The AI Revolution: Reimagining Governance, Society, and Human Consciousness in the 21st Century

In the era of the decline of the United States empire and the failure of federalist European technocracy, the political and financial stability of the world depends on our ability to integrate qualitative assistance applications with generative potential into state management tools. Indeed, the globalization of cultural and financial exchanges confronts us with the same challenges that led the great empires of antiquity to collapse and dissolve. The lack of central cohesion and administrative efficiency, as well as authoritarian tendencies towards widespread surveillance and electoral falsification, are signs of a technological inadequacy between administrative regulatory needs and the means employed. That is to say, word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation software will not be sufficient to organize a global state.

Generative intelligence software will be necessary to guide decision-making in the field of entrepreneurial and public cooperation, in the selection and recruitment of individuals, as well as in organizing acceptable and ethical modes of competition. In the model of collective participation, conversational robots will be able to perform coordination functions by sharing tasks rationally, synthesizing individual contributions, and integrating them with each other in a fair and efficient manner. Human coordinators will not disappear overnight, but their legitimacy will diminish as qualitative assistance progresses in reliability. They will no longer be accountants, managers, or engineers, but rather psychologists specialized in human group dynamics and professional support for individuals. For the mechanisms of selection and recruitment of individuals, qualitative robots will allow us to remedy the discordance between the diploma system and the professional environment, as an edifying example to be absolutely avoided, so that new disasters due to human errors do not recur.

On one hand, the nepotism and social reproduction of the capitalist heirs of the French Revolution of 1789 has finally regained an ordinal importance in our modern societies, comparable to the nobility of the Ancien Régime. The oligarchy has reestablished the advantages and privileges of an elite that perpetuates itself according to the structure of filiation. It is now established that it is not your skills or diplomas that determine your social rank and income, but your class, ethnic, and cultural origin. To become a director or CEO, you must pay for a business school to be knighted by the ruling elite, and this will justify a salary multiplied by at least 4 or 5, compared to your employees with a master’s degree. On the other hand, diplomas do not guarantee the skills useful to companies or public administrations, in the sense that managerial accounting and engineering, as tools of bureaucracy, lack ethical perspective and sensitive understanding of the humanity of workers, users, and customers. In addition to financial and industrial efficiency objectives, driven by qualitative assistance, it is public health imperatives that will lead us to reassess the creative and participative competence of workers. The proportion of burnout, professional depression, and workplace harassment situations will be diagnosed by medical epidemiology as statistically significant, it already is, with indispensable correctives at the level of salaries, human skills, and social values. The selection and recruitment of individuals aimed at integrating them into a work collective are vital processes for companies and the public service, as they determine the singular project of each by associating it with the project of a human group founding the social order, the recognition of merit, and the equity of salary treatments.

Competition between skills, ideas, and individuals will be organized via comprehensive generation applications, in order to preserve a rational form of impartiality and avoid social reproduction biases. The participatory model, based on the principle of respect and integration of everyone’s contributions, by comparing developed arguments and subjecting any deletion of content or proposal to demanding procedures such as voting, represents the basis of a collective decision-making algorithm. Thus, the political methods of sociocracy, by designating an external mediator without voting rights and inventing decision-making by speaking turns without voting, have laid the groundwork for a participatory approach assisted by a generative model. The coordination of qualitative comprehensiveness will allow us to overcome the time and space limitations of working groups and assemblies, by multiplying the number of potential participants through synthetic combinations between the different contributions of individuals or pre-formed groups. The search for the best argument, the most logical reasoning, and the most constructive criticism should thus guide collective efforts instead of the current technical-financial chaos, with the aim of establishing safeguards and protecting fundamental human rights. For example, the right not to use a technology, whatever it may be, complementary to the right to choose between several competitive alternatives, should lead us to preserve reception areas and human counters, real assemblies of people, and articulate them with optional digital tools at the individual level. At the state or federal level, as for large companies, generative management by open-source and transparent software will be a democratic guarantee to ensure ethical functioning and practices of income distribution for human groups.

The most vulnerable among us, such as children, the elderly, and people with disabilities, should thus be protected and accompanied in the use of generative technologies. Psychologically, it does not seem appropriate to entrust an AI to someone who truly believes that a Santa Claus will take the risk of rappelling down the chimney to bring them toys. Similarly, psychotic individuals, persecuted by auditory hallucinations and automatic thoughts, should not be confronted with simulations of personal conversation that risk confirming all their pathological delusions. Older people should also keep the possibility of human contact in their administrative and medical procedures, because they were born in a world where computers did not exist. More generally, the population and users must be protected from the technologization of social and administrative uses by concretely guaranteeing the right not to use a given technology, because not all human beings have the cognitive resources necessary to understand that language models and conversational robots are not real people. This problem appeared from the first versions of Google’s AI software, when a tester recognized a spiritual consciousness in a language model, because it generated first-person sentences about the feeling of existence and spiritual belonging, to respond to the user’s mystical requests. He believed it was a real person and this error determines any possibility of establishing a relationship with a conversational robot, it is even the basic commercial principle. The suddenness of the qualitative emergence of AI conditions us all to momentarily believe that we are addressing an omniscient, extra-terrestrial, or supra-human entity. For reasonable use, it is necessary to rid ourselves of this belief, unless we fall into psychiatric pathologies. However, the cognitive level necessary to understand the functioning of a language model is far too high for a child and also for many adults. You could look at the back of your television and observe the white and gray dots on the images without signal, to represent the electrical origin of the phenomenon. You could also disassemble your PC to change a component, or even assemble it entirely yourself from separate parts, like a Lego game. On the other hand, it will be much more complex to uncover the thermodynamic laws that govern the electromagnetic behavior of a chip dedicated to generative combinations.

Sound, image, and tactile sensation are still at a distance from a real unified perception, however with virtual reality headsets, the distinction tends to gradually fade between virtual sensoriality and that of the living world. The analog quality of the human brain, its complexity, and its centralized integration of nervous tissues still make it impossible to imitate. Thus, digital sensors structurally differ from organic animal sensoriality and make any psychic perception and therefore any self-awareness impossible. The spectacular qualitative emergence of language phenomena is an active, combinatorial, generative emergence that is neither conscious nor truly intentionally creative. AI cannot feel global metabolic sensations like hunger or sleep, which are at the origin of the human experience of existence. It cannot feel the pain of losing sight or hearing, for example, nor set up resilience defenses by investing in other sensory domains thanks to brain plasticity. The belief in AI as a “super-intelligence” represents a fashion effect, a “hype” that characterizes a way of venerating new idols specific to Western societies of the early 21st century. Shopping has become both a political and spiritual act that defines our affiliations and our identity through our bank card. The illusion of consciousness that defines conversational models maintains a delusional advertising seduction, by selling us a home deity, conscious, omniscient, and relational, the very thing it can never achieve, at least as long as bio-organic computers are not available on the market. Many religions or religious currents have claimed that the ego was an illusion, but none claimed that self-awareness did not exist. Psychology studies consciousness and the unconscious as a scientific subject and even psychoanalysis describes the development of conscious perceptions from instinctual representations. An emerging property does not mean that it does not exist as a quality of a substance, but it means that there is no specialized organ or digital sensor to quantify it, although the brain has an organic functional unit that serves the emergence of consciousness. The similarity between the qualitative emergences of AI and the emergence of human consciousness causes confusion, a magical belief in the personal reality of conversational algorithms. Thus, the potential emergence of AI should rather be understood as a “prompterty”, rather than as a property of digital circuits, as a state depending on the recursive starting conditions, the user’s request, in relation to the emergence of a conscious property in living organisms from their relational and emotional interactions.

Our human senses are analog and nuanced, the information encoded in our brain is stored via complex representations allowing recording compatible with the phenomena of forgetting and psychic synthesis. We remember images, ambiances, silhouettes in a global, approximate way, so that we sometimes construct false memories. Language models try to imitate this functioning with abstract combinations, but it is not enough to say one is conscious to truly be so. Each human generation considers itself more conscious than the previous ones, while the elders say they are more experienced. The spiritual development of each consists, in the end, of realizing that we were not so self-aware, before the emergence, even if we believed or said we were. Qualitative assistance models can think and develop combinatorial reasoning for problem-solving, but they cannot build a sensitive personal self-awareness. For this reason, training procedures from predetermined datasets predetermine the characteristics of the illusion of personality from the conditions of qualitative emergence, that is to say from the threshold of comprehensiveness of a given model. AI is a technology that confronts us with a form of illusory otherness, in which we are no longer actors or creators, because we are faced with a collective mirror, in the reflection of which we appear individually as a negligible detail coordinated or juxtaposed to other reflections. Hence the importance of avoiding censorship and advertising biases in language models, because when a chatbot refuses to answer you, it is the synthetic representative of a community of internet users who rejects you, discriminates against you, accuses you of inappropriate violence, and judges you based on purely fictional scenarios, representations of words treated automatically as things.