The "artificial state" succeeds the nation-state as private corporations seize control of public discourse. These companies prioritize monetizing attention and outrage over free expression and democratic deliberation, effectively supplanting a core function of democracy.
Starting in the 1930s, scientific polling began replacing door-to-door campaigning. This shift from personal conversations to impersonal data extraction eliminated countless small interactions that formed the "civic glue" holding society together, making politics more artificial.
The tech industry's celebration of the "serial entrepreneur" is built on a disavowal of the past. This mindset rejects existing knowledge and humanistic wisdom, favoring a posture of starting from scratch that often leads to shortsighted and destructive innovation.
Figures like Sam Altman publicly entertain ideas from dystopian science fiction, such as an AI choosing the president, as serious proposals. This demonstrates a failure to engage with the cautionary, humanistic critiques embedded in those works, treating them as blueprints instead of warnings.
The promise that technology—from personal computers to the internet to social media—will democratize society is a recurring ad campaign. While new tech offers democratizing potential, powerful actors and existing structures consistently adapt to re-centralize control and consolidate power.
New communication technologies historically democratize society before elites regain control. Jill Lepore argues that emerging AI technologies are breaking this cycle, as they appear to be consolidating power with elites from the outset rather than providing an initial wave of popular empowerment.
Today's identity politics is enabled and defined by computer-driven systems. Algorithms sort and target individuals, grouping them into quantifiable blocks that can then assert political power. This differs fundamentally from earlier forms of interest-group mobilization that were not algorithmically constructed.
As early as 1968, thinkers forecasted that personalized news streams would make representative government impossible. They argued that atomized information would destroy the shared sense of community interest that is foundational to party politics and democratic deliberation.
The internet's targeted ad model wasn't a radical invention but an extension of a post-WWII societal shift. The American economy had already prioritized the "consumer" over the "citizen," creating a public primed to be analyzed and sold to, rather than engaged in civic discourse.
Tech leaders increasingly call for the "democratic process" to establish guardrails on AI. This is a self-serving tactic, as their platforms have actively eroded the deliberative, shared discourse necessary for democracy to function. They ask a weakened system to regulate them, knowing it will struggle.
Despite student and faculty desire for open discussion on AI's role in education, university administrations are bypassing these conversations. Instead, they are rushing into corporate partnerships and branding strategies, treating AI as a marketing opportunity rather than a profound pedagogical and ethical challenge.