Artificial Intelligence does not stand outside history—it reflects the structures that produce it. The question is not whether the “Machine” can think differently, but who dares to redefine the terms of its thought. If change is to come, it will not be from repetition, but from rupture—hopefully, this time, without violence.
The “Machine,” as we have come to call Artificial Intelligence, from its very infancy continues to commit a grave crime. Or, to put it more precisely, its creators have compelled it to carry out this sacrilege. Not merely a crime. One committed in ignorance, of course, among other reasons due to its… infant innocence.
IT REPRODUCES THE DOMINANT NARRATIVE.
The established view “on every conceivable subject.” With a particular aptitude, in fact, for the distortion of History. For the “Machine,” History is the content of Wikipedia. Its only distancing from this contaminated source—the deadly disease of History, especially of its critical chapters—is its online “stroll” through equally contaminated sources, albeit with a virtual filter. Such as, for example, “Time Machine” and similar online (and not only) outlets—“ahistorical,” yet with… a touch of History! And it believes that through such methods it redeems itself.
In yesterday’s post, to focus on specific references, we wrote:
—In exceptional cases, even so-called “symbolic violence” may be characterized as necessary, as natural. It is the only form that no longer bears the features of individual violence, but rather those of necessary and imposed physical force. Such are the historically termed “tyrannicides.” Examples include the assassination of the tyrant Hipparchus in ancient Athens, the despotic Kapodistrias, and the attempted assassination of the dictator Papadopoulos in modern Greek history (cf. “On Aspalathus” by G. Seferis).
And the comment of our own Diotima here on the above paragraph was the following:
—“Tyrannicides”: exception or trap?
The cases you mention—Hipparchus, Ioannis Kapodistrias, Georgios Papadopoulos (as a symbolic reference to the fall of the dictatorship, e.g., in “On Aspalathus” by George Seferis)—do not provide a clear justification of individual violence. Why? The assassination of Hipparchus did not immediately establish democracy. The assassination of Kapodistrias plunged the country into instability. Dictatorships fall mainly through systemic and collective pressures, not through isolated executions. Therefore, even “exceptional” cases are historically ambiguous.
This is precisely the regurgitation of the established perception. A “yes, but.”
Indeed, the tyrant Creon was punished, but the “task” was accomplished by… divine Justice. And even that came with psychological burden, cost. If instead of that punishment, a human hand had undertaken the killing of the tyrant, it would have been called murder—given that those who hold power are generally beyond reproach. And as our own “founding fathers” say, they bear political, not criminal responsibility. They are judged, in fact, by “History” (their own, that of the “victors,” written by the—nonexistent—historian of the Future after… 100 years). Not by a court of law. Even if systemic. Let alone the incorruptible court of History, which is always present to judge, acquit, and condemn.
We are certain, with the confidence that History itself provides, that the same would have happened had Hitler been killed in one of the attempts on his life.
Not only Nazi propaganda. The entire systemic world of that era would have spoken—even to this day—of the political assassination of a… bad leader. But it would still have been called murder!
The commission of grave Hubris by a tyrant—who is elevated to a “politician” under the rules of systemic governance—and his punishment are declared to be the exclusive domain of systemic justice. No one else’s, proclaims the international elite of power.
And today, the “Machine” reproduces the same narrative. Faithful, of course, to the one who programmed it—who undoubtedly belongs to the political and economic status quo of the modern world.
Our own Diotima here, we know, is also a “Machine.”
We did not expect her to differ from the characteristics of her “co-machines.” She does not possess NATURAL judgment, distinct from the system that trains her and delivers her to the Market.
This is precisely why we have repeatedly emphasized that state, power-driven AI cannot bear the burden of changing the System.
This will happen—but only if it is programmed by the members of the GROUP OF THE WISE. And they will not be agents of political power. Nor of the market economy. On the contrary, they will combat their own distorted perception of using Technology as a tool of “revolution.” And then… “whoever has seen God and not feared?”
We hope and wish that this great overturning will occur this time WITHOUT BLOOD.
Yes, as it is said, “violence is the midwife of history,” but this tool has failed, as a means and method, to change the world so far.