Аннотация: Speech for Rethinking the Practice of Thinking in the Era of Artificial Intelligence (11-12 September, 2025, University of Beira Interior Covilhã, Portugal)
Esteemed Colleagues!
My work titled: "The Problems Raised by Artificial Intelligence for Governance and Democracy".
I`m address you today on a subject of profound and pressing importance: the complex challenges and opportunities that artificial intelligence presents for the future of governance and democracy.
Firstly, we must consider the democratization of AI. On one hand, AI holds immense promise for enhancing civic engagement. Imagine platforms that allow citizens to simulate policy outcomes or analyze complex legislation, thereby fostering a more informed and participatory democratic process. These tools can empower individuals and communities, bringing a new level of sophistication to public discourse.
However, this democratization is not without significant risk. Unequal access to these powerful tools threatens to create a new digital divide, exacerbating existing social inequalities and potentially concentrating power among a technological elite. Furthermore, as philosophers like Hannah Arendt have reminded us, democratic deliberation thrives on pluralism-on the diverse and often contradictory nature of human thought. The standardized, data-driven outputs of AI systems risk homogenizing this discourse, promoting passive consumption over active, critical engagement. Reliance on opaque algorithms could undermine the very Kantian autonomy that is essential for a thriving democracy.
In the Kantian autonomy (Groundwork of the Metaphysics, 1785), or Autonomie des Willens (autonomy of the will), is the oberste Prinzip der Moralität (supreme principle of morality). It is the uniquely human capacity for Selbstgesetzgebung (self-legislation), whereby an individual gives themselves a moral law-the kategorischer Imperativ (categorical imperative)-free from heteronome influences like desire or external authority. This is not mere independence but acting from Pflicht (duty), guided by practical reason (praktische Vernunft). It is the foundation of human Würde (dignity), ensuring we are treated as Zwecke an sich selbst (ends in themselves), never merely as a Mittel (means).
Second, the direct threats AI poses to democratic stability. The capacity of AI to generate and disseminate information at an unprecedented scale is a double-edged sword. It can be weaponized to produce sophisticated disinformation, deepfakes, and tailored propaganda, which polarize societies and erode the shared factual foundation necessary for rational deliberation. When citizens can no longer trust the information they receive, the very bedrock of institutional trust begins to crumble. Moreover, the integration of AI into governance-through predictive policing, automated welfare allocation, or algorithmic public service management-creates a profound accountability gap. This opacity alienates the citizenry and weakens the democratic contract, as power shifts from accountable institutions to unaccountable algorithms.
Thirdly, and perhaps most profoundly, we must confront the notion of AI as a "modern Leviathan". Drawing on Thomas Hobbes"s seminal concept (1651), we see a disturbing parallel. AI systems, controlled by powerful state, or corporate actors, have the potential to become instruments of unprecedented surveillance and behavioral control. We see early manifestations of this in social credit systems and mass data collection, which echo Hobbes"s sovereign authority-a power designed to ensure order but capable of extinguishing individual autonomy.
Yet, this "future Leviathan" is not inherently malevolent. AI can undoubtedly optimize governance, improve efficiency in resource allocation, and assist in policy analysis. The critical challenge is not to reject the technology, but to ensure it remains a tool in service of human ends, rather than becoming an unaccountable sovereign that dictates them.
So, how do we navigate? The philosophical limitations of AI provide our guiding compass. Unlike human intelligence, AI operates without consciousness, embodiment, or genuine subjective experience (existentials). It simulates reasoning but lacks the lived context and ethical depth that underpin democratic values like justice and fairness.
Therefore, our response must be a steadfast commitment to human-centric governance. This necessitates concrete measures:
1. The establishment of independent public oversight bodies to audit and regulate AI algorithms used in public life.
2. The promotion of AI literacy programs to equip citizens with the critical skills needed to engage with this technology.
3. The development and enforcement of rigorous ethical guidelines that ensure AI systems are aligned with democratic values of fairness, accountability, and transparency.
In conclusion, the impact of AI on our democratic future is not predetermined. It is a question of governance and choice. History reminds us that fears of technological disruption are not new, but the scale of AI"s power is unprecedented. The old adage holds true: technology is neither good nor bad, nor is it neutral. Its ultimate role-whether it becomes a wolf that preys on democracy or a tool that empowers it-depends entirely on the structures we build to control it. Our collective task is to ensure that artificial intelligence serves to reinforce, rather than subvert, the fundamental principles of democratic life.