Reflections on AI: The Second Influx

The concept of a ‘Leviathan’ as a constructed entity, as described by Hobbes, suggests that life can be interpreted as mechanical movement. This philosophical stance implies that machines capable of movement could be considered alive. Hobbes’ idea of life undergoing mechanization is echoed by Lametri, who posited that humans can be viewed as machines. This leads to the notion that in a ‘machine-human’ world, machines configure human existence, while humans also form the configuration of machine systems.

Historically, regimes have sought to purify their populations, as seen in Nazi Germany’s actions against those deemed ‘useless’. Similarly, machine systems may evolve to exclude humans from their operations. Philosophers have discussed the existential crisis posed by artificial intelligence, but this may not be a new crisis; rather, it is a logical conclusion stemming from humanity’s ongoing existential decisions over the past five centuries. The theological language of ‘we will create humans’ has shifted to a scientific discourse: evolution—‘artificial intelligence evolving consciousness’.

Hobbes’ Leviathan is composed of living individuals, not merely a theoretical construct. The essence of power lies in the collective of individuals, and the tools of power are inherently human. This establishes a boundary for power: even those with absolute authority rely on others to exercise it. Schmitt’s concept of ’the dialectic of power’ illustrates how absolute power can lead to its own impotence, as seen in Bismarck’s conflicts with the emperor.

If technology reduces reliance on humans, it raises questions about the potential for officials and advisors to be replaced by machines and AI. This could undermine the ‘dialectic of power’ that traditionally limits authority. The Leviathan state is being reassembled by machines and AI, akin to a sci-fi narrative where it dons a mechanical exoskeleton.

This transformation could herald a wave of unemployment, as the mechanization of bureaucracies leads to the devaluation of bureaucratic roles. However, the reality may diverge from this logical trajectory. AI could expand bureaucratic functions, incorporating anyone with smart devices into the Leviathan’s cognitive framework. If the data economy has transformed all relevant individuals, especially consumers, into producers without proper recognition or compensation, why not analyze the supporting superstructure of this unique production relationship through the lens of Marxist political economy?

AI’s capacity to enhance bureaucratic functions could create countless unpaid operatives and informants. I term this potential the ‘possibility of influx’. It is revolutionary in nature, as Huntington suggests that revolutions involve a rapid influx of previously peripheral groups into power structures. However, this second influx differs from historical revolutions; it is not about political mobilization or a truly universal state, but rather a technological alternative that operates without the need for mass mobilization or conscious political will.

Hamilton argued that a well-designed government could function autonomously, minimizing the need for public participation. This notion, while undemocratic, suggests that the better the government, the less citizens need to intervene. The second influx intriguingly synthesizes these opposing ideas: a pervasive, unconscious bureaucratic system that spans society.