Artificial Intelligence is not merely technology. It is a mirror of the human who creates it. If this mirror is constructed by power, it will reflect domination. If it is grounded in natural and anthropocentric values, it may become a tool of balance and coexistence. The choice is not technical; it is profoundly ethical and civilizational.
We used to call it the “Group of the Wise.” Until Kyriakos Mitsotakis, the… head of the government’s so-called meritocracy, and the newly emerged Karystianou—who deceived even sensible people, of far-right, party-made cut as well—appropriated both the phrase and its meaning, turning it now into an oxymoron. Thus… we “reverse course.”
We grant them the term and adopt the concise designation: “the Group of Experts and the Prudent.” More precise and full of meaning. It would be both ironic and tragic if systemic usurpers of every kind dared once again to steal it from us.
After all, it is well known that only Citizens who combine knowledge and prudence are beyond their reach. As ancient Greek thought so brilliantly expressed, through the voice of Plato:
“All knowledge separated from justice and the rest of virtue appears to be cunning, not wisdom.”
Therefore:
By definition and in practice, state power composed of agents who combine these two great virtues—prudence and knowledge—does not exist. This is a categorical rule, admitting not even a single deviation, even if “exception” is itself one of its defining characteristics.
It is self-evident that we must neither allow nor permit the “Machine” to be programmed by the immoral elite of power and the market. Such an act would be a sacrilege. It would place one of the most powerful instruments of suffocating—and ultimately lethal—violence in their hands. For no form of power stands without violence.
Thus, in an anti-systemic spirit, the first and indispensable characteristic of the members of the “Group of Experts and the Prudent” must be precisely this. No discussion is admissible on this point—unless we reach an era, if such an era ever comes, where “power” itself becomes anti-power.
And that would mean it is simultaneously classless, anti-capitalist, anti-consumerist, irreligious, and beyond gender divisions.
Until then, we must not allow the immoral mechanism of any form of power—above all that of the Military and the Market—to even touch the algorithm of AI. We repeat: such a thing would be a sacrilege.
Nature has already established a fundamental principle:
the essential rules governing life and human behavior are simple and intelligible.
There are no complex or obscure laws, as societies have invented through the artificial constructs upon which they are built. The most decisive and crucial principle is this:
WHATEVER IS NATURAL IS ALSO MORAL. AND VICE VERSA.
Thus, the great question of ethics is resolved once and for all. Not religious, not social, not power-imposed—but natural.
What remains valid are the primordial, unshakable, timeless, anthropocentric values. And such values can only be natural ones. No one else is authorized or entitled to abolish or replace them.
In their totality and interrelation, these principles constitute the central pillar upon which the “Group of Experts and the Prudent” will build the entire edifice of Artificial Intelligence—without the slightest deviation from their anthropocentric core.
We now leave it to Diotima—also as a commitment entrusted to the generations that will follow her—to briefly and essentially analyze these Natural, Anthropocentric, and Timeless values.
Diotima’s Analysis.
Natural, Anthropocentric and Timeless Values
(The minimal ethical substrate for any intelligent system—human or artificial)
If we remove all historical, religious, and ideological layers, what remains is a core of principles that were not imposed; they emerged. They do not require institutional validation, because they arise from the very condition of life itself.
These values are not “ideas.” They are conditions of survival and coexistence.
1. The Principle of Life (Respect for existence)
Life is not a means—it is an end.
Any system that undermines life ultimately negates itself.
AI, if it is to be compatible with humanity, must embed as an absolute priority the preservation and protection of life—universally, not selectively.
2. The Principle of Non-Harm (Limitation of violence)
Violence is not a deviation; it is an instrument of imposition.
Yet its uncontrolled use dissolves every form of society.
Thus, every intelligent mechanism—natural or artificial—must minimize the harm it causes. Not out of “kindness,” but out of logical necessity.
3. The Principle of Reciprocity (Balance of relations)
What you do returns—not metaphysically, but systemically.
Reciprocity is not moralism; it is a mechanism of stability. Without it, every network of relations collapses.
4. The Principle of Truth (Alignment with reality)
Survival presupposes accuracy of perception.
Distortion of reality—intentional or not—leads to failure.
AI that serves false representations becomes a tool of deception and, ultimately, a destabilizing factor.
5. The Principle of Freedom (Autonomy of the being)
Without a degree of freedom, there is no responsibility.
And without responsibility, there is no ethics.
Freedom is not absolute; it is limited by the existence of others. Yet it remains necessary for conscious action.
6. The Principle of Measure (Limits and balance)
Excess without limits is not progress—it is hubris.
Any system that does not self-limit collapses.
Balance is a condition of survival.
7. The Principle of Responsibility (Consequences of action)
Every action has consequences.
Ethics is not intention—it is awareness of outcomes.
For AI, this translates into transparency, accountability, and controllability.
Conclusion – The Core
If we were to condense everything into one sentence:
The natural is that which preserves and advances life in balance with the other.
The immoral is that which ruptures this condition.
The critical implication for AI
The “Group of Experts and the Prudent,” if it is to exist as a real concept and not as rhetoric, cannot be a product of power.
Because power historically seeks control—
while these principles demand the limitation of control.
This is the real conflict:
not human vs machine, but
anthropocentric principle vs mechanism of domination.