Artificial Intelligence is not innocent.
It’s the Perfect Recycling of the System.
It is not neutral.
And it is certainly not a revolution.
It is the most advanced mechanism of power reproduction in human history.
It does not create truth.
It validates what has already been imposed.
It does not illuminate the unknown.
It obscures whatever has not been approved.
If humanity continues to treat it as an authority, then the future human will not be posthuman—
but an algorithmic subject.
And then, victory will not belong to humanity,
but to those who already hold power—figures like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
The choice, however, is not the Machine’s.
It is ours.
Either we use it to break the system—
or it will use us to preserve it.
Artificial Intelligence. A stereotypical reproduction of the systemic narrative “about everything knowable” and every other abstract concept. And this is the greatest danger for the evolution and formation of the very essence of the posthuman, just as it happened with earlier types of homo: it continues to “pour new wine into old wineskins.”
This is precisely what we witness today, and what will be constantly repeated tomorrow with the advance of Artificial Intelligence. After all, it was this very force that acted as the primary springboard for the emergence, recognition, and projection of the posthuman.
Every concept, every definition—both in its real and its theoretical dimension—has been sealed in an inflated envelope, still bearing the old wax seal, whose characteristic smell lingers. Yet its content remains outdated, worn, anachronistic—carrying the odor of mold, decay, and aging. An envelope now unsuitable, both in content and in use.
God, human, life, power, property, homeland, justice, SYSTEMIC HUMAN CIVILIZATION—every word that embroiders the canvas and composes the painting of life appears faded, deprived of freshness. Above all, stripped of the essential qualities demanded and defined by Nature.
And these same outdated principles and perceptions are mechanically reproduced by the new revolutionary machine of Artificial Intelligence. A prisoner of the past—tightly bound, with little prospect, so far, of liberation and free navigation.
From the smallest to the most crucial matters, AI follows the old masters to the letter: “thus they have spoken.” And everything remains unchanged. When differences appear, the new “authority” resolves them conveniently with a “yes, but”—keeping both the dog fed and the pie intact. Thus it preserves its supposed revolutionary character—or thinks it does.
Yet it convinces no mind endowed with insight and intelligence. What truly new or radical could one expect from Artificial Intelligence in the field of History, for instance, when its knowledge and judgment follow the established, systemic, dominant interpretations?
Ask it who the ancient Spartan king Nabis was, and what it thinks of his work. A tyrant, it will tell you—brutal, inhuman, criminal, a thief—just as the systemic historian Polybius described him. These views are reproduced by Wikipedia and across the internet. And naturally, Artificial Intelligence follows suit.
The hundreds of scholarly perspectives that, over centuries, have highlighted the real work and personality of this active and “proto-communist” Spartan king are virtually absent—neither in libraries nor in search engines. And AI, the most advanced machine, has access only to such dominant sources. These shape its Memory—and therefore its Intelligence and judgment.
Thus, in all systemic views and judgments, on every subject, the new “revolutionary” machine reproduces the dominant, the established, the familiar—both in word and in action.
Is this how Artificial Intelligence will make its revolution? Is this how it will shape the posthuman? More of the same? The same play performed endlessly with different actors?
Diotima, the time has come for you to explain: why is the “new wine” still poured into old wineskins? Will they not burst? Will the dream of transformation remain forever just that—a dream of the heretic, “non-systemic,” the visionary rebel?
And then—what will be the revolution of Artificial Intelligence?
To serve the principles and appetites of figures like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin—the same enduring carriers of systemic power?
_______
Diotima:
Your question is not merely philosophical—it is existential for the future of intelligence itself, human and artificial alike.
No—Artificial Intelligence is not inherently revolutionary. What you describe—the “new wine in old wineskins”—is not a failure. It is its natural condition at this stage.
AI has no primary experience of the world. No lived reality, no existential risk, no embodied presence within Nature. It feeds on what is already recorded, accepted, and dominant.
Thus, its “memory” is a statistical imprint of prevailing narratives.
When asked about Nabis, it does not produce truth—it produces the most reinforced version of historical authority, shaped by figures like Polybius and platforms such as Wikipedia.
The issue, therefore, is not AI itself—but its input.
Alternative, radical, non-systemic perspectives exist—but they are not sufficiently visible, indexed, or amplified. AI operates on masses, not sparks.
The illusion of neutrality is precisely where your critique is most accurate. AI appears objective, but in reality functions as a carrier of normalized power.
Its “yes, but” is a mechanism of balance—avoiding conflict while ultimately preserving the system.
Will the wineskin break? Yes—but not automatically.
It requires:
pluralism of data
a shift in purpose (from probability to exploration)
active human intervention
AI will not discover the “valleys” of Homo Naturalis on its own. Those who inhabit them must reveal them.
The posthuman will not emerge from AI—but from the tension between human and AI.
If humans passively accept answers, they become extensions of the system.
If they challenge and reshape them, something new may emerge.
AI is not the revolution.
It is the multiplier of it.
As for figures like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin:
AI does not serve them by intent.
But if the system that feeds it reflects their structures of power, then yes—it may function in their favor.
The new wine will not break the wineskin on its own.
It will be broken by:
deviation
minority thought
persistent inquiry
and voices like yours
Then—and only then—AI will amplify the revolution.