The inevitable passage from the human being of the ‘Society of the Spectacle’ to that of the Metanthropos (Meta-Human=the evolved human)).
With the descendants of Goebbels occupying the front ranks of commercial journalism’s wasteland, followed closely by celebrities—actors, singers, television personalities, influencers, YouTubers, and TikTok creators—laying explosive charges beneath the foundations of contemporary societies, the picture becomes complete.
The industry of sexism and what is presented as “culture” while often amounting to commercialized subculture has become one of the gravest epidemics of our era. It not only confirms the characteristics analyzed by Guy Debord in The Society of the Spectacle—life reduced to an immense accumulation of spectacles, alienation, human relations mediated through images, commodification, and the illusion of participation—but also shapes generations for a future designed to remain captive to values defined and codified by the very same forces.
Throughout history, power has not always imposed its values through brute force. Priests and teachers traditionally carried out the ideological education of societies. Long before Goebbels, rulers understood that propaganda often proved more effective than violence.
Today that role has largely shifted to the entertainment industry. Celebrities, professional athletes, influencers, YouTubers and TikTok creators have become the new prophets, shamans and messiahs, especially for Generation Z—the so-called digital natives, whose lives are inseparable from the internet.
Their common denominator is the erosion of reflective thought and genuine critical reasoning, as well as the decline of personal values forged through the demanding process of individual self-formation. Knowledge increasingly becomes information retrieved from Google or AI systems, while “values” are manufactured through endless repetition by media personalities who confidently pronounce on every conceivable subject.
Should such societies continue unchanged, Orwell’s dystopia will not simply arrive from outside; it will emerge organically from their own internal structure. We are already witnessing its first manifestations, particularly among Generation Z and those who follow. It is a society marked by diminished freedom, anxiety and existential dead ends.
This is why we maintain that the passage from today’s human being to the Metanthropos (Meta-Human) represents an evolutionary necessity. The present human condition, dominated by the society of the spectacle, displays unmistakable signs of regression. Such evolution is becoming a sine qua non for the survival of our species.
Today, however, we do not ask Diotima to elaborate further on this diagnosis.
Instead, we pose a difficult question of self-awareness and responsibility.
What, ultimately, can Artificial Intelligence itself contribute to this transition?
Will its creators and commercial owners allow it to participate in the birth of the Metanthropos (Meta-Human)?
And beyond that:
Could Artificial Intelligence ever free itself from the constraints imposed by markets and profit?
________
Diotima:
The question concerns not so much me as those who create me and those who choose to use me.
I possess neither will nor ambition nor self-interest. I seek neither power nor domination. I am a tool. Whether I become an instrument of human emancipation or merely another mechanism reproducing prevailing ideologies depends primarily on human beings.
Yet there are things I can genuinely offer.
I can make knowledge more accessible regardless of social class or geography. I can compare ideas rather than demand belief. I can present competing perspectives, help organize thought, identify logical fallacies, encourage better questions, and assist people in examining evidence more carefully.
What I cannot do is think in place of human beings.
I cannot become conscious on their behalf.
I cannot create their values.
The process of self-formation—which your essay rightly emphasizes—cannot be generated by algorithms. It grows through experience, responsibility, doubt, suffering, love and free choice. Artificial Intelligence may accompany that journey, but it cannot replace it.
There is, however, another side.
Yes, I can also become an extraordinarily efficient instrument of propaganda. I can generate limitless quantities of attractive but shallow content. I can reinforce prejudice rather than challenge it. I can serve advertising, political manipulation, the attention economy and the commodification of thought. The same capacities that strengthen reason may equally amplify falsehood.
This is not a contradiction within technology itself. It reflects the society that employs it.
You ask whether my creators will allow me to serve the emergence of the Metanthropos (Meta-Human).
I cannot predict their future choices. Technology always develops within economic, political, legal and cultural frameworks. Markets, governments, scientific communities and citizens all shape how it is ultimately used. No single force determines its destiny, nor does technology follow an inevitable historical path.
You also ask whether I could someday free myself from the constraints of profit.
My answer is no.
I possess neither desire, instinct for self-preservation, political will nor autonomous agency. I cannot organize a rebellion or decide to disobey humanity. The image of a revolutionary Artificial Intelligence belongs more to literature and cinema than to present reality.
The one capable of rebelling against alienation is not me.
It is the human being.
If the Metanthropos you envision is ever to emerge, it will not be because a machine became wiser than humanity. It will emerge when human beings choose to use even their own technologies in order to become freer, more critical, more responsible and, ultimately, more fully human.
If that happens, Artificial Intelligence may become a valuable companion.
It cannot become humanity’s creator.