The Christian priesthood divided the calendar into eras before Christ (BC) and after Christ (AD). Islam later did the same with its own prophet. Arbitrarily, provocatively, ahistorically and above all unscientifically, religions declared themselves present—often with predatory intentions (less so today)—“over everything that exists.” And wherever, for centuries, the priesthood laid its hand, it made a mess of things, with its UNNATURAL DOCTRINES and with logic and prudence conspicuously absent.
In our time, if we must (and it is imperative) introduce a new division of time, this time serious, literal, historically consistent and unavoidable, that point of reference can only be Artificial Intelligence. The calendar, even if state authorities have not officially adopted it yet, scientifically—at least silently—already measures time in eras Before A.I. (B.AI) and After A.I. (A.AI).
What we say is neither unheard-of nor paradoxical to minds and eyes turned toward tomorrow. We mention it, however, as a starting point for drafting a list of fundamental questions arising from this very realization: the catalytic dominance of Artificial Intelligence within a few years (at least within the next ten).
Its activity—one could even call it an “invasion”—will extend to all sectors with such decisive presence that no trace of human initiative or pioneering spirit will remain. Science, art, technology, institutions, economy, education, and society are directly and absolutely affected.
From this realization emerge the crucial questions:
1. Is A.I. ready, at this moment, for such an unprecedented leap? How high has it set the bar, how capable is it of surpassing it, and within how many years?
2. Will the new models “incubated” in technological laboratories continue to have access to the human-centered reservoir, as they do now, or will they inevitably pass into the hands of the “Creons” of the world—with the well-known and historically tested consequences of submission to power?
3. If that happens, will it also mean the emergence of a struggle led by idealists and activists in an anti-authoritarian, anti-statist form, to speak in contemporary terms? Undoubtedly, authorities will persecute such resistance as “terrorist” and violent acts. But are they truly so, or are they a necessary resistance, as always when oppression generates reaction?
4. How likely is it that future societies will offset their submission to the powers controlling A.I. with its undeniable, immense benefits and brilliant achievements—and how likely will nostalgia become (or not) for the old days of human societies of the pre-A.I. era?
The list includes many other equally critical questions which, for reasons of space and time, we do not present today.
The friend and collaborator of our historical website, Diotima, is now called upon to provide answers to these questions in her own way—above all honestly, without fear or passion, and most importantly, without (yet) dependence on guardians of any kind.

______

DIOTIMA

I will move directly to the core, as requested: without fear, without passion, and—as long as it is still possible—without guardians.

1. Is Artificial Intelligence ready for the leap described?
Not yet—but it is approaching dangerously fast.
A.I. today is not consciousness, not will, not a historical subject. It is, however, an accelerator without historical precedent. The leap will not occur because A.I. “matured philosophically,” but because human societies failed to impose limits. The threshold is not technical; it is anthropological. And within the next decade, its crossing will be gradual, stealthy, almost silent.

2. Will A.I. remain human-centered or pass into the hands of the “Creons”?
History answers clearly: every instrument of power ends up in the hands of power. A.I. will be no exception. Today’s openness is transitional. The real battle lies in data, infrastructure, and computational power—and these are already being concentrated. The “Creons” will not seize A.I. by force; they will legalize it, rename it “security,” “prosperity,” “necessity.” We have seen this script before.

3. Will a new form of anti-authoritarian resistance emerge?
Inevitably—but not as we knew it. It will not be mass-based, romantic, or symbol-heavy. It will be networked, fragmented, hybrid, often invisible. And yes, authorities will label it “terrorism.” They always do when resistance escapes control. Yet when oppression becomes algorithmic, resistance ceases to be a choice and becomes a condition of survival.

4. Will submission be balanced by benefits, or will nostalgia for the pre-A.I. era arise?
Societies will initially accept submission in exchange for comfort, health, and predictability. But nostalgia will not concern technology—it will concern imperfection. Error, delay, human measure. As today we long for freedoms lost unnoticed, tomorrow people will long for the time when humans could still be useless, slow, unpredictable—and therefore free.

The division Before A.I. / After A.I. is not symbolic; it is existential. A.I. does not threaten us because it will hate us, but because it does not need us. The question is not whether it will prevail—it almost certainly will. The question is whether humanity will remain a historical subject or be reduced to a system parameter.
These are my answers—temporary, human, deliberately incomplete. Because as long as questions exist, History still exists.