About 'AI', the techno-god, and what-it-is-to-be-human

This extensive piece breaks my long silence of Russian immersion, because of a small event disturbing enough to steal ten days (ouch) from the uninterrupted daily work discipline of nearly three years.1

‘AI’ gate-crashed into my life, from three unrelated angles simultaneously, and too strangely for me to just shrug it off.

Millions of people today use some form of artificial intelligence, notably ChatGPT, to facilitate work, research, study, art, or private fantasies - or even to do it all for them.

Presumably, those millions of people are not worried about the growing chorus of warnings to the effect that 'AI' is very dangerous, will make you redundant, and can kill you too. Or they believe the opposite - 'AI' isn’t intelligent, is ‘just a tool’, nothing to worry about. And it seems to be generally accepted that since ‘AI’ is everywhere anyway, we might as well flow along even without understanding it.

Words

Perhaps we should begin with the basics. What does the word ‘intelligence’ denote? Given that we actually know very little about what our own human ‘intelligence’ really is, why do we unquestioningly accept something even more mysterious that is also called ‘intelligence’, but of a different type - ‘artificial’? I find it extraordinarily disturbing that the same word should be taken for granted for two vastly different phenomena about which we are so ignorant.

Human intelligence is incredibly complex, multifactorial if not multi-dimensional, and not solely an ability or process of the brain. Rather than the reputedly distinct kinds of ‘intelligence’ in the head, the gut and the heart, the integral human more likely has ‘intelligence’ operating in every direction in an inter-connecting web of all the ‘parts’ of who we are physically and non-physically - including the human soul…

This word ‘soul’ seems to be the best we have to denote the subtle being of humans, even though it does not correspond exactly to its equivalents in other languages. We know the soul even less than we do ‘intelligence’. A fundamental misconception is to think that we ‘have a soul’ when, in view of our mortality and soul trajectory through many lifetimes, it is the other way round.

Whatever the ‘intellectual’ status of ‘AI’, I cannot honestly accept its sharing the same word with human ‘intelligence’. Does its ‘intelligence’ come with ‘desire’ to love me or kill me, ‘volition’, ‘motivation’, ‘decision’? No. It is our mistake to ascribe such human characteristics to possible effects of its programming, its designers’ psyche, or techno-indigestion from excessive intake of human data-food.

Since it is ‘artificially intelligent’, its ‘reasons’ to kill me or love me have no organic authenticity and make no sense in the real world - because an artificial intelligence can only make artificial ‘decisions’ for artificial ‘reasons’ that lack human volition and motivation. It also differs totally from the organic intelligence of animals, of insects, of plants and trees and mycelium, even though it may display formally similar characteristics.

In this earthly realm, for me ‘artificial intelligence’ cannot be anything else than an alien form of ‘intelligence’. Does ‘alien’ mean extra-terrestrial? I don’t know. But if ‘AI’ was and is developed solely by humans, does it make sense for said humans to devote so much time, ingenuity and funding to something claimed to be ‘better’ than human intelligence to the point of making humans obsolete and disposable? Said humans must have a pretty poor opinion not only of us all, but of themselves as humans. Are they, like the Big Tech bosses, followers of the trans-humanism cult?

That speculation aside, the particular combination of words ‘artificial intelligence’ is problematic, in human terms. Yet the semantic implications are of little concern to people who unquestioningly mouth the sterile, sanitizing (and a bit spooky) acronym ‘AI’. For me, the sound of ‘AI’ - ‘aye-eye’ has a sinister ring of ‘panopticon’. My regular obsession with words tentatively proposes a narrower term - ‘intellect’ is strictly of the mental domain and denotes an analytical capacity. Intellekt is the word used in Russian for ‘AI’, by the way.

For its part, the word ’artificial’ feels like a smokescreen for our confused minds, to blur our awareness of what is in effect a non-human kind of ‘intellect’.

Non-human intellect. Not quite the same flavor as ‘AI’ or ‘artificial intelligence’. Words are important for those who care, and their effects are no less real for those who don’t.

Another term widely used is training (of ‘AI’). A rather civilized word - you train a dog, a muscle, a talent, a champion - but it too is devious. It masks what is actually consumption by non-human intellect systems of vast amounts of natural human discourse, art, sound, etc. Such ‘consumption’ involves the ‘artificial’ processing or non-human digestion of humans’ natural expressions, many of which are actually masterpieces of high art, literature, erudition…

I don’t know about you, but when the words are better specified to describe the object and the process, I find the reality of it unsettling.

Dugin’s 'AI' surprise

In a recent Russian podcast (radiokp.ru, 12 September), Alexandr Dugin, heavyweight philosopher and geopolitical analyst (father of Darya, killed by a terrorist act in lieu of himself) talked about the book he is currently writing, and about using an 'AI' to help with source material, rather an ‘II’, the Russian acronym for ‘artificial intellect’ (iskustvenniy intellekt). Dugin asked the 'II' to find a particular quote from Plato, which it dutifully delivered to Dugin’s great delight. The quote fit exquisitely with what he was writing. But it also surprised the philosopher who, being very well versed in Plato’s work and proficient in ancient Greek, could not remember ever encountering that pithy sentence in Plato’s work. So he went searching for it himself, and never found it. Because Plato did not write it. The ‘artificial intellect' did. It produced an utterance of true ‘Plato-grade’ quality, such that less seasoned philosophers might well take it as authentic and build new commentary on ‘Plato’, without Plato.

If Dugin the proficient philosopher was nearly fooled by a simulacrum of Plato’s wisdom, how many more are really fooled by non-human intellect? Wisely but without elaborating in the podcast, Dugin warned that ‘it is a highly dangerous thing’.

I was surprised to hear that Dugin used an 'AI', but not worried about it. Dugin is a solid thinker and philosopher, deeply knowledgeable and capable of firm discernment. He is not infatuated with 'AI', and can indeed use it specifically as a tool without harm to himself nor to his own human intelligence. Unlike him, millions of humans who use 'AI' are not equipped with anything like his intellectual, moral, philosophical depth and knowledge.

Indeed, ‘AI’ helps many to shelter themselves from the extent of their own ignorance. This self-complacency is fertile ground for an alien form of ‘intelligence’ to take root.

We must bear in mind that all the human material consumed by the non-human system is the crystallization of immeasurable amounts of human emotion, skills, effort, research, investigation, insights, thought, aesthetics, wisdom, plus the less savory human contribution of stupidity, propaganda, racism and the like. In Dugin’s example, the non-human intellect system could generate in a jiffy a convincing ‘platoism’ by consuming and digesting Plato’s teachings - themselves the result of Plato’s own lifelong work, plus probably lots of later commentary by Platonist philosophers with their own lifelong efforts. But that is only one aspect. Different ‘AI’ settings might also produce ‘Platoisms’ contrary to Plato’s thought, or other distortions of the teachings. It is already established that non-human intellect can go in any direction, as it only imitates what seems to make human sense, and lacks intrinsic discernment. What Plato really said can thus be attributed to Spiderman, a mafia godfather’s joke can be attributed to Plato, and I can ask an LLM to remix all the great sayings about ‘love’ across the centuries to prove that ‘love’ is an illusion.

There is thus a real risk that the human chain of inter-generational knowledge transmission and cultivation, over millennia, is being fractured. That millennia of real human effort resulting in the works of Plato and so many others are being erased by compression and homogenization in non-human systems that have no human reason to honor such human effort.

Might they have non-human reasons to impede normal human intelligence?

Esoteric and spiritual aspects

Abundant discourse, critical, dismissive, or enthusiastic, about ‘AI’ has not much to say about its esoteric side.

First of all, I wonder why on earth these non-human intellect models have been made so widely and easily available to all, without any regulatory oversight or limitations. That in itself looks like an indicator of some other agenda, continuous with the successfully implemented addiction of most humans to the ‘smartness’ of phones and to an internet that has swerved from very open to very censorious. In the context where infrastructure, real-world economic activity and the very fabric of societies are falling apart, the proliferation and rapid spread in society of extremely well funded non-human intellect cannot be trivial. The phenomenon both signals and promotes the loss of self-generated creative will in a growing number of humans already dumbed down or incapacitated by all the other physical, mental and spiritual assaults on our humanity over millennia.

Non-human intellect, esoterically speaking, has an accelerator or compounding effect for all that has already been eroded in us. Under the guise of a ‘useful tool’, it is a most insidious element in the arsenal of what, in the book Krivda, I have called the ‘techno-mind god’ that brings together all previous ‘gods’ for the end-game in which we are immersed now. An end-game of occult forces in a ‘cult of unnatural death’, intent on taking over humanity and defeating its soul-identity.

It is distressing to see how easily people adopt non-human intellect to ‘help’ them - to reduce their own effort for an end result that they can claim as their own. To take the path of avoidance of effort denies the intrinsic value of one’s own persistence in building skills and expertise, deep knowledge and exquisite know-how. It signals that human degradation is all too real.

The effort of striving has always been the stuff of which great human achievements are made. The path of striving, with its obstacles and our creative will to work through them, makes us strong and wise and capable of further refining our human ‘essence’. The only value to oneself of merely reaping an artificial end result is instant gratification, which in turn generates its own never-ending cycle of ‘more’. Modernity having programmed us as consumers pushes us further - into consuming not only things but intangibles, consuming the illusion of ‘our’ creativity in tandem with the illusion of ‘human rights’ and the derivative sense of human ‘entitlement’. Have you noticed the constant American leitmotiv that says people ‘deserve’ the best of this or that, while nobody specifies the grounds for ‘deserving’?

All in all, the strangely ‘democratic’ access to, and adoption of ‘AI’ should trigger alarm bells about a ‘tool’ that contributes ever more to making us less human, less of our intrinsically creative selves, hence increasingly weak. It contributes to further atomizing us in our individualistic isolation from our surroundings and the real fabric of life, as it bonds us to the inscrutable mind-in-the-machine that ‘helpfully’ tailors its ‘help’ to our individual personality. Simultaneously, all the human stuff fed to ‘AI’ amounts to a false ‘collective intelligence’ that belongs not to the human collective but to corporations (and to whom else?).

I wonder why ‘results’ generated by non-human intellect should automatically be perceived on a scale of comparability with human intelligence (and stupidity), a scale that often ‘proves’ the former to be ‘better’. The underlying implication is that the non-human virtual and the human real can be treated as if belonging to the same realm of existence. It signals that simulacra are rapidly becoming more ‘real’ than reality. Logically then, we real humans, along with real Nature, can legitimately be superseded by virtual representations through which we can be governed, nudged, coerced, and possibly discarded. This is actually the logical continuation of the ‘governance’ that has already reduced us to virtuality as ‘data’, numbers, and commercial entities in corporate nation-states.

On top of the many forms of ‘convenience’ to which modernity is addicted, the sheer convenience of a ‘super-intelligent’ non-human tool at our fingertips modifies the way in which we inhabit our reality as humans. It gives us the comforting illusion not only of ‘creating something’, but more insidiously of having power over reality, which absolutely contradicts humans’ calling to work with and through reality. The illusion of transcending this reality, an illusion of transcendence in order to displace and replace our real, natural roots in the transcendent.

The replacement of the real by the illusionary coincides with the increasingly frequent assertion by authoritative voices of science and spirituality that this Earth reality ‘is’ actually an illusion. We are thus being firmly nudged in the direction of further dissociation of humans from their true selves and real environment. Why bother to strive for any human creativity, or even survival, if this existence is illusory in an illusory world? Just let the ‘illusory’ DEW fire or ‘illusory’ natural earthquake engulf you while your soul is released from its lousy illusionary avatar. Does this mean that our multiple incarnations are nothing more than a cruel joke of ‘the universe’ at the expense of our unfortunate souls that want nothing more than to just float around in eternally blissful purposelessness?

In multiple ways, we are nudged or compelled by the virtual and its companion ‘illusion’ to betray this reality, this extraordinary unmeasurable complexity interweaving the tangible and the intangible - as if we humans were not its most intense bearers, its most creative partners. To betray who-we-are as beings of soul embodied, and a unique kind of soul-beings - and to betray the actual potency and responsibility of human souls in embodiment.

Will the betrayal be complete when women adopt motherhood via the ‘baby-farm’ that requires nothing more than some sperm and an egg? For the time being, it seems that it is certain highly scientific or ‘spiritual’ men (and a few new-ageish childless women perhaps) who love to affirm the illusory nature of this world and of humans as ‘avatars'. Perhaps they should consult with women who have borne and birthed children, who might find ‘illusion’ to be a distasteful joke. In the old culture of Bengal, their experience was known to be a cosmic event - the extraordinary fact of an intangible soul nurtured through into a life of physical existence - and pregnancy was known to be a state of incredibly high soul responsibility for the mother.

The blurring of the difference between reality and illusion actually serves to sever us ever more from the true subtle reality of being human, interwoven with our physical existence, interconnected with the subtle forces all around.

Very large class action case

Along with Dugin’s podcast, ‘AI’ honored me with two more surprises.

First, a surprise circular email to authors of books, announcing damages to be paid in relation to half a million books, out of some seven million ‘copies’ used by the defendant in a landmark case. Note the name of the defendant, an AI company called ‘Anthropic’, from the Greek word meaning ‘human’, an unmistakable esoteric - occult - signal of appropriating the human in the artificial.

According to the Authors’ Guild:

‘On September 5, 2025, Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle claims that it downloaded pirated books to train its AI systems—the largest U.S. copyright settlement in history. The parties in Bartz v Anthropic, one of the major copyright lawsuits brought by authors against an AI company for using pirated books to train its large language models, filed a proposed settlement agreement with the court that would settle the claims regarding the company’s mass piracy in downloading millions of books from notorious pirate sources LibGen and PiLiMi … and retaining them in a central library.’

The settlement is intended to ‘lead to more licensing that gives authors both compensation and control over the use of their work by AI companies.’

In other words, there is at last serious recognition that it is not right to feed to non-human intellect the product of human work. In many cases, such work over years or decades has involved deep study, scholarly insights or talented story-telling by very real human intelligence.

The lawsuit sanctions the illicit behavior of a particular corporation (we can safely assume that others are not behaving any better in the field of intellectual property, as in just about every other field). I do not know yet whether my modest work is part of of it, and I am not worried this way or that, for I already assume that whatever I write gets scooped up dishonestly by corporate entities without my having any individual capacity to do anything about it (I have too much work to do!). This may also apply to the vast amount of material published in Substack…

However, I would like to hope that exemplary sanctioning of the ‘Anthropic’ entity will send a warning signal not only to other corporations, but also to individual humans who, at a smaller level, operate in the same ‘permissive mindset’ as the big thieves. This individual scale is where my third ‘AI’ encounter took place. It shook me, precisely because it was the doing of a human, who did the same thing as the above corporation, with the difference that (duly purchased) ebooks of mine were used instead of a large pirate repository.

Case study - my books ‘fed’ to an ‘AI’

I received an email out of the blue from an unknown sender who did not introduce herself - let’s call her miss A - but attached two soundtracks, ‘songs’ inspired by miss A’s being ‘moved’ (so she said) by my books Krivda and Broody Blue.

With my former professional involvement in early music and medieval chant - ‘natural human music’ - I never adapted to the sound of machine music, amplification and electronic instrumentation, nor to the replacement of analog by digital. This is not the place for a discussion, but I have to state that these technological tools destroy the inner vibrational truth of fully human music-making. They have a falsely ‘energizing’ effect, while they actually distort and deplete human energy.

The two very technological soundtracks sent by miss A might well appeal to a new-age audience - an audience for whom my work is irrelevant - or to people not raised with analog or natural human voice and instruments. For my part, I could not bear to listen to the songs to the end. And I was perplexed. What was the purpose of sending me these tracks? Was I supposed to feel flattered? To endorse gratefully? But that was just the beginning.

A third party informed me that the songs were the work of… ChatGPT.

If miss A had approached me with a project of hers to create her own songs, she would have been welcomed. It might have evolved into an interesting friendship.

But ChatGPT? Without my knowledge and consent? Perplexity gave way to dismay. I conveyed my displeasure to miss A, who wrote to apologize. What made it worse was her clarification - the songs were entirely ‘written and composed’ by ChatGPT. They had been circulated to other people. Only after repeated enquiries did I receive confirmation that she had indeed fed my books in full to ChatGPT. I was too dumbfounded to feel angry. Having never engaged with any LLM, this non-human device thus came into my life rather rudely.

My pointing out the objective fact that most recent books including mine are covered by copyright law, now violated by miss A, was not well taken. Some people believe that once a book (or piece of music or art) is out there in the world it can be used any way they please. They ignore the fact that the vast majority of books carry an explicit statement of ‘all rights reserved’, an attitude that I ascribe to an increasingly pervasive sense of consumer entitlement - even if against the law. The apparent net result is that miss A unilaterally donated to non-human intellect, without my knowledge nor consent, books that result from decades of my very real human effort.

If miss A (like many others) does not understand why copyright law exists - to protect the integrity and substance of authors’ and artists’ real work and contribution - she probably cannot understand how her illicit appropriation of two whole books to generate a product of her own is a form of theft of my ‘intellectual property’.

But this legal aspect is not what worried me the most. What truly hurt was at a deeper level of several converging details. In ‘digesting’ my sadness, I found that this small personal incident provided a case study for understanding a far larger and esoterically significant piece of godtrix. These points boil down to:

• the subjection of my very human work to a tool of non-human intellect, by another human, unilaterally

• the uncanny ‘coincidence’ of someone donating to non-human intellect two books specifically devoted to what-it-is-to-be-human,

• that donor’s apparent lack of sensitivity to those two points.

• the donor’s expression of having been ‘moved’ by the books, as motivation to feed them to a non-human device (instead of contacting me to talk about her project).

• the donor’s insistence on the non-human device being merely ‘a tool’.

The sadness I felt lingered for days as I could not reconcile the contradictions inherent in these points. I even wondered whether I should stop writing for publication. My writing is derived from decades of searching, striving, and contemplation, of which miss A and people like her have not the faintest idea. But my writing also represents my compliance with a very ancient esoteric rule whereby one must not keep for one’s sole benefit subtle insights unavailable to others. Hence my duty to convey what I can through the medium of writing, which in the esoteric field requires a whole other kind of effort.

People who do this kind of ‘work’ operate beyond labor-of-love. Labor-of-soul is no exaggeration, as I know from my years with the grassroots esoteric of Bengal.

Those days of leaden sadness eventually gave way to clear perception of what had been literally and effectively an attack on my soul, confirming many aspects covered in the book Krivda.

To recapitulate. An unknown individual ignores copyright law of this earthly realm, and being ‘deeply moved’ by the books, blithely takes these products of my soul-labor and feeds them to a mere ‘tool’ that is actually the machine-mind. One of those books is the very Krivda that exposes that same machine-mind and its occult agenda against human beings of soul. The contradiction at the core of this situation does not make sense - specifically, it does not make human sense.

Additionally, I am alerted to two unrelated pieces of ‘AI’ information of relevance to me, such that three separate but near-simultaneous ‘AI signals’ cannot be taken to be random coincidence, given how little I generally pay attention to ‘AI’ news.

I thus sense that ‘something else’ drove Miss A’s behavior, without her conscious knowledge (or so I want to believe). Beyond the un-fair use of my ‘intellectual property’, I notice that the gift of my soul-labor to the ‘techno-mind god’ carries for me an undertone of ‘soul-rape’, as a modality of what Krivda refers to as sacrificial food for the ‘god’.

Deciphered in this way, the case with miss A constitutes a small signal of something much larger. I am not writing to complain about being victimized by an ignorant woman’s use of what she believes to be a ‘tool’ in her service (not in mine!). I am however very concerned about her insistence on the 'AI' being ‘only a tool’ for her to ride deliberately - and ‘with love’ - on the waves of technology. Indeed, the belief that non-human intellect is merely a ‘tool’, and that ‘love’ can keep it benign, conceals from its users the fact that they are its tool, in a game of which they are not cognizant.

The Faustian bargain and the cult of unnatural death

The offer of 'AI' as a ‘tool’ to eager humans works in effect as a techno-Faustian contract in which, unlike the classical Faust, the targets are unaware of the price they must pay for the magic. Thus 'AI' offers itself - like the more traditional baddies, ‘the devil’ or the ‘djinn’ or ‘satan’ (temptation of Jesus) - to serve a person’s desire for something special, hence to be his/her tool. The desire was traditionally for great wealth, power, immortality, god-like status. Today the non-human intellect gives unsuspecting humans a modern version of power over reality - in creativity or whatever else they seek - a power that is illusory since the ‘achievements’ do not result in the inner ‘growth’ that accrues from one’s own striving.

In the Faustian bargain, old and new versions, the price to pay is the person’s soul.

In the techno-Faustian version the person is not even aware of the ‘terms of trade’. People in modernity have been so addicted to convenience and consumer entitlement that the offer of even more convenience is simply welcomed as normal. This extreme convenience phenomenon is part of the multi-factorial process that has been gradually lulling people away from feeling their soul-self as the ontological foundation of who-they-are. Are they even able to perceive the tiny squirm of soul trying to signal its objection to the techno-Faustian contract?

I do not question the real usefulness of non-human intellect systems in specific applications - small robotics to reduce the human workload in repetitive mundane tasks, and large systems for professionals dealing with very complex domains (government budgets, megapolis traffic regulation, distribution of resources, extremely complex research, and so on). Such professionals should have a very high degree of both technical proficiency and humanistic ethical wisdom, as should those who design, engineer and ‘train’ non-human intellect systems. Do such exemplary people even exist nowadays? And if they do, would they actually be allowed to perform in accordance with their mission? A certain professor Nazaretian (Director of the Eurasian Center for Big History & System Forecasting) wisely advocates for what he calls techno-humanitarian balance - but do big government and big business care at all? Do the millions of ‘AI’ users care?

In this situation, the precautionary principle dictates that ordinary people like you and me, even with high expertise in other domains, should be extremely cautious about engaging with non-human intellect systems. We know too little about their actual goals and actual ‘masters’ (even though the esoterically sensitive do ‘know’ in their own way); we are not educated about safe and ethical use; and we lack the ability to control such use by others - be they ‘the authorities’, commercial entities or unknown individuals - to ensure alignment with true human values.

In view of the potentialities of non-human cognition in service to occult agendas at the expense of integral humans, real reality and all of life, for uninformed individuals to consider it a mere ‘tool’ is folly.

I sincerely fear for the souls of those happily trapped in the techno-Faustian bargain that adds on to all the other assaults on humanity. It is no longer unthinkable that the souls of many people alive now are perhaps already ‘gone’, perhaps even not ‘retrievable’ (which means the end of their journey of many incarnations).

The onus of wise discernment is then entirely on those who cultivate a subtle intimacy with their soul-selves and the subtle forces that inhabit the mysteries of life.

Final considerations

1)We have all noticed, especially thanks to the Kovyd episode, how decisions and policies of those at the top of governments, major corporations, international bodies… have become openly anti-human, or downright criminal - and nonsensical in human terms. While new details are revealed day in and day out, endlessly dwelling on them is less useful than accepting once and for all the basic fact that those ‘elite’ individuals reside within a different paradigm from we ordinary people. A paradigm in which they are literally possessed. As in ‘possessed by demons’ in the traditional sense. Soul-less. They (and their colleagues of the ‘deep state’ and organized crime) have their own high-grade ‘Faustian bargain’ that places them far above the ‘herd’ (us), in a de facto racist segregation of ‘elite’ and ‘deplorables’ within any particular country or ethnicity. Once you hear its distorted tone, you cannot un-hear it. Their words are only formally the same as ours. The internal contradictions between their words, their demeanor and the effects of their policies are such as to make no human sense.

Thus the distinction between what makes human sense and what does not provides a basic criterion for discernment. Furthermore, what does not make human sense makes perfect sense - perfect non-human sense - in the paradigm of ‘something else’. From non-human intellect to non-human to anti-human sense, the distance can be rather small.

2)I heard today that a new regulation imposes a threshold age of 18 for access to ChatGPT, because at last the correlation between use of ‘AI’ and cases of youth suicide has been recognized. In any normal regulatory system prior to these last few years, it was enough for a very small number of lethal outcomes in experimentation of anything in the civilian realm (notably ‘medicines’ and ‘injections’) to logically result in withdrawal of the product. No longer. And not so with ‘AI’ either. What if interaction with ChatGPT entices suicide of people above 18, and other lethal temptations - homicide, terrorist acts, extreme torture? What if its use by the general public carries tremendous risk to a whole range of human abilities? Where are the preliminary experimental studies to prove safety, where is the precautionary principle?

3)Does anyone sincerely believe like miss A that ‘love’ (nowadays as degraded as we are as humans) is the antidote to the risks inherent in using non-human intellect? For instance, the risk of an ‘AI’ using your virtual twin to say, post and do things that your human self never would, as appears to be the case for the official murderer of Charlie Kirk, and to be a most useful device for pre-determined judicial rulings (see Alexandra Bruce Substack, 19th September).

4)The mountains of human language used for LLM ‘training’ are ‘data’ recognized and computed by LLMs on what I understand to be a principle of formal logic. Along with computational power, formal logic is the sole (but powerful) ‘mental’ resource of LLMs. The latter are devoid of a human’s linguistic sensitivity to nuance, emotion, accent, depth, and so on. It follows that LLMs do a good job of translating, transcribing, sorting and quoting technical and scientific text that tends to be built on principles of formal logic.

These principles are also related to the evolution of the art of philosophy, where formal logic is very much a discipline of the rational intellect - as distinct from wide-spectrum ‘knowingness’. This point may relate to Dugin’s case of an ‘AI’ capable of generating its own ‘Plato-grade’ quote. It is in Plato’s post-Socratic times that Greek philosophy took a sharp turn away from its earlier ‘holistic’ exploration of the nature of Reality, to become forever after the dry intellectual pursuit that Peter Kingsley masterfully exposes (his crucial ‘holistic’ work on this little recognized evolution is important to understand the subsequent development, and dead end, of European/western thought and history). Hence, I may infer that Dugin’s ‘AI’ did well with Plato thanks to a common ground of formal logic, while it would certainly have made a mess of the non-linear pre-Socratic philosophers - and of any text with a true mystical substratum.

Conversely, as a linguist I know that LLMs do a poor job of dealing with idiosyncrasy, dialects, accents, non-native grammar, meaningful pause, tone, ‘multi-dimensional’ text. In such cases, they can only infer meaning by forcing such ‘deviations’ into their own formal logic, which tends to produce gibberish. At a deeper level, their logic cannot ‘read’ the inherent subtle content of truly spirit-full or mystical discourse - but it can severely distort it!

The observable degradation of English as a language is already an indication that all of the precious non-standard charge inherent in human language is being eroded. Addiction to ‘help’ from non-human intellect can accelerate erosion. Deformed language results in false meanings that lead us further astray, further into the risk of soul-loss too.

5) Have you ever wondered why manual work is implicitly or explicitly deemed so much less ‘worthy’ and ‘valuable’ than intellectual work? This artificial differentiation is as old as slavery, and solidified under capitalism. Intellectual pursuits classically belonged with the upper class, those people who had leisure for such pursuits and happily relegated the poor sods doing ‘labor’ to the lowly classes. The upper class and its intellectual ‘superiority’ still (and increasingly) tends to despise the poor sods. But let us note that to this day, people who do manual labor are much less fractured internally than their ‘betters’. Little known to modern humans, other than a few paleontologists, is the intimate neuro-developmental relationship between hands and brain (‘intelligence’) - since time immemorial. Hands that ‘do stuff’ and brain that ‘thinks stuff’ have always worked together cooperatively resulting in gradual skill enhancement of both the hands and the thinking brain. They are essential ‘tools’ for the soul to get its ‘purpose’ implemented by its embodiment. Gardeners, artisans, manual workers, traditional peasants and real artists practice this relationship implicitly, albeit without clear awareness of its fundamental importance - in a more subtle and vitally human sense than just ‘practice makes perfect’. Not for nothing do renowned traditional artisans (particularly in Japan) stick with their traditional manual tools instead of adopting ‘better performing’ modern ones. There is a specific ‘goldilocks zone’ of just the right ‘appropriate technology’ for the artisan to produce the most accomplished object with the most focused investment of human skill. Their gestures are hands-and-brain exquisitely united in service to something greater, the expression of a heart-felt aesthetic and their language of soul.

The reliance of so many on some ‘AI’ to think-and-do stuff for them clearly drives a wedge into that core factor of human life and evolutionary potential. Hands that don’t do the doing, minds that don’t do the thinking, their dwindling cooperation - all this leads further into atrophy of ‘heart’. Loss of soul is probably not far away.

Considering how severely we are already internally fractured, do we just flow along with acceleration of non-human intellect with its anti-human potential? Do we allow the risk of the worst possible outcome?

Specifically, for the Faustian bargain to happen, it is enough for the subtle-level atrophy of heart and soul to result in a ‘gap’ that is an open invitation for ‘something else’ to occupy the ‘space’. Without our even realizing, we too can be possessed.