Superintelligence has become “a quasi-political forecast” with “very little to do with any scientific consensus, emerging instead from particular corridors of power.” That’s the warning from James O’Sullivan, a lecturer in digital humanities from University College Cork. In a refreshing 5,600-word essay in Noema magazine, he notes the suspicious coincidence that “The loudest prophets of superintelligence are those building the very systems they warn against…”
“When we accept that AGI is inevitable, we stop asking whether it should be built, and in the furor, we miss that we seem to have conceded that a small group of technologists should determine our future.” (For example, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman “seems determined to position OpenAI as humanity’s champion, bearing the terrible burden of creating God-like intelligence so that it might be restrained.”)
The superintelligence discourse functions as a sophisticated apparatus of power, transforming immediate questions about corporate accountability, worker displacement, algorithmic bias and democratic governance into abstract philosophical puzzles about consciousness and control…
Media amplification plays a crucial role in this process, as every incremental improvement in large language models gets framed as a step towards AGI. ChatGPT writes poetry; surely consciousness is imminent…” Such accounts, often sourced from the very companies building these systems, create a sense of momentum that becomes self-fulfilling. Investors invest because AGI seems near, researchers join companies because that’s where the future is being built and governments defer regulation because they don’t want to handicap their domestic champions…
We must recognize this process as political, not technical. The inevitability of superintelligence is manufactured through specific choices about funding, attention and legitimacy, and different choices would produce different futures. The fundamental question isn’t whether AGI is coming, but who benefits from making us believe it is… We do not yet understand what kind of systems we are building, or what mix of breakthroughs and failures they will produce, and that uncertainty makes it reckless to funnel public money and attention into a single speculative trajectory.
Some key points:
“The machines are coming for us, or so we’re told. Not today, but soon enough that we must seemingly reorganize civilization around their arrival…”
“When we debate whether a future artificial general intelligence might eliminate humanity, we’re not discussing the Amazon warehouse worker whose movements are dictated by algorithmic surveillance or the Palestinian whose neighborhood is targeted by automated weapons systems. These present realities dissolve into background noise against the rhetoric of existential risk…”
“Seen clearly, the prophecy of superintelligence is less a warning about machines than a strategy for power, and that strategy needs to be recognized for what it is… ”
“Superintelligence discourse isn’t spreading because experts broadly agree it is our most urgent problem; it spreads because a well-resourced movement has given it money and access to power…”
“Academic institutions, which are meant to resist such logics, have been conscripted into this manufacture of inevitability… reinforcing industry narratives, producing papers on AGI timelines and alignment strategies, lending scholarly authority to speculative fiction…”
“The prophecy becomes self-fulfilling through material concentration — as resources flow towards AGI development, alternative approaches to AI starve…”
The dominance of superintelligence narratives obscures the fact that many other ways of doing AI exist, grounded in present social needs rather than hypothetical machine gods. [He lists data sovereignty movements “that treat data as a collective resource subject to collective consent,” as well as organizations like Canada’s First Nations Information Governance Centre and New Zealand’s’s Te Mana Raraunga, plus “Global South initiatives that use modest, locally governed AI systems to support healthcare, agriculture or education under tight resource constraints.”] “Such examples… demonstrate how AI can be organized without defaulting to the superintelligence paradigm that demands everyone else be sacrificed because a few tech bros can see the greater good that everyone else has missed…”
“These alternatives also illuminate the democratic deficit at the heart of the superintelligence narrative. Treating AI at once as an arcane technical problem that ordinary people cannot understand and as an unquestionable engine of social progress allows authority to consolidate in the hands of those who own and build the systems…”
He’s ultimately warning us about “politics masked as predictions…”
“The real political question is not whether some artificial superintelligence will emerge, but who gets to decide what kinds of intelligence we build and sustain. And the answer cannot be left to the corporate prophets of artificial transcendence because the future of AI is a political field — it should be open to contestation.
“It belongs not to those who warn most loudly of gods or monsters, but to publics that should have the moral right to democratically govern the technologies that shape their lives.”
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
