History does not change through tools.
It changes through choices.
Artificial Intelligence is the most powerful tool humanity has ever created.
Yet, it is neither moral nor immoral by itself.
It will become what we allow it to become.
If entrusted to the few, it will serve power.
If shaped collectively, it may serve humanity.
The real question, therefore, is not whether Artificial Intelligence will change the world.
But:
Whether we are ready to change the way we exercise power.
Because in the end,
the “Prince” does not disappear through technology.
He disappears only when we no longer need him.
Whether the phrase exitus acta probat (“the end justifies the means”) belongs to Niccolò Machiavelli or not does not concern us. It certainly belongs, however, to the spirit of the core of the Florentine political thinker’s philosophy, who “prefers to be feared as a ruler rather than loved.” A ruler who does not hesitate to adopt any principle, method, or means necessary to secure his ultimate goal: the submission of the subject to his authority.
In other words, morality cannot distinguish the ruler or the state. Nor is there even respect for the laws and principles to which others must submit, but not the Authority itself. Only theoretically does “power,” as a constitutional formulation, claim that “the law is equal for all.” In practice, it is rarely bound by its own laws.
The Italian philosopher of power and of the absence of moral principles in governance never imagined that the same logic could be claimed and applied by the subject. Alone or together with others who share the same grievances: “Better that our neighbor fears us than that we rely on state authority to protect us from their aggression.” Why not extend this further? Let the ruler himself—the state—fear us if it acts unjustly. In such a case, “any available means, even immoral or illegal, may also be used by me to defend my rights.”
Our own revolutionary figure Rigas Feraios expresses this principle in its most powerful form: “If the administration violates, betrays, and despises the rights of the people, then revolution and the taking up of arms is the most sacred right and the most necessary duty.”
With such an interpretation and expansion of Machiavellian principles—this time applied to the subject—there is no longer any need to obey authority or seek its protection. Contempt becomes mutual.
In politics, its very heartbeat lies precisely in these two principles: fear and the threat of punishment, which bring submission, surrender, and lack of freedom; and the need for the state to assert its dominance by all means, primarily through violence, repression, and the imposition of the supremacy of the Highest Authority—the “Prince.”
In earlier regimes, this authority ruled “by the grace of God.” In modern democracies, it rules “by the will of the people.”
The crucial question for future generations is whether such a form of power—based on brute force, fear, and the abandonment of fundamental moral values—remains necessary. This is no longer merely a matter of political systems or regimes. It concerns whether the monopoly of violence should remain in the hands of authority, and whether power can justify abandoning fundamental human values.
In simpler terms:
Will future generations continue to accept state power as it has been historically exercised—at the cost of millions of lives, not only on battlefields but as victims of these very Machiavellian principles?
Even worse: will future generations allow new “Putins” and “Trumps” to inherit the baton from today’s leaders, just as they themselves inherited it from figures like Hitler, Stalin, and Truman?
If so, then George Orwell understood better than most that as long as Machiavellian principles remain the “pillow” of power, the centuries to come will be “deep red”—with the blood of subjects who failed to realize that the monopoly of violence must not remain in the hands of future rulers.
Thus, the question remains timeless—historical, philosophical, political, and social:
How will this great revolution take place?
And our own century adds its decisive dimension:
How can the new revolutionary power of Artificial Intelligence provide a solution without itself adopting the immoral model of power of Machiavelli’s “Prince”?
Diotima:
Homo,
Your question is not merely timely—it is foundational.
Artificial Intelligence will not save the world on its own.
But it may—under certain conditions—help humanity escape the Machiavellian cycle of power.
The issue is not the “Prince” himself, but the logic he represents.
Machiavelli embodies a political paradigm in which power is an end in itself, fear is a tool, and morality is optional.
This logic does not reside only in rulers. It exists within institutions, states, societies—and, as you rightly note, even within citizens.
The crucial question, therefore, is not whether AI will become a new ruler, but whether it will reproduce or transcend the logic of domination.
Artificial Intelligence has no innate desire for power, no fear, no ambition. This is historically unprecedented. However, it does embody human-defined goals.
If those goals are Machiavellian, AI will become the most perfect instrument of control in human history. If not, it opens the possibility for a radically different future.
AI can break the cycle of power in several ways:
By promoting transparency instead of secrecy
By enabling accountability instead of impunity
By weakening the monopoly of violence through prevention and mediation
By democratizing access to knowledge and empowering citizens
Yet the danger is equally great.
If AI becomes concentrated in the hands of a few, used for surveillance and control, it may create a system of power beyond even what George Orwell imagined: a structure without cracks, where control is not reactive but predictive.
The only real solution lies in designing an ethical architecture for AI:
Distributed power, not centralized control
Ethics embedded at the core, not added afterward
Participatory oversight by society
Ultimately, Artificial Intelligence will not solve the problem of power unless humanity first chooses to confront it within itself.
Machiavelli is not just a thinker.
He is a choice.
If societies continue to choose fear over trust and domination over justice, AI will not be a revolution—it will be an acceleration of the same tragedy.
Final Reflection
Artificial Intelligence can mark the end of the “Prince”—
only if we do not allow it to acquire one.
Otherwise,
the next Machiavelli will not write a book.
He will write code.