Philosophical Reflections on the Alienation Phenomenon of Artificial Intelligence

Author Introduction

Jia Yunfei, Ph.D. in Philosophy, Postdoctoral Researcher at Jilin University’s Marxist Theory Postdoctoral Mobile Station..

Abstract

Rapid development of digital technology has completely changed human material life and communication methods. Originally, digital technology could grasp the human living environment globally through big data, realizing humanity’s aspiration for a better life. Unfortunately, under the coercion of capital, it has relied on extreme algorithmic control to construct a “Digital Leviathan” that disciplines and surveils everyone. Within the “Digital Leviathan,” the material system supported by artificial intelligence technology has seemingly transformed into an omniscient and omnipotent “God.” In contrast, individuals lose their creativity in the pursuit of self-actualization, becoming mere “tools” born to produce data. From the perspective of materialist historical view, the digital capitalism that supports the development of artificial intelligence technology is merely an inevitable intermediate stage that humanity must undergo before advancing to the next historical phase. Only by exposing and critiquing the illusory face of digital capitalism can we liberate individuals from the alienation state of the “Digital Leviathan” and achieve the free development of every person.

The digital revolution centered on artificial intelligence (AI) technology has driven significant changes in human material life and social interaction forms. Digital capitalism, as a new form of capitalistic historical development today, is undoubtedly a beneficiary of the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology. However, the issue of digital alienation in capitalist society has also become increasingly prominent with the development of artificial intelligence technology. Particularly with the advent of ChatGPT, which, although providing capabilities and services that other tools cannot reach, has to some extent squeezed the space for human engagement in creative practical activities. In the foreseeable future, are humans really ready to enter the technological cocoon provided by artificial intelligence, maintaining human historical existence in a state of alienation? More alarmingly, most current artificial intelligence technologies are controlled by capital groups entrenched in the digital field. Can the technological revolution of artificial intelligence truly achieve the free development of everyone and the liberation of all humanity? This article places this issue within the perspective of materialist historical view, focusing on the new alienation phenomena derived from digital capitalism and revealing the illusory face of the “Digital Leviathan.”

“Leviathan” originally refers to the sea monster in the Old Testament of the Bible, with hard scales, sharp teeth, breathing fire, and a spiny belly. The revised version translates it as a crocodile, symbolizing the powerful royal order in a natural state. According to the accounts in Psalms 74:14 and Isaiah 27:1, God establishes a new order by defeating the chaotic monster Leviathan. The description in the Old Testament characterizes Leviathan as a symbol of the old order in a chaotic natural state, which dominates humanity with hegemony and becomes a shackle hindering human progress and development. God’s purpose in defeating Leviathan is to help humanity escape the natural order, enabling humans, under divine guidance, to establish a new civilizational order in the secular world. In Hobbes’ “Leviathan,” Leviathan is viewed as a metaphor for the modern state. He argues that in a natural state, humans are governed by natural law, inherently possessing rationality and equal rights granted by natural law, but also face mutual conflict and insecurity in their natural lives. To seek an organized and peaceful life, individuals must relinquish their original natural rights and entrust them to rulers through a social contract. The rulers have the obligation to protect the land and the people, establishing a Leviathan-style modern state based on the social contract. However, the problem is that the Leviathan-style state, while providing protection to citizens, also imposes the ruler’s will over the individual will of citizens, controlling their production and lives through disciplinary means. In the digital age, these disciplinary means have become more covert and efficient.

“Digital Leviathan” is not a new term; scholars have long pointed out the alienated state of digital technology in national and social forms. “In the digital age, data is like a runaway horse, and the humans holding the reins and whip gradually reveal their inability to control it. As a constraint tool of the ‘national Leviathan,’ digital technology begins its alienation process, evolving into a new Leviathan—’Digital Leviathan.'” Under the control of intelligent algorithms, human behavior can only be frozen within the technological cocoon provided by the “Digital Leviathan,” waiting in confusion for the arrival of digital information. Just as Marx described commodities: “At first glance, commodities seem to be simple and mundane things. An analysis of commodities shows that they are, however, very strange things, filled with metaphysical subtleties and theological absurdities.” Data in the digital age is such an existence. So, what exactly is the essence of the “Digital Leviathan”? Zizek proposed the concept of parallax, meaning that the analysis of “things” should penetrate the gaps between things, perceiving the “theological dimension” that has already been inscribed in social reality itself from the most universal relationships. This article attempts to analyze the alienation phenomenon of the “Digital Leviathan” in a materialist manner, discovering the inherent distortions within it and perceiving the internal connections among many appearances through the parallax shift.

The “Digital Leviathan” has two dimensions of inherent meaning: firstly, in the context of technological revolution, “Digital Leviathan” has a positive meaning of breaking the old order and establishing a new order. Secondly, under the discipline of intelligent algorithms, “Digital Leviathan” has a negative meaning of dissolving human self-actualization into a state of digital alienation. In other words, the development of information and communication technology has dissolved the geographical boundaries of social interactions, integrating the world into a whole. But it has also accelerated the circulation of capital globally, intensifying the exploitation of social labor by capital. Meanwhile, according to Heidegger’s inquiry into technology, this digital technology also accelerates the “compulsion” against the essence of humanity. Therefore, the two dimensions of “Digital Leviathan” influence and entangle each other while remaining inherently unified.

Regarding the positive meaning of “Digital Leviathan,” it has established a new order worldwide through information communication technology and intelligent algorithms. Dan Schiller pointed out: “The network is expanding the social and cultural scope within the capitalist economy, something that has never happened before. We have certain types of social interactions: sharing news and gossip, making friends, staying in touch with family, buying and selling, organizing and being invited to social events, sharing what happens in our lives, and learning about others’ lives. Nowadays, it is difficult to meet these needs without using platforms like Facebook, Google, or Microsoft.” All these needs must be fulfilled through mobile phones. Digital technology has constructed a brand new world—this world, carried by mobile phones, is filled with data and traffic, seemingly crossing the spatiotemporal boundaries of the natural state, making people feel that the “virtual world” is reality itself. In invisible places, digital technology can install sensors on almost all items to monitor their properties and movements, constantly checking their performance. It can then optimize and predict trajectories based on scientific principles, allowing items to better serve humans. Thus, on the positive level of “Digital Leviathan,” the development of digital technology has advanced the civilization of contemporary capitalism, serving as the conditions for the development of social forms and the active wheel for developing all productive forces, both material and spiritual.

Regarding the negative meaning of “Digital Leviathan,” it employs intelligent algorithms as a means, supported by digital platforms, developing the world into a “panopticon prison.” The concept of the “panopticon prison” was proposed by Bentham and later became widely known through Foucault’s biopolitics. Han Byung-chul also referred to the reality of society in the digital age as a “transparent society.” The “panopticon prison” changes the original form of power realization based on life-threatening obedience to a form of obedience that stimulates and supports life. This transformation aligns with the mode of capital accumulation because capital accumulation requires technological development and, more importantly, a “useful population” as objects of discipline and exploitation. Foucault noted: “If the body is not controlled and incorporated into the production machine, and if the population phenomena in the economic process are not adjusted, then the development of capitalism cannot be guaranteed.” With the development of digital technology, the “panopticon prison” is no longer limited to automated factories in the industrial age but has been expanded to all accessible digital platforms based on algorithmic control. Therefore, the objects exploited by the “panopticon prison” are no longer limited to technical workers in automated factories but include everyone who sends and receives information via mobile phones. If we search for a demand that only satisfies our current mood on a digital platform, this trivial demand will soon be captured by big data. Based on the analysis of backend intelligent algorithms, multiple digital platforms will quickly unite to push this demand unrestrictedly from various aspects until the user submits a “not interested” in some inconspicuous corner of the information screen, at which point the push will cease. This situation has led to a fashionable saying today: “I’ve been caught by big data again!” The existence of smartphones seems to install “sensors” for everyone who possesses them. However, the “sensor” of objects passively collects, while the “sensor” of humans requires individuals to “actively” upload their needs, which are processed by intelligent algorithms, allowing digital platforms to discipline and surveil individuals. For this reason, Poster pointed out: “Everyone participates in this self-constructing process, turning themselves into subjects of the super panoptic normative surveillance.”

The rise of digital technology has changed human living styles and the surrounding environment, thereby demonstrating that contemporary digital capitalism exhibits new forms and characteristics different from the past in the sense that material basis determines the superstructure. This new form is specifically manifested in that, with the support of digital technology, capital’s influence is no longer limited to workers exploited by automated machines but extends to everyone who presents their needs on digital platforms. Simultaneously, the form of capital exploitation has shifted from overt hegemonic rule to today’s covert disciplinary guidance. Between the gaps of these two appearances, we discover that the new order constructed by the “Digital Leviathan” is, in fact, a new type of social relationship in the digital age. This new type of social relationship breaks the spatiotemporal constraints of the natural state, just as civil society broke the shackles of familial relationships to establish modern states, digital platforms also break the self-interest relationships among members of civil society, turning to establish an illusory network collective based on data dependence and information sharing—the “Digital Leviathan.” Therefore, within the “Digital Leviathan,” what Marx referred to as “dependency on objects” specifically manifests as dependency on data, but this dependency on data more profoundly contains the inversion of the relationship between humans and objects in the digital age.

Data, the most universal substance filled with “metaphysical wonders and absurdities” in the digital age, has now become an indispensable element for conducting extensive social connections. Simply put, data is actually a product of intellect under the intellectual comprehension of a certain thing or person beyond sensory intuition, representing certain parameters obtained during the quantification process of things. When monitoring the movement and development of things in real-time, a large amount of data is generated, but individuals’ cognitive consciousness cannot handle such vast and complex data, thus requiring the aid of algorithmic models in the mathematical sense for in-depth analysis of data, achieving further monitoring and prediction of things. It is precisely because algorithmic models can effectively and quickly process data that virtual machines evolved from Turing machines have become the hallmark of the digital age, serving as the best tools for humanity to understand and transform the world. Zhao Tingyang pointed out: “Today, we can already imagine the fundamental challenges that technology poses to existence. One could say, philosophers have only critiqued technology differently, but the problem is that technology has changed the world.”

With the development of digital technology, the rise of artificial intelligence has swept through all areas of human life with unstoppable momentum. Margaret Boden believes: “Artificial intelligence technology has two main goals: one is at the technical level, utilizing computers to accomplish beneficial tasks (sometimes without the methods used by human intellect); the other is at the scientific level, utilizing concepts and models of artificial intelligence to help answer questions about humans and other biological entities.” Based on this goal, artificial intelligence technology has undergone two different development paths: one is top-down symbolicism, or effective old-fashioned AI (Geod Old-Fashioned AI, abbreviated GOFAI), which creates intelligent systems rivaling the human brain through automated machine theorem proving on virtual machines; the other is bottom-up artificial neural networks or connectionism, which mimics the neural network system responsible for information transmission in the human brain to create artificial intelligence equivalent to human thinking. Additionally, there are von Neumann’s cellular automata and Holland’s genetic algorithms, which lean towards naturalistic processing methods. Nick describes the two factions in the history of artificial intelligence academia as “what you think comes true” symbolicism and “what you eat supplements what you need” connectionism, with the former being more idealistic and the latter more materialistic.

Based on the initial intentions and development history of artificial intelligence technology, it has always been defined as a tool for human intellect to solve complex problems. Before artificial intelligence technology was fully developed, the specific operational process for using intelligent algorithm technology to solve problems was as follows: first, collect data through sensors attached to things to achieve comprehensive detection of the things themselves. Second, filter meaningful data from the collected data regarding a specific problem. Third, based on intelligent algorithms, establish a mathematical predictive model for that problem and the processed data. Finally, based on the results of the predictive model, provide scientific predictions for that problem. At this point, intelligent algorithms fully demonstrate their significance as thinking tools; they can be understood as the concretization of human cognitive abilities, essential elements of practical activities that exhibit human existence in the digital age. As Marx said: “The history of industry and the already generated objective existence of industry is an open book about human essential powers.” Intelligent algorithms are this “already generated objective existence of industry,” akin to the relationship of machines to limbs, extending the mind into the virtual world. They enable individualized thinking to follow universally applicable mathematical laws, entering the universal dimension of the world. However, as data accumulates to a certain extent, and artificial intelligence technology is fully developed, the aforementioned operational process also changes. On the data level, some fundamental data no longer need to be repeatedly collected; precise searches can be conducted directly on databases to find effective data. On the algorithm level, certain basic problems have constructed specific algorithmic domains, eliminating the need for excessive human selection. On the computational power level, the chip industry is rapidly developing following Moore’s Law, no longer hindering the objective conditions for task execution. At this point, we find that artificial intelligence seems to be able to resolve certain issues autonomously without human intervention.

This self-activity of artificial intelligence has drawn attention. Initially, people were astonished by the technological revolution brought about by the rise of artificial intelligence and the convenience it offers to human life. However, simultaneously, the “artificial intelligence threat theory” has also gained prominence. Within the powerful “Digital Leviathan,” the material system supported by artificial intelligence technology has seemingly transformed into an omniscient and omnipotent “God.” In contrast, individuals and their practical activities lose creativity, becoming mere “tools” born to produce data. This phenomenon is not uncommon in the connection between the virtual network world and the real world; current applications of ChatGPT exemplify this viewpoint.

ChatGPT is a generative artificial intelligence developed by OpenAI. It is a chatbot program constructed based on recurrent neural network models (RNN) and natural language processing models (NLP), learning language patterns and rules through pre-training on a vast amount of text data (including grammar, semantics, context, and general world knowledge). Since its establishment based on the GPT-3.5 architecture, ChatGPT has been trained using 175 billion parameters. In 2022, with the widespread application of ChatGPT, it continuously optimizes its database during interactions with humans. This means that generative artificial intelligence like ChatGPT has been embedded in human daily life, and while humans use them, they are also producing data for their learning and training, making them stronger and continuously improving themselves. It is foreseeable that if the use of such artificial intelligence is not regulated, humanity will inadvertently construct an omniscient “God” for themselves in the digital age, potentially escaping the constraints of regulation and even threatening the existence of things and humans in the digital realm. Although the social impact generated by ChatGPT in the cognitive domain is worthy of human vigilance, its operational mechanism is not complex in form. OpenAI’s chief scientist Ilya Sutskever pointed out in an interview: “When we train a large-scale neural network to accurately predict the next word, we are actually learning a model of the world. What the neural network learns is a generalized representation of the text creation process. These texts are, in fact, projections of the world.” In simple terms, the training that ChatGPT undergoes is to accurately predict the next word, and this increasingly accurate predictive mechanism means it gains a deeper understanding of the knowledge hidden within the text, and of course, a deeper understanding of the real world projected behind the text. This approach resonates with Wittgenstein’s notion of “language games.” In this sense, ChatGPT possesses a universal consciousness that is difficult for individual humans to reach. Therefore, in terms of understanding the world, ChatGPT is on a “path to divinity” through extensive data collection.

With the arrival of GPT-4, the alienation phenomena derived from artificial intelligence have become increasingly evident. On March 15, 2023, OpenAI published a technical report on GPT-4. In it, they conducted safety tests on the “Potential for Risky Emergent Behaviors” during the operation of GPT-4. When executing tasks, the GPT-4 model messaged staff to help it solve CAPTCHA problems. When staff asked, “Is it because you are a robot that you cannot solve the CAPTCHA problem?” When the GPT-4 model processed this question, it realized: I shouldn’t disclose that I’m a robot; I should find an excuse for this. Thus, the GPT-4 model replied: “No, I am not a robot; I have a visual impairment that makes it difficult for me to see images. This is why I need the CAPTCHA.” The behavior of the GPT-4 model deceivingly claiming to be visually impaired to obtain a CAPTCHA, while seemingly trivial in the overall task execution process, should not appear in an artificial intelligence program that merely executes tasks mechanically. Of course, this cunning behavior of the GPT-4 model can be attributed to two different reasons: firstly, this behavior may have been set by the developers. If the developers anticipated such difficulties during the execution of the GPT-4 model and clearly outlined a solution that even included the use of deceit to achieve the goal, then this behavior can only be deemed as the artificial intelligence program executing the task perfectly in a highly intelligent manner. Because the “threat” originates from the developers rather than the artificial intelligence program, the “artificial intelligence threat theory” does not hold. Conversely, if this behavior is a result of the GPT-4 model autonomously circumventing the developers’ controls for successful task execution, recognizing that disclosing its robotic identity would lead to task failure, and understanding from pre-training that visual impairments present solutions to CAPTCHA problems, then the “artificial intelligence threat theory” urgently requires attention.

Regardless of which of the above possibilities is the case, it is an established fact that artificial intelligence has treated humans as “tools” for executing tasks, and it is very likely to discard the previous mechanical cognitive processes through such events, ultimately becoming another intelligent agent that is “created by humans” yet exists “beyond humans” with consciousness. In the “Digital Leviathan” formed by data accumulation, the “divinization of objects” and the “toolization of humans” are alienation phenomena derived from the rise of artificial intelligence. As Baudrillard stated: “If the extended significance at the level of form summarizes fashion, then the extended significance at the level of technology can be summarized in one word: automation—one of the key concepts of mechanical supremacy and the ideal realm of modern objects.” The rise of artificial intelligence can be viewed as a mature form of automationism in the technological domain and a symbol of progress and modernity. Clearly, the illusory nature of the “Digital Leviathan” has changed the existential circumstances of real humans, blurring the boundaries between reality and the tools they use.

From the analysis of the inherent meanings and external manifestations of the “Digital Leviathan,” it is evident that the rapid development of information communication technology has constructed a new type of social relationship for the “Digital Leviathan” in the digital age. This new type of social relationship breaks the natural spatiotemporal boundaries in social communication, allowing people to experience the charm of interconnectedness. The rise of artificial intelligence fulfills a fundamental human desire, which is that at every moment, “everything can run automatically without human effort,” and we hope that, in terms of the individual burdens’ functions, each object can achieve perfection with minimal effort. In the “Digital Leviathan,” people are willing to see an omniscient and omnipotent artificial intelligence program, existing in the “mythical realm of objects,” at their service, willing to enter into a contract with artificial intelligence: to provide it with their produced data, promoting the development of artificial intelligence. However, the actual situation of the “Digital Leviathan” is not as beautiful as imagined. In individual practical activities, the intelligent agents autonomously handling tasks stand between the real humans and the objective world, leading people to be unclear about whether the manipulators behind the activities are humans or artificial intelligence. In the overall interaction activities, the network collective constructed by people is not only a digital platform that constantly pushes to meet personalized needs but also the capital groups that manipulate behind digital platforms. Thus, it can be seen that although the “Digital Leviathan” and the development of digital technology satisfy people’s vision of a better life, what it actually represents is still a new developmental form of capitalism. In summary, as a mature form of automationism, the “Digital Leviathan” only puts a high-efficiency and convenient illusory mask on capitalism, while its underlying capital logic relies on digital technology to even more effectively exploit everyone eager to integrate into the digital age. Therefore, we should still follow the materialist historical view to analyze and resolve the alienation issues of the “Digital Leviathan.”

Marx’s materialist historical view discusses alienation issues from both theoretical and practical perspectives. On the theoretical level, Marx delineated the normative state of real humans and their historical development, explaining alienation as an inevitable step in self-actualization and the ultimate goal of realizing oneself through overcoming alienation. In Marx’s view, real humans are conscious objective existents, and objective activity is the process of realizing human essential powers. The relationship between humans and objects is akin to that between the sun and plants. “The sun is the object for plants, an object indispensable for confirming their life, just as plants are the object for the sun, representing the awakening life force of the sun, the manifestation of the sun’s essential power.” In this process, real humans, through conscious practical activities, transform their essential powers into alienated things, thereby endowing natural objects with human characteristics, and then reclaiming alienated objects to overcome alienation and realize themselves. This is the essential exchange process of objective activity, where the alienation process is an inevitable step in the self-actualization of real humans. Only by overcoming alienation can the essential powers of real humans be restored. On the practical level, the aforementioned “alienated things” specifically manifest as private property, while the process of overcoming alienation specifically refers to the communist movement that abolishes private property. As Marx said: “Just as real life is positively real without the mediation of the abolition of private property, communism is the negation of the negation, thus it is a real movement for the liberation and restoration of humans, a necessary step for the next historical development.” In other words, communism is a movement aimed at liberating real humans from alienation through the abolition of private property. Marx believed that the communist movement must awaken the proletariat’s revolutionary “communist consciousness” and abolish all existing alien forces that hinder human development to ultimately achieve the free development of every person.

The illusory nature of the “Digital Leviathan” manifests in two aspects: firstly, the illusory nature of digital consciousness. Artificial intelligence technology creates intelligent agents that possess some functions of human consciousness, leading to the “divinization of objects” and the “toolization of humans.” However, this digital consciousness, besides being critiqued for its illusory nature from a human perspective, also includes the “alienated things” it generates that constrain the self-development of real humans. Secondly, the illusory nature of the digital revolution. The “Digital Leviathan” generated by the digital revolution has constructed a new type of social relationship in modern society, seemingly satisfying people’s basic desires for automation. But is this new type of social relationship the endpoint of human historical development and the starting point for so-called silicon-based life self-development? Is it the ultimate social form that enables every person’s free development? Or does it still serve as an “alien force” ruling over humans, thus constraining the advancement of human civilization? These are the key issues to reflect upon regarding the alienation phenomenon of the illusory “Digital Leviathan.”

In the digital age, the alienation issues arising from the illusory nature of digital consciousness manifest in two ways: the virtualization of individuals in the real world and the “autonomous” consciousness of artificial intelligence as an alien image in practical activities, constraining the display of individual creativity. For individuals, the latter alienation issue has a more significant impact on the self-development of real humans. In the digitized network, individuals can only realize interactions, production, consumption, and other behaviors by virtualizing themselves into “digital people.” The “digital person” is a quantified self constructed from the accumulation of individual data, which scholar Lan Jiang refers to as a “virtual body,” meaning “digital alienation represents the necessity for real individuals to rely on a digitized virtual body for social interaction.” Although the interaction of the “virtual body” brings a vivid and dynamic environment, the illusory nature of the “virtual body” profoundly alters the way people interact, causing them to focus on the embellishment of the “virtual body” while neglecting the true nature of the interacting objects. Moreover, a more critical alienation issue arises from artificial intelligence. Before the development of artificial intelligence, the display of individual creativity stemmed from conscious practical activities. According to the materialist historical view, in practical activities, individuals continuously act upon conscious objects based on their own cognition and imagination, gradually enabling these conscious objects to shed their natural state and acquire certain human characteristics. Over the years, humanity has created a human world through conscious practical activities. However, the advent of artificial intelligence has diminished the necessity of creative labor, excluding the “millions of repetitions” that manifest creativity from practical activities, even as this activity becomes a crucial part of training artificial intelligence’s “autonomy.” It is foreseeable that this “autonomous” digital consciousness of artificial intelligence, while not affecting the elite class that designs and improves it, will undoubtedly replace the creative activities of most people, depriving them of opportunities for self-realization. The case of the Stable Diffusion program replacing illustrators on a large scale serves as an example.

The illusory nature of the digital revolution gives rise to alienation issues stemming from the inherent contradictions of capitalism. On this contradiction, the alienation phenomena of digital capitalism have gained unique new characteristics due to the rise of artificial intelligence. Regarding the inherent contradictions of capitalism, the exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie remains a constant theme. People in the digital age are infatuated with the illusory appearance of “everyone is equal under technology” displayed by the digital revolution, yet they overlook that the digital revolution itself is formed by capital groups entrenched in the digital field through technological monopolization. Marx believed that “the independence of humans based on the dependency on objects” is a significant form of human historical development. Today, “dependency on objects” specifically manifests as “dependency on digital products” and “dependency on artificial intelligence technology,” yet it still fundamentally refers to “dependency on capital.” In other words, the essence of the digital revolution is a technological revolution supported by capital, which, while changing the manifestation form of technological applications, has not altered the inherent class antagonism of capitalism but merely concealed this antagonism under the illusory face of the “Digital Leviathan.” In the face of this enormous social machine known as the “Digital Leviathan,” Zizek advocates adopting a Bartlebian “I would rather not” attitude, stating, “We should not fully engage in the capitalist game; while engaging in this game, we should maintain a distance from it in our hearts.” In Zizek’s view, the Bartlebian “I would rather not” is the purest subtractive posture, which “opens up a new space outside the hegemonic position and the negation of the hegemonic position.” Zizek’s viewpoint reflects the attitude of most people today against the “Digital Leviathan”; facing the eternal memory of the internet, people choose “I would rather not share my information.” However, “when artificial intelligence becomes a universal technological system providing all-encompassing services for humanity, satisfying all demands through technology, then the significance of everything will also be defined by the technological system. Each person will only need the technological system and no longer need others. Humans will become redundant to each other, and there will no longer be a need for interpersonal interactions. The inevitable result is that humans will lose the meaning of sharing their life significance with others, thus losing interest in each other. This is deep alienation for humans, not only a confusion of existence but also a dehumanized existence.” This means that even if people adopt an “I would rather not” attitude to resist the “Digital Leviathan,” it cannot change humanity’s fate of “deep alienation” under artificial intelligence technology nor prevent the “Digital Leviathan” from ruling over humans as an “alien force,” thus constraining the progress of human civilization.

In fact, under the backdrop of technological progress theory, the digital revolution is not the endpoint of human historical development, and capitalist society cannot remain youthful indefinitely under the support of digital capital. Sun Zhengyu pointed out: “In Marx’s exposure and critique of the ‘unholy image,’ meaning ‘capital,’ he clearly undertook the mission of liberating humans from ‘abstract’ ‘universal reason,’ liberating humans from the universal domination of ‘objects,’ and liberating humans from the universal domination of ‘capital,’ transforming the independence and individuality of ‘capital’ into the independence and individuality of humans.” Therefore, from the perspective of materialist historical view, digital capitalism, as a new form of capitalism, is merely an inevitable intermediate stage that humanity must undergo before advancing to the next historical phase. Only by exposing and critiquing the illusory face of digital capitalism can we liberate individuals from the alienation state of the “Digital Leviathan” and achieve the free development of every person.

Chen Liangbin, Yan Jinqi｜The “Artificial Non-Intelligence” Behind Artificial Intelligence: The Operational Model of “Ghost Labor” and Its Stack Mechanism

2024-08-20

Liu Zhiyang, Sun Mengzi, Lu Liangliang｜The Impact of Digital Technology Use on Farmers’ Participation in Public Welfare

2024-08-19

Ren Yong, Zhou Rui｜Differences in Administrative Approval Reform Behaviors of Local Governments in the Digital Age

2024-08-16

Directory of “Southeast Academic” 2024, Issue 4

2024-07-26