re:publica 25: Digitaler Faschismus: Wie KI-Ideologie die Demokratie untergräbt

Summary

The presentation argues that AI ideology can undermine democracy by aligning technological power with authoritarian and far-right politics. The speakers frame fascism not only as physical violence, but also as online and symbolic violence directed against the rule of law and liberal democratic institutions.

They argue that authoritarian movements have historically used new technologies as tools of power, citing the Nazis’ use of IBM punch-card systems for mass data processing. They draw a parallel with today’s relationship between the tech industry and politics in the United States.

AI and Authoritarian Politics

The speakers distinguish several ways AI can serve authoritarian politics. Predictive analytics sorts people by inferred characteristics and can be used to treat them differently, including by government agencies. Generative AI can help produce propaganda and spread misinformation; the presentation points to examples involving Grok, Elon Musk’s AI chatbot. Its main focus, however, is the less visible ideological connection between AI development and authoritarian ideas.

Transhumanism and Social Selection

Transhumanism is the belief that technology can overcome biological limits and take humanity toward a post-human future. The speakers say that narratives about the AI “singularity” and superintelligence often present technological development as an inevitable force of nature, with tech executives cast as guides to human evolution.

They argue that this worldview can encourage ideas of social selection and eugenics, including a fixation on IQ and the notion that some people are more valuable to the future than others. Peter Thiel and Elon Musk are cited as prominent proponents of related ideas.

Effective Altruism and Longtermism

The presentation describes effective altruism as applying quantitative optimization to moral choices, and longtermism as prioritizing the welfare of hypothetical future populations over millions of years. In the speakers’ view, this emphasis can justify funding the development of superintelligence while diverting attention from present-day harms, including exploitation, energy use, inequality, and AI’s political effects.

They argue that public debate is often narrowed to either utopian promises or an apocalyptic scenario in which AI destroys humanity. This leaves little room to discuss nearer-term consequences.

Neo-Reactionary Politics

The speakers trace a further political development to neo-reactionary, or “dark enlightenment,” ideas associated with Curtis Yarvin and Nick Land. They describe these ideas as rejecting liberal democracy as an obstacle to progress and proposing a corporate-style state: a CEO-monarch chosen by shareholders, with people treated as customers and “exit” from the state offered in place of political participation.

The presentation links the spread of these ideas to figures such as Thiel and JD Vance, and to their growing influence in US politics.

European Context and Policy

The speakers warn that related currents are also present in Europe. They point to effective-altruist networks at German universities, advocacy around AI regulation by organizations such as the Future of Life Institute, and events that bring these groups into contact with EU officials.

They also criticize technological determinism in discussions of transhumanism and neurotechnology, where technology is treated as inevitable and the task is reduced to limiting its worst effects.

In policy, the speakers criticize the use or proposed use of predictive-policing and other AI systems in sensitive areas, including German police forces’ use of Palantir software. They argue that seeking a “European alternative” to discriminatory systems does not address the underlying problem.

They also warn against political rhetoric about becoming an “AI continent,” keeping up with the US and China, or running government like a startup. In their view, democratic institutions cannot take the same risks as startups because their failures can harm the public, and disruption can benefit authoritarian politics.

Conclusion

The presentation calls for greater scrutiny of the language of innovation and disruption, resistance to AI hype and claims of inevitability, and stronger democratic institutions that serve everyone and protect minorities. The speakers argue that Europe should act now to prevent tech-authoritarian politics from taking root.

Presenters and contributors: Aline Blankertz and Rainer Mühlhoff.