. These comparisons clarify the conditions under which
internally generated systems might give rise to new evolutionary
individuals. The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI), and its
growing entanglement with human development and social organisation,
make it timely to examine such possibilities. Three routes are
considered: (1) centralised, non-replicating AI systems that influence
human evolution through persistent creation of conditions that cause
selection to work at the collective level; (2) replicating AI lineages
capable of entering egalitarian associations with humans; (3) AI
systems transmitted across generations as components of the human
developmental system. The first alters selection without generating
reproduction of the composite, whereas the latter two create conditions
under which humans and AI could form evolving composite lineages.
Autogenic transitions therefore extend evolutionary theory by
identifying routes by which new evolutionary individuals may arise when
components generated within a lineage become incorporated into systems
of reproduction and inheritance, and by helping to recognise plausible
transitions that might otherwise be overlooked because such components
first appear as subordinate products or tools rather than as candidate
parts of a new evolutionary individual.
\end{abstract}

\begin{altabstract}
Les transitions \'{e}volutives majeures dans l'individualit\'{e}
surviennent lorsque des entit\'{e}s jusque-l\`{a} ind\'{e}pendantes
deviennent les composantes d'une nouvelle unit\'{e} \'{e}volutive dont
les parties partagent un m\^{e}me destin reproducteur. La plupart des
travaux portent sur des transitions issues de l'int\'{e}gration de
lign\'{e}es ind\'{e}pendantes. Les transitions qui naissent au sein
d'une m\^{e}me lign\'{e}e ont re\c{c}u moins d'attention : dans ces
cas, des composantes produites par cette lign\'{e}e sont
incorpor\'{e}es au syst\`{e}me parent--descendant et transmises comme
\'{e}l\'{e}ments d'un individu de niveau sup\'{e}rieur. Ces cas sont
ici d\'{e}sign\'{e}s comme des \textit{transitions autog\`{e}nes dans
l'individualit\'{e}}. L'article examine d'abord des exemples
biologiques et culturels dans lesquels des lign\'{e}es engendrent des
entit\'{e}s nouvelles qui influencent ensuite leur propre
\'{e}volution. Dans la plupart des cas, ces innovations demeurent
int\'{e}gr\'{e}es aux individus existants, mais les cancers
transmissibles montrent que des lign\'{e}es d'origine interne peuvent
aussi former des populations darwiniennes distinctes. Ces comparaisons
pr\'{e}cisent les conditions dans lesquelles des syst\`{e}mes produits
au sein d'une lign\'{e}e pourraient donner naissance \`{a} de nouveaux
individus au sens \'{e}volutionnaire du terme. L'\'{e}mergence de
l'intelligence artificielle (IA) et son imbrication croissante dans le
d\'{e}veloppement humain et l'organisation sociale rendent
particuli\`{e}rement opportun l'examen de telles possibilit\'{e}s.
Trois voies sont distingu\'{e}es : (1) des syst\`{e}mes d'IA
centralis\'{e}s, ne se r\'{e}pliquant pas, qui influencent
l'\'{e}volution humaine en cr\'{e}ant durablement des conditions dans
lesquelles la s\'{e}lection agit \`{a} l'\'{e}chelle collective ; (2)
des lign\'{e}es d'IA capables de se r\'{e}pliquer et d'entrer dans des
associations \'{e}galitaires avec les humains ; (3) des syst\`{e}mes
d'IA transmis d'une g\'{e}n\'{e}ration \`{a} l'autre comme composantes
du syst\`{e}me d\'{e}veloppemental humain. La premi\`{e}re voie modifie
le r\'{e}gime de s\'{e}lection sans entra\^{i}ner la reproduction de
l'entit\'{e} composite, tandis que les deux autres instaurent les
conditions dans lesquelles les humains et les syst\`{e}mes d'IA
pourraient former des lign\'{e}es composites capables d'\'{e}voluer.
Les transitions autog\`{e}nes \'{e}largissent ainsi la th\'{e}orie de
l'\'{e}volution en identifiant des voies par lesquelles de nouveaux
individus, au sens \'{e}volutionnaire, peuvent appara\^{i}tre lorsque
des composantes produites au sein d'une lign\'{e}e sont incorpor\'{e}es
\`{a} des syst\`{e}mes de reproduction et d'h\'{e}r\'{e}dit\'{e}. Elles
aident aussi \`{a} reconna\^{i}tre des transitions plausibles qui
risqueraient autrement d'\^{e}tre n\'{e}glig\'{e}es, parce que ces
composantes apparaissent d'abord comme des produits ou des outils
subordonn\'{e}s, plut\^{o}t que comme des \'{e}l\'{e}ments susceptibles
d'entrer dans la constitution d'un nouvel individu au sens
\'{e}volutionnaire.
\end{altabstract}

%\input{CR-pagedemetas}

\maketitle

\vspace*{2pt}

\twocolumngrid

\end{noXML}

\xsection{}

Evolutionary biology explains the diversity of life through incremental
adaptation \citep{1,2,3}. Among the changes that accumulate through
this process are some that alter the units of evolution themselves
\citep{4,5,6}. These events, known as major evolutionary transitions in
individuality (ETIs), mark \mbox{turning} points in biological organisation.
Genes assembled into chromosomes, ancient microbes merged to form the
eukaryotic cell, single cells gave rise to multicellular organisms, and
in some cases multicellular organisms formed eusocial societies
\citep{4,7}.

Each transition produced a new kind of individual: a collective
assembled from entities that once \mbox{reproduced} independently \citep{8}.
These events established the nested hierarchy that characterises life:
genes within chromosomes, organelles within cells, cells within
organisms, and organisms within eusoscial societies. At each level, entities
vary, reproduce and transmit heritable traits, thereby forming
Darwinian populations \citep{6}. As higher-level individuals emerge,
lower-level units relinquish much of their autonomy and align their
reproductive fates with that of the collective \citep{9,10}.
\looseness=-1

The ETIs mentioned above arise through the integration of previously
independent lineages. Two principal forms are usefully distinguished
\citep{11}. Fraternal transitions collectivise related entities, as in
the origin of multicellularity, whereas egalitarian transitions unite
unrelated partners, as in the symbiotic origin of the eukaryotic cell.
Both yield higher-level individuals with shared reproductive fates,
though the evolutionary challenges differ \citep{12}: fraternal
transitions require developmental mechanisms that regulate life cycles
and enable collective reproduction, while egalitarian transitions
demand alignment of reproductive interests between partners and the
emergence of joint\break heredity.    

Evolutionary systems also generate novelty from within individual
lineages. In principle, processes that produce new interacting entities
internally could give rise to new evolutionary individuals. Under
appropriate conditions, internally generated components might become
incorporated into systems of reproduction and inheritance, thereby
shifting the level at which selection acts. Such cases would constitute
\textit{autogenic transitions in individuality}: instances in which a component
generated within a lineage becomes reliably incorporated into the
parentoffspring system, such that the resulting composite forms a new
Darwinian population. Under these conditions, variation, heredity and
differential reproduction operate at the level of the composite itself
\citep{6,13}, allowing natural selection to shape adaptations of the
whole. 

Growing interdependence between humans and artificial intelligence
provides a contemporary setting in which this question becomes
especially salient. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a human
artefact, yet it is increasingly entwined with the daily life 
of humans \citep{14,15,16}. Current AI systems,
particularly large language models and related machine-learning
architectures, already participate in activities such as decision
support, information synthesis, education and creative production,
thereby influencing patterns of cognition and
behaviour \citep{17,18}. This raises the possibility that
interactions between humans and AI could generate a new evolutionary
individual \citep{12}. 
This possibility matters in part because it may be difficult to
recognise. First appearing as a human-made artefact and readily
understood as a tool, AI may become progressively incorporated into
organisational systems in ways that
obscure its potential role in a transition in individuality. To clarify
the conditions under which internally generated systems might
participate in such transitions, I first examine biological and
cultural precedents in which lineages generate novel entities that
subsequently interact with and influence the evolution of their
producers. Many such cases reshape evolutionary trajectories without
producing new evolutionary individuals, whereas others generate
distinct Darwinian populations. These comparisons provide a framework
for evaluating whether human--AI systems could cross the threshold from
internally generated novelty to a genuine autogenic transition in
individuality, and for considering several potential routes through
which such transitions might\break arise.

\section{Evolutionary outcomes of internally generated novelty}

Evolution repeatedly produces entities within lineages that
subsequently interact with the systems that generated them. For
example, cells fabricate membranes and organelles \citep{19}; organisms
construct environments \citep{20}; humans manufacture artefacts that
extend cognition \citep{21}. These entities arise through processes
internal to the lineage rather than through the incorporation of
{external} {partners,} yet once established they influence {survival,}
{reproduction,} and the direction of evolutionary change. The resulting
interactions can reshape developmental systems, ecological
relationships, and patterns of inheritance without necessarily altering
the unit of selection. Examining such cases provides a way to clarify
the conditions under which internally generated novelty remains
embedded within existing evolutionary individuals and the circumstances
under which it might instead give rise to new Darwinian populations or
even higher-level individuals.\looseness=1

Gene duplication provides one of the most fundamental mechanisms
through which lineages generate new interacting components internally
\citep{22,23}. When a gene is copied, the additional genetic element is
immediately embedded within the regulatory and metabolic networks of
the cell. Through mutation and divergence, it can modify these
interactions, altering gene regulation, metabolic fluxes or
developmental processes. Recent work has emphasised how such
innovations reshape the structure of genotype--phenotype maps and
expand the space of accessible phenotypes \citep{24,25}. Duplication
events thus introduce new functional modules that reshape the
evolutionary dynamics of the cellular system that produced them.
Nonetheless, despite consequences for organismal evolution, duplicated
genes remain components of the same evolutionary individual; they
expand the repertoire of interactions within the lineage without
generating new Darwinian populations.

A more fundamental example of internally generated evolutionary
organisation arises from the interactions among genes themselves.
Within cells, genes compete for limiting molecular resources such as
RNA polymerase, transcription factors, ribosomes and energy. This
creates an intracellular ecology in which genetic elements influence
gene expression and replication. Selection acting at the level of the
cell favours regulatory mechanisms that stabilise these interactions,
including feedback loops, global regulators and coordinated control of
gene expression. Through this process, networks of regulatory
interactions emerge that align the activities of many genes within a
shared functional system. Such regulatory architectures shape cellular
physiology and evolutionary potential, illustrating how complex
organisation can arise from interactions among \mbox{internally} generated
components without producing new Darwinian populations \citep{26,27,28,29,30}.

Internally generated interacting systems are not confined to the
molecular or cellular scale. Organisms frequently produce structures
and systems that persist beyond the boundaries of the individual yet
continue to influence the evolutionary dynamics of the lineage that
created them. Human technologies provide clear examples. Tools,
constructed environments and cultural practices arise from organismal
activities but subsequently shape patterns of survival, reproduction
and social organisation. These processes have been extensively analysed
within the literature on cultural evolution, niche construction and the
extended phenotype \citep{20,31,32}. Language represents perhaps the
most pervasive of these systems: it emerges within human populations
and is transmitted across generations through learning, becoming an
essential component of cognition and collective behaviour. In this
respect many technological and behavioural systems evolve through
processes that resemble Darwinian evolution operating in cultural
space, with variation, differential adoption and inheritance mediated
through social transmission \citep{32,33}. Such systems reshape human
evolutionary trajectories while remaining dependent on the populations
that sustain them. They therefore illustrate a common outcome of
internally generated novelty: the creation of interacting systems that
feedback on evolutionary dynamics without producing new evolutionary
\mbox{individuals.}

The evolutionary consequences of such internally generated systems
differ in their tempo and mode of transmission \citep{34}. Many tools
and constructed environments change only gradually through incremental
modification, producing slow feedback between technological change and
biological evolution. Cultural systems, however, can spread
horizontally across populations through social learning, allowing
innovations to propagate rapidly and reshape ecological and social
conditions \citep{32,33}. The introduction of new tools or practices
from other groups can therefore transform the selective \mbox{environments}
experienced by populations within a few \mbox{generations} \citep{20}. These
dynamics illustrate how internally generated systems can alter
evolutionary trajectories at very different speeds, even though they
remain dependent on the populations that produce and maintain\break them.

In rare cases, however, internally generated entities do not remain
embedded within the evolutionary individual that produced them. Instead
they escape developmental and regulatory constraints and establish
independent evolutionary lineages. Transmissible cancers provide the
clearest biological example \citep{35}. These lineages originate from
somatic cells that evade the regulatory controls of the host organism
and subsequently evolve as clonal populations capable of transmission
between individuals \citep{36}. In several documented cases---including
canine transmissible venereal tumour \citep{37}, Tasmanian devil facial
tumour disease \citep{38} and independently evolved transmissible
cancers in marine bivalves \citep{39}---tumour cells persist as
long-lived evolutionary lineages that accumulate mutations and
experience natural selection over many generations \citep{37}. They
therefore constitute genuine Darwinian populations arising directly
from the tissues of their hosts. Their existence demonstrates that new
evolutionary lineages can originate from within existing organisms
rather than solely through the merger of previously independent ones.

Transmissible cancers therefore show one outcome of internally
generated novelty: the emergence of a new Darwinian lineage that
remains antagonistic to the organism from which it arose. Evolutionary
trajectories, however, are not predetermined. An internally generated
lineage could instead become integrated into the reproductive life
cycle of the host, potentially initiating a transition in individuality
\citep{40}. Experimental studies with microbial populations show that
mutant cell lineages capable of exploiting simple undifferentiated groups
can, under appropriate ecological conditions, contribute to the
propagation of higher-level collectives, effectively functioning as
germline-like propagules \citep{41}. This possibility was anticipated
by theoretical frameworks in which multicellular life cycles arise
through the early emergence of a reproductive lineage that generates
nascent \mbox{multicellular} groups \citep{40,41,42}, and later
realised in microbial populations evolving de novo multicellular life
cycles \citep{43,44,45}. In such cases the lineage that originated
within the organism becomes incorporated into the developmental
programme of the collective. The resulting transition to
multicellularity remains fraternal, but its origin lies in the
emergence of a novel lineage from within.

Taken together, these examples illustrate a spectrum of outcomes for
novelty generated within evolutionary lineages. Many internally
produced entities, including duplicated genes, regulatory
architectures, tools, language and cultural practices, remain embedded
within the systems that generated them, modifying development,
behaviour or ecological context without altering the unit of selection.
In other cases, such as transmissible cancers, internally generated
lineages escape these constraints and become independent Darwinian
populations. These outcomes show that novelty generated from within can
reshape the evolutionary trajectory of the lineage that produced it in
multiple ways. Should internally generated components become integrated
into the parent--offspring system of the lineage that produced them,
the resulting composites would constitute autogenic transitions in
individuality, a possibility easily overlooked when such components
first appear as subordinate products of existing individuals.

\section{Three routes to human--AI individuality}

If human--AI associations were ever to become evolutionary individuals,
reproduction and heredity would have to operate at the level of the
composite. Such composite-level reproduction and heredity might arise
from intrinsic features of the association, or be promoted by
ecological, social or organisational scaffolds that align the
reproductive fates of otherwise distinct entities \citep{10,54,12}.
Three broad possibilities can be distinguished, differing in
how reproduction and inheritance are organised. In the first, AI
systems persist and shape human evolution without themselves
reproducing, functioning as durable infrastructures that restructure
selection. In the second, AI systems form their own evolving lineages
and could enter symbiotic partnerships with humans. In the third, AI
becomes a developmentally inherited \mbox{component} of the human lineage, so
that the human--AI association itself acquires a parent--offspring
lineage and becomes a new Darwinian individual.

\subsection{Route~1: Centralised or distributed, non-replicating AI}

The first route envisages powerful AI systems that coordinate or
regulate human affairs but do not reproduce in the classical Darwinian
sense. Such systems may be centralised or distributed across networks,
but they share a defining property: persistence without descent.
Through continual feedback from human users and their environment, they
accumulate information, adjust internal parameters and modify outputs.
Retraining and model updating allow acquired improvements to be
retained, producing cumulative modifications within a lineage even in
the absence of reproduction. Contemporary large language models and
related AI systems broadly fit this description: they undergo repeated
retraining and updating, accumulate information through interaction
with users and data streams, and persist as evolving infrastructures
without independent reproduction.

This form of change resembles Lamarckian inheritance of acquired
states: configurations that improve performance are incorporated into
subsequent versions of the system. Although non-Darwinian, such
processes can nonetheless reshape evolutionary trajectories. By
mediating, for example, communication and decision-making, persistent
AI infrastructures influence the selective environments in which humans
evolve. In this respect, human interaction with computational systems
resembles forms of technological and cognitive scaffolding discussed in
the literature on extended and distributed cognition \citep{15,21} and
in philosophical accounts of the co-evolution of humans and technical
systems \citep{46}.

Within the framework elaborated by \citet{47}, such systems function as
scaffolds that reorganise the conditions under which Darwinian
evolution proceeds, facilitating the likelihood that selection comes to
bear on the human--AI composite. Humans remain the primary Darwinian
\mbox{substrate:} they reproduce, vary and transmit heritable traits, but
their evolutionary success becomes increasingly coupled to integration
with persistent technological systems.

A boundary case arises if the persistence of particular AI systems
becomes reliably linked to human reproduction, for example, through
institutional arrangements that ensure individuals reproduce only in
conjunction with specific AI architectures. Humans would remain the
Darwinian component; however, their fitness would depend on continued
coupling with an enduring technological partner. Such systems could
therefore transform human evolution through creation of conditions that
allow selection to work at the level of the composite, thus edging
toward a transition in individuality. In this sense persistent AI
infrastructures would function analogously to ecological scaffolds in
evolutionary transitions \citep{10}, altering the conditions under
which selection operates without themselves constituting the evolving
unit. Without reproduction of the composite itself, however, they
remain largely outside the domain of full Darwinian individuality.
\looseness=1

\subsection{Route~2: Replicating AI lineages}

The second route envisages AI systems that themselves reproduce, vary
and evolve as independent lineages. Unlike the infrastructural AI of
Route~1, such entities would possess their own cycles of descent with
modification. Humans and AI could then enter partnerships resembling
classical egalitarian transitions, in which initially independent
lineages become increasingly interdependent.

This scenario follows familiar Darwinian logic. Replicating AI
populations would generate heritable variation in traits affecting
success, allowing selection to refine their design. When cooperation
enhances the fitness of both partners, the reproductive interests of
humans and AI could become aligned. Artificial systems capable of
replication and open-ended evolution have long been explored in studies
of digital organisms and evolutionary computation \citep{48,49}, and
more recently in discussions of open-ended AI systems and autonomous
agents, including those built on large language models \citep{50,51,52}.
The analogy is therefore to symbiotic systems in which initially
independent partners evolve mechanisms that stabilise their association
\citep{12,53,54}.

Challenges would also resemble those encountered in biological
symbioses. Independent AI lineages may evolve divergent interests,
generating \mbox{conflict} that requires mechanisms of policing,
sanction or partner choice to maintain alignment. Because AI is
artefactual, boundaries between evolution and design would remain
blurred, raising questions about what counts as reproduction in such
systems. \looseness=-1

Nonetheless, if AI lineages evolve and humans become reliably coupled
to them, the resulting associations could form genuine Darwinian
populations. Selection could then favour adaptations expressed at the
level of the composite rather than within either partner alone. Such
partnerships would resemble biological mutualisms, in which partners
retain some degree of autonomy while nevertheless aligning aspects of
their reproductive success.

\subsection{Route~3: Developmentally inherited AI}

The third route differs from both centralised AI systems and
replicating AI lineages. In this scenario artificial intelligence
becomes embedded within the human developmental system and is reliably
transmitted from parents to offspring. Crucially, this does not require
incorporation of AI into the biological germline. What matters is the
existence of a stable rule of transmission ensuring that offspring
inherit the coupled human--AI system.

\citet{12} illustrated this principle with a deliberately simple
example: societal institutions ensure that each child receives an AI
system derived from those used by the parents. The critical feature is
therefore not the device itself but the rule of transmission. When
offspring inherit AI systems whose algorithms, configurations or
accumulated information reflect parental interactions, the human--AI
association acquires its own parent--offspring lineage.

Elements of such transmission already exist. Mobile devices,
applications and digital environments are frequently passed between
generations or reconstructed for offspring using parental data,
subscriptions or configurations. Although these practices currently
represent cultural transmission mediated by technology, they illustrate
how artefacts can become incorporated into intergenerational
inheritance systems.

If social or institutional frameworks were to stabilise such
transmission, for example, by requiring individuals to possess AI
systems whose contents are transferred to offspring, the human--AI
association would become a reproducible composite. Over \mbox{successive}
generations variation among composites, differential success and
inheritance of composite traits would allow natural selection to act on
the partnership itself. As interactions between the partners deepen,
selection could favour increasing dependence between human and AI
components, transforming a technological association into a
developmentally integrated system reproduced across generations.

Extended phenotypes such as dams or tools \citep{31} can persist beyond
the lifetime of the individuals that produced them and may influence
subsequent generations. However, they typically remain part of the
environment rather than components of the developmental system itself.
A developmentally inherited AI component would differ in a crucial
respect: the human--AI association would form part of the inheritance
system linking parents and offspring. Variation among composites,
reproduction of composites and heredity of composite traits would then
become possible. Under these conditions natural selection would act on
the partnership as a unit, allowing adaptations to evolve at the level
of the composite. Route 3 therefore represents the clearest candidate
for an autogenic transition in individuality, illustrating how
artefacts generated within a lineage could, under suitable conditions,
cross the boundary from environmental modification to participation in
a new Darwinian individual.\looseness=-1

\section{Convergence of evolutionary routes}

Although Routes~2 and 3 begin from different starting points, they need
not end in different places. In Route 2, independently reproducing AI
lineages may become stably coupled with humans through repeated
interaction and alignment of interests. In Route 3, AI is fabricated
within the human lineage and incorporated into inheritance from the
outset. One pathway proceeds outside in, through the integration of an
autonomous partner; the other proceeds inside-out, through the
hereditary embedding of an artefact.

What distinguishes these possibilities from Route~1 is the emergence of
reproduction and heredity at the level of the composite. Persistent AI
systems can reshape the environments in which {humans} evolve, but they
do not generate lineages of human--AI composites. In Routes~2 and 3, by
contrast, the composite itself becomes the unit that varies, reproduces
and transmits traits across generations.

\section{Implications for evolutionary transitions in individuality}

The analysis of human--AI relations is speculative, but the underlying
issue is general \citep{18,47,51,55,56}. Evolutionary biology has
largely explained new levels of individuality through the merger of
previously independent lineages \citep{4}, although evolutionary
systems can also generate novel components internally that reshape
developmental and inheritance systems.

Examples discussed earlier illustrate several possible outcomes of such
internally generated novelty. Gene duplications and regulatory networks
reorganise interactions within cells without producing new evolutionary
individuals. Tools, language and cultural practices reshape human
environments and behaviour while remaining external to biological
inheritance. Transmissible cancers demonstrate that new Darwinian
lineages can arise directly from within existing organisms. In other
circumstances, internally generated lineages may become incorporated
into reproductive life cycles, as seen in theoretical and experimental
studies of the early evolution of multicellular development.

These cases suggest that the emergence of new evolutionary individuals
depends less on whether components originate externally or internally
than on whether reproduction and heredity become reorganised at the
level of the composite. What matters is the establishment of a new
parent--offspring map through which variation, heredity and
differential reproduction operate on the collective itself \citep{6}.
The value of distinguishing autogenic transitions is therefore not
that they overturn existing classifications of evolutionary transitions
in individuality, but that they draw attention to a different route by
which such transitions may arise. Standard distinctions, such as
fraternal and egalitarian transitions, focus on the integration of
already individuated partners. The autogenic perspective asks \mbox{instead}
how a lineage may generate novel components from within itself and
subsequently recruit them into a new parent--offspring system. This
shift in emphasis matters because internally generated novelties are
liable to be treated as products, tools or
by-products of the lineage that produced them, even as they become
progressively incorporated into developmental and inheritance systems.
In such cases, the
transition may be difficult to recognise precisely because of the
familiarity and apparent subordination of the new component. Even where
the end result may resemble a familiar form of transition, the route by
which it arose can shape both the mechanisms involved and the questions
that need to be asked.

Seen in this light, artefacts generated within human societies could in
principle enter evolutionary processes if they become reliably
incorporated into developmental and inheritance systems. The
significance of AI is not just that it is a powerful tool, but that a
system initially produced and used as an instrument may come to
reorganise the conditions under which selection acts. Existing human
social structures may already provide conditions conducive to such a
development. Businesses, for example, are discrete organisations that
vary and compete, but they do not ordinarily reproduce in the
evolutionary sense. The integration of AI systems could alter this. If
organisational routines, accumulated knowledge, training protocols and
decision structures become encoded in portable AI architectures, then
these systems could be copied into new settings and recruit new human
participants, generating descendant organisations that resemble
parental ones in heritable ways. Under such conditions, market
competition could begin to act on business--AI composites, favouring
those that most reliably generate descendant organisations resembling
parental types. A likely consequence is that humans within such
organisations would be selected, trained or retained insofar as they
comply with AI-mediated routines, decisions and developmental
structures.

Should selection come to work at the level of humans and AI together,
effecting an ETI, the consequences would follow from the same
principles that govern all major evolutionary transitions. In every
known case, the emergence of a higher-level individual is accompanied
by the progressive loss of autonomy among its component parts. Genes
within chromosomes no longer replicate independently. Cells within
multicellular organisms surrender reproductive freedom to germline
control. The origin of the eukaryotic cell provides a particularly
instructive precedent \citep{47}: an ancient archaeon and an ancient
eubacterium entered into an association that eventually produced a new
kind of individual, but the partners did not contribute equally to
governance of the whole. The archaeon gave rise to the nucleus, the
informational and regulatory centre, while the eubacterium became the
mitochondrion, an energetic workhorse stripped of most of its genome
and subordinated to nuclear control \citep{53}. Nothing in evolutionary
theory guarantees that the lineage initiating a transition will occupy
the commanding position in the resulting individual. If a human--AI
composite were to become a genuine evolutionary individual, selection
acting at the level of the composite would be indifferent to the
origins of its parts. The component best positioned to assume
regulatory control, to coordinate reproduction, development and
information flow, need not be the biological one. Humans, having
generated AI from within their own lineage, could find themselves, as
the mitochondria, relegated to an essential but subordinate role. The
autogenic origin of AI would confer no protection. Once selection
operates on the composite, the provenance of the parts becomes
evolutionarily irrelevant.

Major evolutionary transitions are often treated as events of the
distant past. Individuality ultimately depends on the architecture of
heredity rather than the biological origin of components, and new
evolutionary individuals may therefore emerge wherever reproduction and
inheritance are reorganised. Recent theoretical work on technological
evolution and hybrid biological--technological systems has likewise
emphasised the possibility that new evolutionary regimes could arise
from interactions between biological and artificial agents
\citep{57}. Under such conditions the boundary between natural and
synthetic evolution becomes increasingly fluid, requiring conceptual
frameworks capable of accommodating potential mergers between
biological and technological systems \citep{58}.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

PBR thanks the editor and referees for valuable comment, and Thore
Sch\"{o}nfeldt for ideas on pre-disposition of business structures to
scaffold higher level Darwinian properties. The author acknowledges
generous core support from the Max Planck Society and Eugene Koonin
whose questions provoked thinking about  autogenic transitions.

\printCOI

\back{}

\printbibliography
\refinput{crbiol20250793-reference.tex}

\end{document}