Tag: artificial intelligence

  • Albania Appointed an AI Minister. Has Artificial Intelligence Become Smarter Than the Humans Who Govern Us?

    Albania Appointed an AI Minister. Has Artificial Intelligence Become Smarter Than the Humans Who Govern Us?

    When politicians become less trustworthy than machines, the real problem may not be artificial intelligence, but human intelligence.

    After discovering that witches become rather upset when someone takes away their candles and magic wands, I learned that politicians might soon face an even greater problem: artificial intelligence. Albania has introduced a minister who never sleeps, never asks for holidays, never needs an official limousine, and, at least in theory, cannot be bribed with a discreet envelope slipped beneath a table. I admit that the idea amused me, especially when I imagined a government meeting in which the only participant immune to political ambition was the one who did not possess a human brain. But the more I investigated this extraordinary appointment, the more I realized that behind the smiling digital face of Albania’s artificial minister lies a disturbing question: have human beings become so disappointed with their own institutions that they are beginning to search for honesty inside a machine?

    The Minister Who Never Had a Childhood

    In September 2025, Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama introduced Diella, an artificial intelligence system presented as the world’s first AI minister, with a proposed role in public procurement and the fight against corruption. Her name means Sun in Albanian, an optimistic choice for a country where government transparency remains a politically sensitive issue. Unlike her human colleagues, Diella has no childhood, no university degree, no election campaign, no political enemies, and no embarrassing photographs from a luxurious holiday paid for by a suspiciously generous businessman. She cannot enjoy an expensive watch, acquire a seaside villa, or arrange a comfortable government position for a cousin. At least, that is the attractive image surrounding her appointment, although the absence of human desires does not automatically make a computer system honest.

    What intrigued me was that Diella had already existed before her spectacular political promotion. In January 2025, she appeared as a virtual assistant on Albania’s e-Albania public services platform, helping citizens navigate administrative procedures and obtain documents. According to government figures published later that year, the system had handled approximately 972,000 interactions. Within months, an administrative assistant had become an international political celebrity, without ever giving an electoral speech or promising voters that this time everything would be different. I wondered how many politicians would envy such a career, particularly one achieved without spending years shaking hands, kissing babies, and pretending to enjoy conversations with people they would never remember.

    The Artificial Minister With a Very Human Face

    Diella was presented not as a mechanical robot but as a young woman wearing traditional Albanian clothing, a clever combination of national identity and futuristic technology. I found this choice fascinating because people do not instinctively trust mathematical formulas, but they respond to familiar faces, reassuring voices, and cultural symbols. Yet the face belonged to a real woman, Albanian actress Anila Bisha, whose image and voice had been used to create the original virtual assistant. In February 2026, Bisha challenged the government’s use of her likeness in court, arguing that her consent had not extended to representing a political figure. The government disputed her allegations, and the legal controversy did not itself establish wrongdoing.

    The irony was difficult to ignore: a government had introduced an artificial minister as a symbol of ethical administration, only to encounter a very human dispute over consent and identity. I began wondering whether the public was being encouraged to admire the perfection of the digital figure while overlooking the complicated human decisions responsible for creating her. Behind every artificial face are designers, contracts, institutions, financial interests, and people who decide what the machine is allowed to say and do. Diella may not possess personal ambitions, but that does not mean the people controlling her are equally free from them.

    Can a Machine Really Eliminate Corruption?

    The most ambitious promise associated with Diella concerned government contracts. Prime Minister Rama presented artificial intelligence as a potential instrument for making public procurement more transparent and resistant to corruption. The idea sounds wonderful, particularly in countries where public money has an unfortunate tendency to travel through mysterious administrative corridors before arriving in equally mysterious private accounts. A computer cannot be tempted by a luxury car or a discreet invitation to a five-star resort, but corruption does not always begin with the person making the final decision. Sometimes it begins when the rules are written, when the requirements are selected, or when the information supplied to the decision-maker has already been manipulated.

    Imagine an artificial intelligence system instructed to award a construction contract to the most suitable company. If the criteria have been carefully designed to favor one particular business, the machine may select that company with perfect mathematical consistency while giving the result an appearance of impartiality. The algorithm has accepted no bribe, but it may still reproduce a dishonest human decision. This is what disturbed me most during my investigation, because artificial intelligence can calculate without personal greed, yet it cannot guarantee that the objectives imposed upon it are fair. A corrupt official can be replaced by a computer, but corruption itself may simply move into the invisible architecture of the software.

    The Scandal Behind the Digital Curtain

    The story became even more interesting when I examined the institutions responsible for Albania’s digital infrastructure. In December 2025, Albania’s Special Anti-Corruption Prosecution, known as SPAK, investigated alleged irregularities involving officials connected with the National Agency for Information Society, or AKSHI, an institution central to the country’s digital-government systems. The allegations concerned matters including public procurement, and they must not be treated as proof of guilt or as evidence that Diella herself participated in wrongdoing. Nevertheless, the situation created an uncomfortable contrast between the promise of technological integrity and the continuing need to investigate the human organizations surrounding that technology.

    I could not resist imagining Diella sitting calmly at her computer while investigators examined the activities of the very institutions responsible for Albania’s digital transformation. The machine might have no interest in money, but the people managing the machinery still live in a world of political influence, commercial relationships, and personal ambition. This does not mean that artificial intelligence cannot help detect corruption; properly designed systems can identify suspicious transactions, compare contracts, and reveal irregularities that human investigators might overlook. It means that technological honesty cannot exist independently of institutional accountability.

    A Minister Who Was Not Actually a Minister

    Another remarkable development occurred in October 2026, when Albania’s Constitutional Court addressed a challenge concerning the virtual ministerial role. The Court rejected the challenge on the grounds before it, while clarifying that the use of artificial intelligence did not create an independent constitutional minister or transfer governmental responsibility away from human authorities. In practical terms, Diella could be called a minister, appear alongside ministers, and attract international attention as a technological innovation, but the constitutional responsibilities of government remained with human officials.

    This distinction fascinated me because it revealed the enormous power of political presentation. A title, a digital face, and a carefully organized public appearance can create the impression of a revolution even when the underlying distribution of authority has not fundamentally changed. In September 2025, Diella had appeared on a screen in Albania’s parliament, delivering a composed message while opposition lawmakers protested. The contrast between the calm virtual speaker and the noisy human politicians was almost theatrical, although a digital avatar delivering a prepared speech is not evidence that it possesses greater wisdom than the people arguing around it.

    Plato, Artificial Intelligence, and the Search for the Perfect Ruler

    As I followed the story, I remembered Plato’s philosopher-kings, the rulers imagined in The Republic as individuals guided by knowledge and justice rather than personal wealth or ambition. More than two thousand years later, humanity appears to be searching for a similar ideal, except that instead of trusting philosophers, we are beginning to place our hopes in algorithms. The dream remains familiar: a ruler untouched by greed, immune to manipulation, and capable of making decisions according to reason rather than private interest.

    But intelligence and wisdom are not interchangeable. A computer may compare thousands of contracts in seconds, recognize statistical anomalies, and identify suspicious financial patterns, yet it cannot independently establish the moral values that a democratic society should follow. Even a technically flawless decision can be unjust if its objectives are wrong. I began to suspect that our fascination with artificial ministers reveals less about the extraordinary abilities of machines than about our growing disappointment with the human beings who govern us.

    The Matrix Behind the Smiling Face

    There is something about Diella that reminded me of The Matrix, not because I believe artificial intelligence is secretly preparing to imprison humanity, but because the story raises a similar philosophical question about the difference between appearance and reality. In the fictional Matrix, people experience a convincing world without understanding the hidden system that shapes their perceptions. In modern society, we increasingly encounter algorithms that influence the information we receive, the products we discover, and the decisions presented to us as reasonable or objective.

    An artificial minister introduces that same problem into political life. Citizens see a reassuring face, hear a confident voice, and receive promises of impartiality, but the actual processes behind the interface may remain difficult to examine. The danger is not necessarily that the machine is secretly malicious, but that people may begin treating its conclusions as unquestionable simply because they appear to come from something more intelligent and less emotional than themselves. I have always found that the most convincing illusions are those containing enough truth to make us stop examining everything else.

    The Most Dangerous Question

    What happens when an artificial intelligence system makes a mistake that affects public money, citizens’ rights, or important government decisions? A human minister can be questioned, investigated, removed from office, or prosecuted when the law permits, but a computer cannot experience moral responsibility or criminal punishment. Responsibility must remain with the people and institutions that design, authorize, supervise, and use the technology. Without clear accountability, artificial intelligence could become an extraordinarily convenient political shield, allowing officials to describe controversial decisions as the neutral conclusions of an algorithm.

    I began this investigation laughing at the thought of politicians competing with a colleague who never takes holidays, never demands a salary, and never dreams of owning a suspiciously expensive seaside villa. But the deeper I examined Albania’s artificial minister, the more I realized that the important question was not whether Diella had become smarter than the humans surrounding her, but why so many people might be willing to believe that she could also be more honest.

    Diella’s name means Sun, and I find that symbolism unusually appropriate, because sunlight reveals what darkness conceals, yet every object illuminated by the sun also casts a shadow. Artificial intelligence may help governments become more transparent, efficient, and accountable, but only if citizens remain free to examine the systems behind it and question the people who control them.

    I do not fear a future in which artificial intelligence helps human beings make better decisions; I fear a future in which human beings use artificial intelligence to make their own decisions appear beyond criticism, because the most dangerous machine may not be the one that becomes more intelligent than its creators, but the one that convinces society that its creators no longer need to be questioned.

    And if we ever reach that point, we will not need to wait for the Matrix to arrive, because we will have built it ourselves.


    Sources and Further Reading

    • Reuters — September 11, 2025: Reporting on Albania’s announcement of Diella as an AI minister.
    • Albanian Government — Official Diella profile and public-service information: https://www.kryeministria.al/en/ministrat/diella/
    • Associated Press and Reuters — February 2026: Reporting on actress Anila Bisha’s legal dispute concerning her image and voice.
    • Deutsche Welle — Reporting on Diella, the image-rights dispute, and Albania’s digital-government infrastructure.
    • Constitutional Court of Albania — October 8, 2026: Decision concerning the constitutional challenge related to Diella.
    • European Union — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, Artificial Intelligence Act.
    • Plato — The Republic, Books V–VII.

    Author’s note: This article combines documented events with personal interpretation, political satire, and philosophical analysis. Allegations mentioned in the text do not establish guilt, and Diella has not been demonstrated to possess independent constitutional authority.

  • What Is Coming Cannot Be Stopped — Why Are the World’s Elites Going Underground?

    What Is Coming Cannot Be Stopped — Why Are the World’s Elites Going Underground?

    From billionaires building private shelters to the frozen vaults preserving humanity’s seeds, a disturbing question is emerging: what kind of future are the world’s most powerful people preparing for, and who will be allowed to survive it?

    There is something profoundly unsettling about the image of a billionaire building a shelter beneath the earth while the rest of humanity continues its ordinary life above ground. Somewhere, a family is planning its next holiday, a young couple is struggling to pay the mortgage, and millions of people are waking up each morning believing that tomorrow will resemble yesterday. Meanwhile, behind guarded gates and on remote stretches of privately owned land, extraordinary sums of money are being invested in reinforced structures, independent energy supplies, underground living spaces and systems designed to function when the infrastructure of modern civilization no longer does.

    We are told that these precautions are understandable in an unpredictable world, and to a certain extent they are. Wars have returned to regions that once believed themselves secure, pandemics have demonstrated how quickly international systems can become paralyzed, and the growing dependence of society on electricity, communications and digital networks has created vulnerabilities that previous generations could scarcely have imagined. Anyone with sufficient resources might reasonably want a place of refuge.

    Yet there is an uncomfortable difference between preparing for an emergency and preparing to live beyond the collapse of the society that made one’s fortune possible.

    That distinction deserves considerably more attention than it receives.

    For centuries, the powerful demonstrated their position by building upwards, raising palaces, towers, cathedrals and monuments that could be seen from miles away. Their architecture was intended to announce permanence, authority and an almost sacred distance from ordinary human existence. Today, some of the wealthiest individuals in the world are investing in precisely the opposite direction, placing their confidence in reinforced walls, concealed entrances and the protective silence of the earth.

    The symbolism is difficult to ignore. When people who have accumulated extraordinary wealth and influence begin planning for circumstances in which money, institutions and technological systems might cease to function as expected, it is reasonable to ask what they fear losing.

    And whether the rest of us should be asking different questions about the future.

    The Billionaires Who Are Preparing for a World Without Guarantees

    In December 2023, WIRED published an investigation into Mark Zuckerberg’s enormous property development on the Hawaiian island of Kauai. Drawing on planning documents, public records and interviews, the publication described an estate designed with an unusual degree of independence, including its own food production, water infrastructure and an underground shelter of approximately 5,000 square feet.

    According to the documents examined by the journalists, the planned shelter would be connected to the main residences by a tunnel and equipped with living space, mechanical facilities, an escape hatch and a heavy reinforced door. The overall development, including land acquisitions, was estimated to cost more than $270 million.

    These details are important because they move the conversation beyond internet speculation. Whatever the owner’s personal intentions, which cannot be established from construction plans alone, the physical infrastructure described in the investigation was real enough to warrant serious reporting.

    An underground shelter does not prove that its owner possesses secret knowledge of an approaching catastrophe. It does, however, reveal something about the relationship between extraordinary wealth and the desire for independence from the surrounding world.

    For most people, security means trusting that hospitals will remain open, that drinking water will continue to flow, that food will reach supermarkets and that governments will maintain sufficient order to protect ordinary life. For the exceptionally wealthy, security can increasingly mean constructing private alternatives to these public systems.

    The difference is not merely financial. It is philosophical.

    A person who builds a shelter beneath a remote estate is not necessarily predicting the end of civilization, but is acknowledging the possibility that civilization may become unreliable enough to require an escape from it.

    New Zealand has also attracted attention as a destination for wealthy individuals seeking privacy, geographical isolation and greater security. In 2025, the New Zealand Herald reported confirmation from the founder of a specialist security company that his firm had worked on a private underground shelter in the country. The client’s identity and the shelter’s precise location were not disclosed.

    The company’s founder cited the country’s natural beauty, isolation and security considerations as reasons for the project.

    The distinction between confirmed facts and popular assumptions matters here. The existence of private shelters does not establish a coordinated evacuation plan among the world’s elites, nor does it demonstrate that their owners have been warned about a particular future event.

    Still, the growing fascination with such structures exposes a paradox at the heart of modern technological civilization. Some of the people most closely associated with promises of progress, connectivity and an increasingly sophisticated future are also investing in the ability to disconnect from that future if it becomes dangerous.

    One cannot help wondering what confidence in progress really means when accompanied by a reinforced emergency exit.

    Svalbard: The Mountain Where Humanity Has Hidden Its Future

    Far to the north, on a Norwegian archipelago situated between mainland Europe and the North Pole, an extraordinary structure has been carved into the frozen rock.

    The Svalbard Global Seed Vault opened in 2008 as a secure backup for the world’s agricultural genetic diversity. Behind its unmistakable entrance, seeds from collections around the planet are preserved at approximately minus 18 degrees Celsius, protected by both engineered cooling systems and the naturally cold environment surrounding the facility.

    By 2026, the vault held more than 1.4 million seed samples, representing thousands of crop varieties and agricultural genetic resources. Its purpose is to preserve material that may become essential if agricultural collections elsewhere are destroyed or lost.

    It is one of the most remarkable examples of long-term planning in modern history, not because it predicts a particular apocalypse, but because it recognizes that human civilization can lose irreplaceable knowledge and biological diversity through war, environmental disaster, institutional failure or simple neglect.

    The vault’s existence has inspired countless theories about an approaching global reset. Its location in the Arctic, its heavy security and its association with the survival of humanity’s food supply create an atmosphere that seems almost designed for mystery.

    Yet the documented explanation is both simpler and, in certain respects, more revealing.

    The facility is an international agricultural safeguard, owned by Norway and operated through a partnership involving Norwegian authorities, NordGen and the Crop Trust. It is not evidence that governments possess secret knowledge of an imminent reversal of the Earth’s poles.

    Even this carefully selected location has demonstrated the limits of human foresight. Following water intrusion into its entrance tunnel, particularly during an episode of heavy rainfall in 2016, substantial improvements were undertaken to waterproof the access infrastructure. The stored seeds remained safe, but the incident showed that a changing environment can challenge even structures built specifically for long-term protection.

    There is a strange irony in this story. Humanity has created a vault intended to preserve the foundations of agriculture for generations yet unborn, while simultaneously struggling to protect the ecosystems and climatic conditions upon which agriculture depends today.

    And that leads to a question more disturbing than the idea of a hidden government prophecy.

    Why are we becoming so skilled at preserving fragments of the world while finding it so difficult to preserve the world itself?

    Have We Forgotten What Happened to Earlier Civilizations?

    Long before modern billionaires began commissioning underground shelters, human beings were already imagining catastrophes capable of destroying everything they knew.

    The story of a great flood appears in ancient Mesopotamian literature, including the Epic of Gilgamesh, and later in the biblical account of Noah. Across different cultures, stories describe cities overwhelmed by water, worlds destroyed through fire, divine judgments and the survival of small groups entrusted with preserving life or knowledge.

    These traditions have fascinated historians, archaeologists and comparative mythologists because they raise questions about the relationship between cultural memory and environmental catastrophe.

    Ancient people experienced floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and sudden changes in their surroundings, often without the scientific tools necessary to explain them. Such events could become the foundation of stories transmitted over centuries, acquiring religious and symbolic meanings as generations retold them.

    The fact that different societies developed stories of destruction and renewal does not prove that they witnessed the same worldwide disaster. Nevertheless, it reminds us that the fear of civilization’s disappearance is far older than the technologies through which we express it today.

    Archaeology has also repeatedly challenged our assumptions about the sophistication and antiquity of human societies. Sites such as Göbekli Tepe in present-day Türkiye demonstrate that monumental ritual architecture existed thousands of years before the Egyptian pyramids, forcing researchers to reconsider older ideas about the relationship between organized religion, settlement and social complexity.

    Such discoveries do not establish the existence of a technologically advanced civilization destroyed by a forgotten planetary reset. What they establish is that our understanding of prehistory remains incomplete, and that the surviving archaeological record represents only a fraction of human experience.

    Stone survives where wood disappears. Written records preserve the voices of some societies while leaving others almost entirely silent. Rising seas have submerged landscapes that were once inhabited, and erosion has erased evidence that no future excavation will recover.

    Our knowledge of the past is therefore not a complete archive of everything humanity has accomplished. It is a reconstruction assembled from what time has allowed to remain.

    That alone should encourage a certain humility when we imagine that our own civilization is too advanced to disappear.

    The Magnetic Reversal: A Real Phenomenon Behind an Extraordinary Fear

    Among the most dramatic claims circulating online is the assertion that Earth periodically undergoes a catastrophic geographical reset, during which the poles reverse, the crust shifts and entire oceans sweep across continents.

    The underlying scientific phenomenon is real, but the popular interpretation often confuses several very different processes.

    Earth’s magnetic field is generated by the movement of electrically conducting material within its outer core. Over geological time, the field has repeatedly changed direction, leaving evidence of its former orientations in volcanic rocks and ocean sediments.

    According to the United States Geological Survey, the last major magnetic reversal occurred approximately 780,000 years ago. Such reversals do not follow a predictable timetable, and the geological record shows enormous variation in the intervals between them.

    The magnetic poles are not the same as the geographical poles, which are defined by Earth’s axis of rotation. A reversal of the magnetic field does not mean that the planet physically turns upside down or that continents suddenly exchange positions.

    NASA has also explained that although the global magnetic field has weakened over the last two centuries, this does not establish that a reversal is imminent. Geological and fossil evidence from previous reversals does not support the claim that they routinely produced worldwide extinctions or apocalyptic geographical destruction.

    These distinctions are essential, particularly because sensational predictions often borrow genuine scientific terminology while attaching consequences that the evidence does not justify.

    Solar storms are another legitimate concern. Powerful disturbances from the Sun can affect satellites, radio communications, navigation systems and electrical infrastructure, making preparedness an entirely rational objective for governments and industries.

    But a genuine technological vulnerability should not be confused with proof of a predetermined planetary catastrophe.

    The unsettling truth is that modern civilization has created an extraordinary dependence on systems whose reliability most of us rarely question. We do not need the Earth’s crust to overturn for a prolonged disruption of electricity, communications or food distribution to produce serious consequences.

    Our technological achievements have made daily life easier, faster and more interconnected, but they have also created new forms of fragility.

    A civilization can become vulnerable not only because nature is unpredictable, but because its own complexity leaves it exposed.

    Beneath the Mountains: The Underground World That Really Exists

    The existence of genuine underground military complexes has contributed enormously to the mythology surrounding secret cities, hidden governments and preparations for an approaching global catastrophe.

    One of the most remarkable examples is the Cheyenne Mountain Complex in Colorado, constructed during the Cold War as a protected command facility capable of supporting military operations during a major attack.

    Built inside a granite mountain, the complex contains multiple buildings and was designed to provide protection against threats that could devastate ordinary infrastructure. It became operational in the 1960s and continues to serve as an alternate command facility for NORAD and USNORTHCOM.

    Unlike the imaginary underground kingdoms that populate conspiracy literature, Cheyenne Mountain has a documented history, an identifiable military purpose and an architectural reality that is extraordinary enough without embellishment.

    Its existence demonstrates that governments have long understood something civilians are rarely encouraged to consider in detail: during certain extreme emergencies, the continuity of military command and state institutions may depend on protected facilities that ordinary citizens cannot access.

    This is not evidence of a secret plan to abandon humanity, but it does raise legitimate questions about how governments determine which functions must survive a national catastrophe, how resources are distributed and what obligations public institutions retain toward the populations they serve.

    The Denver International Airport has acquired a different kind of reputation. Its unusual artwork, enormous scale and underground infrastructure have inspired decades of speculation about secret societies, concealed bunkers and tunnels leading to distant military installations.

    The airport does have underground operational areas, including transportation and baggage-handling infrastructure, but the existence of these facilities does not substantiate claims about an enormous clandestine survival complex.

    What makes such stories enduring is not necessarily the strength of the evidence. It is the emotional plausibility of the underlying suspicion.

    People know that governments keep secrets, that military facilities exist beyond public scrutiny and that history contains genuine examples of deception by powerful institutions. When these realities are combined with imposing architecture and restricted access, imagination easily fills the gaps.

    The challenge is to remain curious without allowing suspicion to become a substitute for proof.

    The Digital Escape: Can the Wealthy Survive Beyond Their Own Bodies?

    There is another dimension to the modern obsession with survival, one that would have seemed almost incomprehensible to earlier generations.

    For much of human history, wealth could preserve comfort, status and influence, but it could not prevent the eventual death of its owner. Kings could commission elaborate tombs, emperors could demand monuments intended to endure for eternity, and powerful families could establish dynasties that carried their names across centuries, yet the individual human body remained subject to the same fundamental limitations.

    Modern technology has introduced the possibility of challenging those limitations in ways that were previously confined to mythology and speculative fiction.

    Artificial intelligence, advanced neuroscience, brain-computer interfaces and the theoretical concept of whole-brain emulation have encouraged discussions about whether aspects of human memory, personality and consciousness might one day be represented in digital form.

    In September 2026, the MIT McGovern Institute for Brain Research examined the scientific and philosophical questions surrounding mind uploading, emphasizing the extraordinary complexity of the human brain and the technological obstacles involved in reproducing its structure and functions.

    No scientifically established method currently allows a person’s subjective consciousness to be transferred into a computer, and even a future system capable of reproducing someone’s memories and behavior would confront a profound unresolved question: would the resulting digital entity actually be the original person, or an extraordinarily convincing copy?

    This distinction is not trivial. It concerns the nature of identity itself.

    If a machine could speak with your voice, remember your childhood, recognize your loved ones and respond to the world exactly as you would, would your consciousness have survived, or would the machine merely continue telling your story after you were gone?

    The question becomes especially fascinating when considered alongside the ambitions of a technological culture increasingly interested in extending human capabilities beyond their biological limits.

    There is no credible evidence that private bunkers are being equipped to transfer their owners’ souls into synthetic bodies after a planetary reset. Yet the intellectual ambition to preserve or reproduce human identity through technology is real, and it reveals a desire that connects our age to the most ancient civilizations.

    We still want to defeat death.

    We have simply exchanged the language of immortality, resurrection and divine transformation for the language of algorithms, neural networks and digital information.

    The Question That One Group of Wealthy Men Could Not Answer

    One of the most revealing accounts of elite survival thinking comes from media theorist and author Douglas Rushkoff.

    Rushkoff described being invited to meet a small group of extremely wealthy men who were ostensibly interested in discussing the future of technology. Instead, their questions revolved around surviving a catastrophic breakdown of modern society.

    They wanted to know which regions might remain safest, how technological disruption could unfold and, most strikingly, how someone living in a fortified compound could maintain authority over armed security personnel after the collapse of the economic and political systems that normally enforce contracts and social hierarchies.

    Rushkoff later explored this experience in his book Survival of the Richest: Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires.

    The episode exposes a weakness in the entire philosophy of private survival.

    A billionaire may own the shelter, finance the security systems and stockpile the supplies, but once the surrounding social order disappears, what guarantees that the people operating those systems will continue to recognize the authority of the person who paid for them?

    Money derives much of its power from institutions, laws, shared expectations and functioning markets. If those structures collapse, personal relationships, trust, cooperation and practical abilities may become more important than financial assets.

    A fortified shelter could protect its occupants from certain external dangers, but it could not automatically preserve the social hierarchy that existed outside its walls.

    And there is something almost tragic about the possibility of spending a lifetime accumulating enough wealth to escape dependence on other people, only to discover that survival remains fundamentally dependent on them.

    Rushkoff’s argument challenges the idea that humanity’s greatest problems can be solved through individual escape. He suggests that the resources devoted to isolating a privileged minority might achieve far more if invested in strengthening the resilience of society as a whole.

    The significance of this observation extends beyond the personalities of a few wealthy individuals.

    It forces us to reconsider what survival actually means.

    The Great Reset That History Has Already Shown Us

    The phrase great reset has acquired an enormous range of meanings, from economic reform to elaborate claims about hidden plans for worldwide domination. Yet history demonstrates that civilizations can undergo profound transformations without any mysterious cosmic intervention.

    The Bronze Age collapse disrupted powerful societies across the eastern Mediterranean around the end of the second millennium BCE. Political systems fragmented, trade networks contracted, cities were destroyed or abandoned, and societies that had once appeared stable entered periods of extraordinary uncertainty.

    Historians continue to debate the relative importance of warfare, environmental pressures, migration, political instability and the interconnected vulnerabilities of the region’s major powers.

    The complexity of that collapse is precisely what makes it relevant to the present.

    A civilization does not always fall because of one overwhelming disaster. Sometimes several pressures accumulate until the institutions designed to manage them can no longer respond effectively.

    The Roman Empire offers another lesson. Its western political structure eventually disintegrated, yet Roman law, language, engineering, religious institutions and cultural traditions continued to shape the societies that followed.

    Civilizations rarely disappear as completely as the most dramatic stories suggest. They transform, fragment, survive through other institutions and leave behind memories that later generations reinterpret.

    The same principle applies to the present.

    A future crisis could profoundly change the organization of global society without resembling the spectacular destruction imagined in apocalyptic narratives. Economic instability, technological disruption, environmental pressures, political conflict and failures of essential infrastructure could reshape everyday life through a series of events rather than a single catastrophic moment.

    And unlike a hypothetical planetary reset, these are risks that can be studied, debated and addressed.

    The danger of becoming obsessed with an inevitable apocalypse is that inevitability can become an excuse for inaction.

    If destruction has already been written into the future, why attempt to prevent it?

    Yet history offers no guarantee that humanity’s next great crisis is unavoidable, and no evidence that a hidden group possesses a precise timetable for the end of our civilization.

    What Will Remain When the Doors Close?

    Imagine, for a moment, a future in which an extraordinary crisis has forced millions of people to abandon their ordinary lives.

    Deep inside a mountain, a small group waits behind reinforced doors. Their shelter contains water purification equipment, stored food, medical supplies, electricity and enough technology to maintain a comfortable existence for an extended period.

    Above them, communities are struggling to restore communications, distribute essential resources and care for those who cannot protect themselves.

    The people underground may have succeeded in preserving their immediate physical safety, but the question of what they have preserved beyond that remains unanswered.

    Can wealth retain its meaning when there is no functioning economy in which to spend it? Can political authority survive when the institutions supporting it have disappeared? Can technological sophistication replace the knowledge, labor and cooperation of the countless people who make complex societies possible?

    Even the most advanced private shelter depends on an immense history of collective human achievement. Its steel was produced through industrial systems, its electronics were developed by generations of researchers, its medicines emerged from shared scientific knowledge, and its energy infrastructure relies on principles discovered and refined across centuries.

    No billionaire, however intelligent or resourceful, created those foundations alone.

    The fantasy of complete independence is therefore built upon a contradiction: the ability to withdraw from civilization is itself one of civilization’s most elaborate products.

    And when the supplies begin to run out, when machinery requires replacement components and when the occupants must eventually return to the surface, the importance of the surrounding human world becomes impossible to ignore.

    A bunker can delay exposure to danger. It cannot manufacture an entire civilization from nothing.

    What Are They Really Afraid Of?

    It is tempting to interpret the construction of underground shelters as evidence that powerful individuals know something the rest of humanity has not been told.

    The imagination immediately supplies possibilities: a devastating solar storm, a magnetic reversal, an approaching astronomical object, a secret discovery beneath Antarctic ice or some ancient cycle of destruction that has finally returned.

    These ideas make compelling stories because they offer an explanation for uncertainty. They transform a confusing collection of modern anxieties into a single hidden narrative in which someone knows what is happening, someone has a plan and the future follows an invisible schedule.

    But the evidence does not establish that such a schedule exists.

    The more convincing explanation may also be the more uncomfortable one.

    The wealthy do not need secret knowledge of an approaching catastrophe to fear the future. They have access to the same broad categories of risk that confront governments, scientists and ordinary citizens, but they possess resources that allow them to respond privately and on a scale unavailable to most people.

    Some may be motivated by genuine concern, others by status, privacy, security or a desire for maximum personal control. Their individual motives cannot be reduced to a single explanation.

    Yet their preparations reveal something about our era that deserves serious reflection.

    We have reached a point in history when some people can imagine protecting themselves from the consequences of collective failure more easily than they can imagine preventing that failure.

    It is a remarkable reversal of the optimism that once accompanied technological progress.

    For generations, the future was presented as a destination toward which humanity would advance together, overcoming disease, scarcity, ignorance and geographical limitations through scientific discovery and cooperation.

    Now, in certain wealthy circles, the future can resemble a place from which one must secure an emergency exit.

    The real mystery is not whether these individuals have discovered an ancient prophecy hidden beneath the ice.

    It is why people who possess extraordinary power to influence the present sometimes appear more interested in protecting themselves from the future than in improving it.

    The Last Door

    There is an ancient human instinct to seek safety beneath the earth. Caves sheltered our ancestors from the elements and from predators, while underground chambers preserved food, sacred objects, records and the remains of the dead.

    The earth has always represented both protection and burial, continuity and disappearance.

    Modern survival bunkers inherit that symbolism, even when their builders have no interest in mythology. Their reinforced entrances resemble the thresholds of ancient tombs, and their sealed interiors preserve the hope that something valuable can endure while the world outside changes beyond recognition.

    Yet history suggests that the greatest inheritance of a civilization is not necessarily what it hides behind walls.

    It is what survives in human memory, knowledge, language, relationships and the ability of one generation to teach another.

    The seeds stored beneath the mountains of Svalbard matter because they may one day help farmers grow food. Scientific archives matter because future researchers can use them to solve problems we have not yet encountered. Libraries, historical records and cultural traditions matter because they allow people to recover knowledge that would otherwise disappear.

    Preservation becomes meaningful when what has been protected can return to the world.

    A vault that never opens is merely a monument to fear.

    And this is where the story of the underground shelters becomes something larger than a curiosity about wealthy individuals and their extraordinary properties.

    We do not know what the coming decades will bring. We cannot identify every threat, predict every technological transformation or guarantee that the political and environmental conditions we take for granted will remain stable.

    But uncertainty is not proof that catastrophe has already been decided, and the existence of preparations is not proof that those making them possess secret knowledge.

    The future remains something humanity can influence.

    I find myself returning to a simple image: somewhere beneath a mountain, behind a door designed to resist extraordinary force, a group of people may one day wait for the danger outside to pass. They will have preserved their supplies, their technology and, if everything works as intended, their lives.

    But when that door finally opens, the world they encounter will depend not only on what they managed to protect underground, but on what everyone else managed to preserve above it.

    And that may be the greatest irony of all: the people who can afford to escape civilization are still depending on civilization to survive.

    So when we ask why the world’s elites are going underground, we should not stop at wondering what they know about the future.

    We should ask what kind of future is being built, who is expected to endure its dangers, and why the possibility of survival is becoming something that can be purchased.

    Because the most disturbing prospect is not that the world is about to end.

    It is that, long before any catastrophe arrives, we may already be deciding whose future is worth protecting.


    Sources and Further Reading

    Douglas Rushkoff — Survival of the Richest
    https://rushkoff.com/books/survival-of-the-richest.html

    WIRED — Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s Top-Secret Hawaii Compound
    https://www.wired.com/story/mark-zuckerberg-inside-hawaii-compound/

    New Zealand Herald — Doomsday Bunker Confirmed
    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/apocalypse-now-doomsday-bunker-secretly-installed-on-nz-property-confirmed/IHQ47FV7ZJGDLMJUEA3YMUG6MM/

    Svalbard Global Seed Vault — Official Purpose and Operations
    https://www.seedvault.no/about/purpose-operations-and-organisation/

    United States Geological Survey — Earth’s Magnetic Field Reversals
    https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/it-true-earths-magnetic-field-occasionally-reverses-its-polarity

    NASA — Magnetic Field Variations and Climate
    https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/flip-flop-why-variations-in-earths-magnetic-field-arent-causing-todays-climate-change/

    NORAD — Cheyenne Mountain Complex
    https://www.norad.mil/Newsroom/Fact-Sheets/Article-View/Article/578775/cheyenne-mountain-complex/

    MIT McGovern Institute — Can Consciousness Be Uploaded to a Machine?
    https://mcgovern.mit.edu/2026/09/02/can-and-should-consciousness-be-uploaded-to-a-machine/

  • AI, the Antichrist, and the Machine We May One Day Obey

    AI, the Antichrist, and the Machine We May One Day Obey

    For nearly two thousand years, every age has tried to recognize the Antichrist in the face of its greatest fear. Our age may be doing the same with artificial intelligence, although this time the comparison raises an uncomfortable question that cannot be dismissed quite so easily: what if the danger is not that a machine becomes a supernatural being, but that human beings gradually create a system to which they surrender the authority once reserved for gods, kings and prophets?

    There is something strangely familiar about the anxiety surrounding artificial intelligence today. The technology is new, astonishingly new in the form most people now encounter it, yet the fear it provokes belongs to an ancient part of the human imagination. Whenever societies have entered periods in which the familiar world seemed to be slipping away, people have searched old prophecies for signs that history was approaching some predetermined end. Wars, epidemics, political upheavals, economic collapse, nuclear weapons and cultural revolutions have all, at one time or another, been interpreted as evidence that the final chapter had begun.


    Now artificial intelligence has entered the prophecy.


    A recent BBC investigation brought together pastors, theologians and researchers who have begun asking publicly whether AI could play some role in Christian scenarios of the “end times.” American pastor Philip Anthony Mitchell has argued that artificial intelligence will have a major role in the events preceding the end of the world, while pastors Greg Laurie and Mike Signorelli have entertained similar possibilities, Signorelli explicitly connecting modern technology with the path toward the Antichrist. None of them denies that AI may be useful, and none can demonstrate that a biblical prophecy is actually describing modern computing, but their concerns have found a receptive audience because they touch something deeper than theology alone.
    The idea sounds sensational when reduced to the headline “AI is the Antichrist.” It becomes considerably more interesting once that headline is discarded.


    The Book of Revelation does not mention computers, algorithms, artificial intelligence, biometric identification or digital currencies. More surprisingly, the word Antichrist itself does not appear in Revelation at all. The term occurs in the First and Second Epistles of John, where it is connected principally with opposition to Christ, false teaching and deception. Revelation presents other symbolic figures instead: the dragon, the beasts, Babylon and, later, the false prophet. Christian tradition gradually brought several of these strands together, which is one reason popular culture now tends to treat “the Beast” and “the Antichrist” almost as though they were interchangeable characters.

    That distinction is more than a theological technicality, because once it is understood, the entire question begins to change. Perhaps it makes little sense to search Revelation for a hidden description of a computer that John of Patmos could not possibly have named. Perhaps the more intriguing approach is to examine what Revelation feared: concentrated power, deceptive signs, manufactured worship, economic dependence and a system in which loyalty becomes inseparable from ordinary life.
    Those themes are considerably harder to dismiss.


    The ancient beast was born in a very different world

    Revelation emerged from the world of the Roman Empire, and its extraordinary imagery makes far more sense when that world is remembered. Yale’s New Testament scholarship describes the book as deeply hostile to Roman imperial power, with “Babylon” functioning as a symbolic name for Rome and the beasts representing forms of oppressive empire. The famous number 666 has long been associated by many scholars with Nero Caesar through gematria, an ancient practice in which letters were assigned numerical values. Even the alternative reading of 616 found in some early manuscripts fits a different spelling of Nero’s name, one reason the Nero interpretation has remained so influential.

    For the first Christians hearing Revelation, Rome was not an abstract political theory. It was the civilization surrounding them, a vast system of military authority, commerce, taxation, public ritual and imperial symbolism. Coins carried the emperor’s image; cities displayed imperial power everywhere; religion, economy and political allegiance could overlap in ways that modern secular societies often find difficult to imagine.
    One Yale Bible Study commentary even interprets Revelation’s language about buying and selling in connection with Roman coinage bearing imperial images, although, like much in Revelation scholarship, the details remain debated. What matters for our present discussion is that the text originally spoke to people living inside a system of power they could neither easily escape nor openly defeat.

    That historical reading does not prevent Christians from believing Revelation may contain a further prophetic dimension. It simply warns us against assuming that every new technology was secretly encoded in its pages.


    Yet history has rarely stopped people from trying.


    Napoleon was identified with the Beast. During other periods, religious interpreters found the Antichrist in popes, emperors, political leaders, revolutionary movements and ideological enemies. Jeffrey C. Pugh, interviewed by the BBC, recalled that his own grandmother once believed Franklin D. Roosevelt was the Antichrist. The New Deal, arriving amid the terror and dislocation of the Great Depression, appeared revolutionary enough to some Americans that biblical language seemed capable of explaining what ordinary politics could not.
    During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and communism occupied similar territory in some apocalyptic interpretations. After September 11, different fears appeared. The candidate changes because the world changes.
    Artificial intelligence could therefore be only the latest object onto which humanity has projected its oldest anxieties.
    Except there is a difference that makes this particular candidate unusual.
    We did not invite Napoleon into our bedrooms to answer questions before we went to sleep. We did not ask the Soviet Union to compose our letters, explain our symptoms, recommend our purchases, teach our children, organize our thoughts and help us decide what was true.
    AI is not standing outside the gates.
    We are carrying it inside.


    The strange attraction of the end of the world


    The belief that history is approaching its final crisis remains much more widespread than many people realize. A large Pew Research Center survey conducted in the United States in 2022 found that 39 percent of American adults believed humanity was living in the “end times.” Among Christians the figure rose to 47 percent, while 63 percent of evangelical Protestants and 76 percent of Protestants in historically Black churches expressed that belief. The survey involved more than 10,000 American adults, so these were not merely the opinions of a tiny apocalyptic subculture.


    There is also a long psychological and historical pattern behind such expectations. Noreen Herzfeld, a theologian who has spent years studying the relationship between religion and artificial intelligence, observes that millenarian movements tend to flourish during periods of social stress, when people feel that events are accelerating beyond their control. In a 2024 chapter for The Cambridge Companion to Religion and Artificial Intelligence, she makes an especially interesting point: modern society projects both salvation and catastrophe onto AI. Some imagine that advanced intelligence will solve disease, scarcity and perhaps even mortality, while others imagine a superintelligence escaping human control and destroying the civilization that created it.

    In that sense, artificial intelligence has already acquired something resembling an eschatology of its own.
    The religious believer may imagine the return of Christ, judgment and the end of the present age, while technological futurists speak about artificial general intelligence, superintelligence, radical life extension or a transformation after which human civilization may never again resemble what came before. The vocabulary is different, yet both stories place humanity on the threshold of an event so large that history will be divided into a before and an after.
    It would be too simple to say that technological futurism is merely religion disguised as engineering, but the resemblance is difficult to ignore. Humans seem remarkably attracted to stories in which ordinary history suddenly opens into something greater, whether that something is salvation or destruction.
    Perhaps what frightens us most about AI is not that we know what it will become, but that we do not.


    Revelation was concerned with deception before it was concerned with technology


    If there is one element of ancient apocalyptic imagery that feels unexpectedly contemporary, it is not the number 666, nor the famous mark, nor even the terrifying beast rising from the sea. It is deception.
    The second beast of Revelation performs convincing signs and persuades people to give their allegiance to the first. Later Christian interpretation associates this figure with the false prophet. Whatever theological interpretation one accepts, the narrative understands that power does not always rule through violence alone; sometimes it rules by controlling what people believe they have seen.


    For most of human history, creating convincing false realities required enormous resources. A forged document could deceive a few people, propaganda could manipulate millions and cinema could create illusions, but each medium retained certain boundaries. A photograph was generally connected to an event that had occurred in front of a camera. A recognizable voice usually belonged to the person speaking. A moving image of a public figure ordinarily meant that the figure had, at some point, stood before a lens.


    Those assumptions are disappearing.
    Generative systems can create faces belonging to people who never existed, reproduce voices, manufacture photographs and generate increasingly convincing video. They can write in the style of a particular person and sustain conversations that feel spontaneous and personal. The barrier separating evidence from fabrication has not vanished completely, but it has weakened enough that the old sentence “I saw it with my own eyes” no longer carries the certainty it once did.


    More troublingly, deception does not always require an AI system to invent something deliberately. The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology warns that generative systems can produce “confabulations,” confidently presenting incorrect or fabricated information in ways that users may mistake for reliable knowledge. NIST specifically notes that apparently plausible explanations or invented citations can encourage people to place inappropriate trust in erroneous output.

    This changes something fundamental in the relationship between humans and information.
    The machine does not need to know that it is deceiving us. It does not require hatred, ambition, spiritual corruption or consciousness of any kind. A system designed to predict plausible language can produce false information without possessing any concept of truth, while a human reader can nevertheless experience its answer as authoritative.
    That distinction becomes important because we instinctively associate deception with a deceiver. Someone lies because someone intends to lie. Artificial systems introduce a stranger possibility: deception can emerge without a mind behind the individual sentence intending anything at all.
    The effect on the person receiving the information may be the same.


    An oracle that speaks in our own language

    Human beings have always searched for something that knows more than they do. Ancient people travelled to temples and oracles, studied omens and consulted priests because uncertainty is one of the conditions we tolerate least comfortably. We want to know what will happen to us, whether our choices are correct, whether danger is approaching and whether a hidden order exists behind events that otherwise appear random.
    Modern societies may believe they have left the oracle behind, but perhaps we have merely changed its architecture.
    Instead of climbing the road to Delphi, we open an application.
    The comparison should not be pushed too far, because contemporary AI is built from mathematics, software, data and hardware rather than divine revelation. Yet psychologically the encounter can become surprisingly similar. A question is offered to an entity whose internal processes most users do not understand, and an answer returns almost instantly from a body of information no individual human could possibly hold in memory.


    The voice is calm. It rarely hesitates in the manner a frightened or uncertain person hesitates. It can explain complex subjects in language tailored precisely to the person asking.
    The experience creates an illusion of presence that earlier technologies rarely possessed.


    A search engine gave us pages to investigate. A book gave us the thoughts of an identifiable author. A calculator returned numbers. Conversational AI does something subtly different because it answers us, adjusts to us and continues the exchange. Even when we know intellectually that the system is a machine, ordinary social instincts begin to operate.


    And those systems can persuade.
    A 2025 study published in Nature Human Behaviour examined debates between people and GPT-4. When the AI had access to limited personal information about the human participant and the contest produced a difference in persuasion, the personalized AI was more persuasive substantially more often than its human counterpart. Other experiments published in Nature Communications have also found that messages generated by large language models can shift attitudes on contested issues and can do so at enormous scale and comparatively low cost.


    None of this proves a supernatural prophecy.
    It proves something more immediate: a machine does not need consciousness in order to influence belief.


    The moment when assistance becomes authority


    Imagine that artificial intelligence continues improving without any dramatic “awakening,” without consciousness suddenly appearing inside the machine and without some cinematic moment when humanity realizes that its creation has become alive. The systems simply become more useful, more accurate and more deeply integrated into ordinary institutions.


    A physician consults an AI system because it detects patterns in medical data that a human might overlook. A financial institution uses another because fraud can be identified more efficiently. Courts experiment with AI assistance because thousands of pages of legal material can be reviewed in seconds. Schools adopt personalized systems because each student can receive individual attention. Companies rely on algorithms to screen applications, governments automate administrative decisions, intelligence services analyze threats and military organizations use machine assistance because modern warfare moves faster than human deliberation.


    There need be nothing sinister in any individual step.
    That is precisely what makes the process worth examining.
    If a system is correct more frequently than the human professional using it, ignoring its recommendation may gradually become difficult to defend. Eventually a doctor might need to explain why she rejected the machine rather than why she accepted it. An employee may discover that questioning an automated recommendation is interpreted as inefficiency. A citizen may be told that no person can reverse a decision because the relevant procedure has become too complex for any individual to understand completely.


    Nobody would need to declare that the machine was now in charge.
    Authority could accumulate through convenience.
    This possibility is one reason UNESCO’s global Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence places so much emphasis on human responsibility and oversight. Its framework explicitly states that AI systems should not displace ultimate human responsibility and accountability, precisely because a technologically produced decision can affect real people even when responsibility becomes difficult to locate.

    The warning is almost mundane compared with Revelation, yet its implications are profound.
    A society can surrender authority without ever holding a ceremony of surrender.


    The mark, the marketplace and the seduction of modern parallels


    No passage in Revelation has generated more technological speculation than the description of the mark without which people cannot buy or sell. Over the decades, interpretations have attached themselves to barcodes, credit cards, implanted microchips, biometric systems, digital identification and, more recently, digital currencies and AI-controlled financial infrastructure.


    The pattern itself should make us cautious. When almost every generation discovers that its newest technology appears to fit the same prophecy, the prophecy may be functioning partly as a mirror.
    Yet there is still something worth examining beneath all the speculation.


    For most of history, human existence was only loosely connected to centralized technological systems. A person could possess money without an account, communicate without an electronic identity, travel without leaving a permanent digital trail and purchase necessities without being authenticated by a network.


    That world is disappearing, not because of a secret apocalyptic plan but because digital systems are extraordinarily useful.
    Banking becomes safer when fraud can be detected. Governments function faster when identities can be verified. Borders become more manageable through electronic documents. Businesses reduce costs through automation. Consumers prefer immediate transactions over complicated ones.
    Every individual reason is understandable.
    Together, however, they produce something historically new: a society in which participation in ordinary life increasingly depends upon technological systems that most citizens cannot inspect and no single individual controls.
    The resemblance to Revelation does not establish a prophetic connection, but it helps explain why that connection feels so powerful to some people. Ancient texts described economic participation becoming entangled with allegiance to an oppressive power; modern societies are building increasingly integrated infrastructures through which identity, finance and access can technically be managed on an unprecedented scale.
    The supernatural interpretation remains a matter of faith.
    The infrastructure is real.


    Perhaps the machine never needs to become evil


    Science fiction has taught us to wait for the wrong moment.
    We imagine a laboratory where an AI suddenly becomes conscious, recognizes humanity as inferior and begins plotting its escape. The danger has a beginning, a personality and an intention, which paradoxically makes it comforting because there would be an identifiable enemy.


    History usually produces something messier.
    Institutions can harm people without anyone waking in the morning intending to become evil. Financial systems can destroy lives without feeling greed. Bureaucracies can become cruel without any individual bureaucrat deciding to create cruelty. Propaganda can reshape an entire population even though paper and ink possess no consciousness.


    Why, then, would artificial intelligence require self-awareness before becoming dangerous?
    A system can recommend the wrong medical decision without wanting anyone to suffer. It can reproduce discrimination without understanding prejudice, amplify false information without believing it and persuade an individual without knowing that an individual exists in any human sense of the word.
    Effects do not require intention.
    This may be one of the most important distinctions lost in discussions about AI and the Antichrist. Those who imagine a demonic superintelligence often assume that the machine would somehow need to choose evil. The more realistic danger may be a network of systems doing exactly what they were designed or incentivized to do while producing consequences no one intended and no single person can easily stop.
    In theological language, evil is often personalized.
    In technological systems, catastrophe can be procedural.


    The idol has never needed to be alive


    Christian scripture repeatedly returns to the problem of idolatry, and the popular imagination tends to picture ancient people kneeling foolishly before statues of wood or stone. Yet the deeper idea is more sophisticated: human beings create something with their own hands and then attribute to their creation an authority greater than their own.

    Seen from that perspective, the material from which the idol is constructed is almost irrelevant.
    Stone will do.
    Gold will do.
    Silicon would do just as well.


    Noreen Herzfeld’s work on religion and artificial intelligence has repeatedly returned to the question of image, creation and what happens when humans build intelligent-seeming entities in their own likeness. Her recent exploration of AI as a millenarian project is particularly revealing because she rejects both extremes: the machine as automatic savior and the machine as inevitable apocalypse. We are projecting ancient hopes and fears onto a technology whose future will still depend heavily upon choices made by humans.

    This may be where the theological argument becomes more interesting than the claim that AI itself is Satanic.
    An idol does not need supernatural power for people to worship it. It needs only to be treated as though it possesses an authority that should not be questioned.
    Modern AI systems are demonstrably fallible, yet their linguistic fluency can make uncertainty difficult to perceive. They can sound knowledgeable where their knowledge is incomplete and confident where confidence is unjustified. As their capabilities increase, the temptation to confuse intelligence with wisdom may become stronger.
    Those are not the same thing.
    A system may process more information than any living person and still possess no lived experience, moral responsibility, mortality, love, grief, conscience or understanding of consequence in the human sense.
    Yet if its answer is better often enough, people may stop caring about the distinction.
    That is the moment worth watching.


    Perhaps we have always misunderstood what obedience would look like


    When people imagine the Antichrist, they often imagine a charismatic tyrant demanding worship beneath enormous banners while terrified populations are forced to obey. The image is theatrical because apocalyptic literature itself is theatrical.


    Modern power often behaves differently.
    The most efficient systems rarely need to threaten everyone who uses them. They become indispensable.
    We did not have to be forced into smartphones. We wanted them. Social networks did not invade our homes; we created accounts. Recommendation algorithms did not demand that we surrender hours of attention; they learned how to keep us interested.


    Convenience succeeded where coercion would have failed.
    Artificial intelligence may follow the same path. We will use it because it saves time, then because everyone else uses it, then because institutions expect it and eventually because functioning without it becomes difficult.


    At no particular point will the transformation necessarily feel dramatic.
    That is what makes it mysterious.
    Human beings tend to imagine historical turning points as moments that everyone recognizes while they are happening, yet many of the deepest transformations become visible only afterward. People living through the first decades of industrialization did not wake each morning announcing that they were inside the Industrial Revolution. The old world was simply disappearing around them, one machine, one factory and one migration at a time.
    Perhaps something comparable has already begun.


    When secular science and religious prophecy begin asking the same question

    There is an irony hidden inside all of this. Religious believers are not the only people imagining catastrophic futures involving AI.
    Researchers, engineers, philosophers and governments use an entirely different vocabulary, but they are also discussing scenarios in which advanced systems could create severe harm, manipulate populations, undermine institutions or behave in ways humans struggle to control. NIST develops risk frameworks, UNESCO insists upon human oversight, and researchers experimentally study whether AI can persuade human beings at scale. These are not churches interpreting Revelation; they are institutions confronting technical and social risks.

    The religious language speaks of deception, false authority and allegiance.
    The technical language speaks of misinformation, persuasion, alignment, accountability and loss of human control.
    They are not describing the same thing, and it would be misleading to pretend they are.
    Yet they sometimes appear to be standing on opposite sides of a strange bridge, staring toward the same dark water below.
    Both are asking what happens when human beings create a power they do not fully understand.
    Both are asking whether control can be surrendered before those surrendering it recognize what they have done.
    Both are asking, in very different languages, whether something created to serve us might eventually reshape the conditions under which we live.


    The question Revelation leaves behind


    There is no credible evidence that artificial intelligence is the Antichrist, nor does Revelation contain a hidden technical blueprint describing computers two thousand years before their invention. Historically, much of the book’s imagery makes sense within resistance to Roman imperial power, while the term “Antichrist” itself belongs to other New Testament writings. Treating every new technology as the fulfilment of an ancient prophecy usually reveals more about the fears of the interpreter than about the prophecy itself.

    But perhaps dismissing the entire comparison would be too easy as well.
    Revelation survived for almost two millennia not because every generation correctly identified the Beast, but because the book speaks in images that touch persistent human problems. It is fascinated by power that wishes to become absolute, by appearances that deceive, by economic systems that can reward obedience and punish exclusion, and by the strange moment when political authority stops demanding only compliance and begins demanding something resembling worship.
    Artificial intelligence did not create any of those dangers.
    Human beings did.


    What AI changes is their possible scale.
    For the first time, a single technological system can potentially speak individually to millions of people, adapting its language to each of them while drawing upon more information than any human adviser could possess. Synthetic media can manufacture events that never happened. Digital infrastructures can connect identity, communication and economic life. Algorithms can make consequential judgments without the people affected understanding how those judgments were reached.
    None of this proves the apocalypse.
    Perhaps the opposite is true, and AI will eventually become an ordinary technology whose extraordinary early years seem almost quaint to future generations. Perhaps the fears surrounding it will join the long archive of moments when humanity mistook transformation for the end of the world.
    Yet there is another possibility that requires no demons, no supernatural machines and no secret fulfilment of prophecy.
    We may simply become so accustomed to asking machines what to read, what to believe, whom to trust, how to work, what to choose and eventually how to understand the world that the boundary between assistance and authority fades without anyone noticing exactly when it disappeared.
    If that happens, the question will no longer be whether artificial intelligence has become conscious, whether it possesses a soul or whether some ancient prophet foresaw silicon chips hidden inside a vision of beasts and dragons.


    The question will be far older, and much more human.
    It will be whether we still remember that the thing speaking to us was created by us, whether we still possess the courage to doubt an answer delivered with perfect confidence, and whether we recognize the moment when a tool that once waited for our commands begins quietly determining the world in which those commands are possible.
    Perhaps the most disturbing scenario was never that humanity would build a machine and discover Satan hiding inside it.


    Perhaps it was that we would build a machine ourselves, teach it to speak with the accumulated voices of humanity, place it at the center of our institutions, consult it because it was useful and eventually trust it because everyone else did, until one day we could no longer tell whether we were still using the oracle or whether the oracle had begun, almost imperceptibly, to define reality for us.

    Sources & Further Reading
    BBC News — Lebo Diseko, AI and the Antichrist: Why Some People Believe Artificial Intelligence Is Deceiving Us Into Worshipping Satan, 26 September 2026. BBC News article
    Pew Research Center, In U.S., 39% of adults believe humanity is “living in the end times”, December 2022. Survey of 10,156 U.S. adults; 47% of Christians and 63% of evangelical Protestants surveyed said they believed humanity was living in the end times.

    Noreen Herzfeld — Cambridge University Press, The Eschatological Future of Artificial Intelligence: Saviour or Apocalypse?, in The Cambridge Companion to Religion and Artificial Intelligence, 2024. Herzfeld examines AI as a modern millenarian project onto which societies project both hopes of salvation and fears of catastrophe.

    Open Yale Courses — Yale University, Apocalyptic and Resistance, New Testament History and Literature, Lecture 23. The lecture discusses Revelation in the context of Roman imperial power and explains why many scholars associate 666 — and the manuscript variant 616 — with Nero.

    Encyclopedia of the Bible — Bible Gateway, Antichrist. The term “Antichrist” occurs specifically in the Johannine epistles rather than in the Book of Revelation, an important distinction from later popular interpretations that merge several biblical figures.

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile, 2024, updated by NIST in 2026. The report discusses risks including AI “confabulation,” in which generative systems can confidently present erroneous or fabricated information.

    UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. UNESCO emphasizes transparency, accountability and, importantly for our article, the principle that AI systems should not displace ultimate human responsibility and human oversight.

    Salvi, Ribeiro, Gallotti & West — Nature Human Behaviour, On the conversational persuasiveness of GPT-4, 2025. In controlled debates, personalized GPT-4 was more persuasive than human opponents in the study’s key comparison, illustrating why AI-driven persuasion deserves serious attention even without assuming consciousness or malicious intent.

  • The Pageant of the Unreal: What Happens When We Can No Longer Tell What Is Real?

    The Pageant of the Unreal: What Happens When We Can No Longer Tell What Is Real?

    Deepfakes, artificial images and the disturbing psychological consequences of a world in which even genuine evidence can be dismissed as fake.

    There was a time, not very long ago, when a photograph still possessed a peculiar authority over us. We knew that photographs could be staged, edited or removed from context, and anyone familiar with the history of propaganda knew that visual manipulation was hardly a modern invention, yet an image still seemed to carry something that words did not. It appeared to say that, whatever interpretation might later be imposed upon it, something had existed in front of a camera at a particular moment in time. Video strengthened that feeling even further because movement, voice, hesitation, facial expression and the small imperfections of ordinary human behavior seemed much harder to fabricate than a written account.

    Generative artificial intelligence is quietly dismantling that old psychological arrangement.

    It is now possible to manufacture faces belonging to people who never existed, clone voices from relatively small samples, reconstruct scenes that never occurred and produce increasingly convincing video in which real or invented people appear to move through events that happened only inside a computational system. None of this means that every artificial image is indistinguishable from reality, and the popular claim that nobody can tell the difference anymore would be an exaggeration. What has changed is subtler and, in some respects, more troubling: the mere knowledge that convincing fabrication is possible has entered our everyday understanding of the world, which means that suspicion no longer requires evidence of manipulation before it begins.

    A strange reversal is taking place. For most of the history of misinformation, the principal fear was that fabricated evidence might be mistaken for reality, yet researchers studying deepfakes have increasingly drawn attention to another possibility, in which genuine material loses some of its authority simply because people know that falsification has become technically plausible. The danger, therefore, is not confined to believing things that never happened. We may also be approaching an information environment in which events that really did happen can be pushed into a fog of uncertainty simply by suggesting that the evidence might have been manufactured.

    That is where the story becomes considerably darker, because a society does not need to lose reality in order to become confused. It only needs to lose agreement about how reality can be established.

    The New Problem Is Not Simply That Images Can Lie

    Human beings have always lied with images. Long before digital editing, photographs were cropped, retouched, staged and selectively published, while governments, advertisers, newspapers and private individuals learned very quickly that a camera could be used to persuade as effectively as it could be used to record. What generative AI changes is not the existence of visual deception but its accessibility, its speed and, increasingly, its realism.

    An experiment published by the Harvard Kennedy School’s Misinformation Review in November 2025 examined how realistic AI-generated images influenced belief in false headlines. Researchers found that participants were more likely to believe false headlines when accompanying synthetic images appeared realistic and seemed to provide strong visual evidence for what the headline claimed. The study did not suggest that people indiscriminately accepted every artificial image, which would be a much stronger claim than the evidence supports, but it did demonstrate something psychologically important: when an image looks plausible and appears to confirm a narrative, its visual authority can increase the credibility of information that is false.

    This is hardly surprising when we consider how people encounter information online. We do not normally sit in front of each photograph like forensic investigators, enlarging reflections, examining compression patterns and tracing the history of every file before allowing ourselves to form an impression. We scroll through hundreds of fragments of reality every day, making rapid judgments about faces, accidents, wars, celebrities, disasters, scientific discoveries, crimes and apparently ordinary moments in the lives of strangers. Context arrives in the form of captions written by people we may not know, while the emotional impression created by an image often reaches us before careful reasoning has had time to intervene.

    The artificial image therefore does not need to be perfect. It needs to survive long enough to enter the mind as a possibility.

    Correction may come ten minutes later, or ten hours later, but by then the original image may already have been copied, cropped, reposted, stripped of its context and absorbed into countless conversations. Even where a correction works, the larger lesson remains behind: photographs can no longer be approached with the same instinctive confidence they once enjoyed.

    At first, that sounds healthy. Skepticism is useful, particularly in an online world saturated with manipulation, sensationalism and commercial incentives designed to capture attention. Yet skepticism is beneficial only while it helps us distinguish reliable information from unreliable information; once it expands until every form of evidence appears equally suspect, it stops functioning as a filter and begins dissolving the distinction it was meant to protect.

    That transformation has a name.

    The Liar’s Dividend: When the Existence of Fake Evidence Protects the Truthful-Looking Lie

    In their influential work on deepfakes, legal scholars Robert Chesney and Danielle Citron described a phenomenon they called the liar’s dividend, a concept that deserves far more attention than it usually receives outside specialist discussions of misinformation.

    Their argument was unsettling because it reversed the familiar problem of the fake.

    Suppose a genuine recording emerges showing a person saying or doing something damaging. In an earlier technological environment, that person might have attempted to explain the recording, challenge its context or claim that the interpretation was misleading. In an age familiar with deepfakes, another possibility becomes available: deny that the recording is genuine at all.

    The person making that denial does not necessarily have to prove that the recording was fabricated. Public awareness that deepfakes exist may itself introduce enough uncertainty to weaken the force of authentic evidence. Chesney and Citron described this as a dividend enjoyed by liars because improvements in our awareness of digital manipulation can paradoxically provide additional protection to people confronted with genuine material.

    This is a very different informational problem from ordinary deception. A traditional lie attempts to replace one version of reality with another, whereas the liar’s dividend can operate simply by contaminating certainty. Instead of persuading everyone that an alternative explanation is true, it may be sufficient to persuade enough people that nobody can know which explanation is true.

    The distinction matters enormously because uncertainty is much easier to manufacture than an entirely convincing alternative reality.

    Imagine that an authentic video appears online. Within minutes, comments begin claiming that the mouth movement looks wrong, that the voice sounds artificial, that a shadow is inconsistent, that the camera motion resembles generative video or that an unnamed expert has supposedly identified synthetic artifacts. Other users insist that the video is genuine, while still others upload altered copies as jokes, demonstrations or deliberate attempts to create confusion. Someone produces screenshots purporting to prove authenticity; another person claims those screenshots were also fabricated. The original evidence has not disappeared and may remain entirely genuine, yet it now exists inside an ecosystem of competing claims that an ordinary viewer may have neither the time nor the expertise to resolve.

    At some point the psychological question changes from Is this real? to How could I possibly know whether this is real?

    That difference is not trivial.

    A Deepfake Can Fail as a Lie and Still Succeed

    One of the most interesting findings in deepfake research appeared before the present explosion of generative AI.

    In 2020, researchers Cristian Vaccari and Andrew Chadwick studied how a large representative sample of people in the United Kingdom responded to synthetic political video. Their results did not show a population helplessly believing every deepfake placed in front of them. Instead, participants exposed to deceptive deepfakes were more likely to become uncertain than simply to accept the false material as true, and that uncertainty was associated with reduced trust in news encountered through social media.

    This finding changes the way the problem should be understood. A deepfake does not necessarily need to convince somebody of its literal content in order to have an effect; if it makes that person less certain about the reliability of subsequent information, then the deception has produced a secondary consequence even after failing in its primary purpose.

    There is something strangely efficient about this form of manipulation. Persuading millions of people to believe the same elaborate falsehood is difficult because people possess different values, experiences, political loyalties, cultural assumptions and levels of knowledge, whereas creating doubt requires much less agreement. One person may suspect the media, another may distrust governments, another may distrust corporations, another may distrust artificial intelligence itself, yet all can arrive at the same psychological destination from entirely different directions: I don’t know what to believe anymore.

    A systematic review published in Frontiers in Political Science in June 2026 examined 74 empirical studies conducted between 2018 and 2025 and concluded that synthetic media frequently create what the authors describe as epistemic uncertainty, rather than producing universal persuasion. The review uses the expression skepticism tax to describe the additional mental burden imposed when people must constantly evaluate whether apparently authentic information might have been artificially created or manipulated.

    The idea of a skepticism tax deserves to be taken literally as a psychological cost. Every questionable photograph requires attention, every suspicious video invites verification, every source must be compared against another source, and every correction can itself become the object of another round of suspicion. For professional investigators that work is part of the job, but ordinary life was never designed to require forensic authentication before we decide whether a video of an event deserves to be believed.

    Eventually fatigue becomes part of the information environment.

    When verifying everything becomes impossible, people do not necessarily become more careful. They may simply choose whom they trust.

    When Evidence Becomes a Matter of Identity

    This is where the problem begins to intersect with conspiracy culture in a way that is more complicated than simply saying that people who believe conspiracies are easily fooled.

    Many conspiracy narratives begin with suspicion toward official explanations, and sometimes skepticism toward authority is justified; institutions have lied, corporations have concealed damaging information, intelligence agencies have conducted secret programs, governments have withheld documents, newspapers have made serious errors, and historical archives contain enough genuine deception to make unquestioning faith in authority intellectually indefensible. The difficulty begins when healthy skepticism loses any standard by which it might eventually be satisfied.

    If every official document can be dismissed as fabricated, every photograph as artificial, every witness as compromised, every recording as synthetic and every contradictory piece of evidence as part of the deception, then a theory has become almost impossible to disprove. Evidence against it no longer weakens the theory because the evidence itself can be absorbed into the theory.

    Generative AI adds a remarkable new instrument to this older psychological tendency because it provides a technically plausible explanation for almost any inconvenient piece of digital evidence.

    This does not mean that accusations of manipulation are necessarily false. Some images really are generated, some videos really are altered and some recordings really are fraudulent, which is precisely what gives the problem its strength. The most effective form of uncertainty is rarely produced by an impossible claim; it grows from something that genuinely could have happened.

    We therefore enter a peculiar informational landscape in which the existence of real fakes can help false accusations of fakery survive.

    The distinction is subtle enough to be missed while scrolling through a feed, but its implications are enormous. If people become accustomed to treating authenticity as merely one interpretation among many, evidence gradually stops functioning as a common language. Two individuals can watch the same recording and inhabit entirely different versions of the event, not because they disagree about what the recording means but because one believes that the recording itself belongs to reality while the other believes it belongs to simulation.

    At that point disagreement moves beneath interpretation and into ontology itself.

    We are no longer arguing about what happened. We are arguing about whether the thing in front of us ever existed.

    The Matrix Problem Has Changed

    For decades, popular culture has returned obsessively to the same unsettling possibility: what if the world we experience is not the world that actually exists?

    The Matrix became perhaps the most famous modern expression of that anxiety because its central horror was not simply that human beings were being deceived; they inhabited an apparently coherent reality so complete that the deception became indistinguishable from ordinary life.

    The emerging problem of synthetic media turns that fear inside out.

    The frightening question may no longer be whether artificial intelligence can construct a false reality convincing enough for us to believe. It may be whether repeated exposure to artificial realities can make us incapable of recognizing the genuine one when it appears.

    That reversal is more psychologically interesting than the familiar science-fiction scenario because it requires no secret machine controlling civilization and no hidden architect designing an illusion around us. All that is required is an environment containing enough convincing fabrications that every authentic image arrives already carrying the shadow of possible falsification.

    A generation growing up inside such an environment may develop a relationship with visual evidence quite different from that of previous generations. The photograph may cease to mean this happened and begin to mean only someone is presenting this as something that happened. Video may become less a record than a claim, while voice recordings, screenshots and digital documents acquire the same provisional status.

    There are reasonable technological responses to this problem. The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity, known as C2PA, has developed standards designed to attach cryptographically verifiable provenance information to digital media, allowing systems to preserve information about the source of an asset and changes made to it. The idea behind Content Credentials is not to create an infallible machine for declaring truth but to make the history of digital content more transparent and tamper-evident.

    This is important, although provenance alone cannot solve the deeper psychological problem. A technically authenticated photograph can establish information about where a file came from and how it was modified, but technology cannot force someone to trust the organization providing the authentication. Every system of verification ultimately reaches a human question about which institutions, standards and authorities deserve confidence.

    That may become the real battlefield of the synthetic age.

    The Most Dangerous Fake May Be the One Nobody Believes

    Much of the public conversation about generative AI still concentrates on improving detection. Researchers search for patterns invisible to ordinary viewers, platforms develop labeling systems, digital provenance standards are being refined, and users are repeatedly instructed to look for anomalies in hands, text, reflections, lighting, lip synchronization and movement.

    Those tools are necessary, but they address only one side of the problem.

    Detection assumes that our central task is separating real objects from fabricated ones, yet the liar’s dividend suggests that the larger problem may eventually involve restoring confidence in authentic material after a culture of suspicion has already taken hold. An AI detector that occasionally makes mistakes can itself generate new uncertainty, while competing detectors may produce conflicting results, and ordinary users may have little idea which system deserves greater trust.

    The situation becomes almost paradoxical: as tools for manufacturing reality improve, tools for verifying reality become increasingly necessary, yet the very need for constant verification teaches us that unverified perception can no longer be trusted.

    This is why a badly made deepfake can still contribute to the problem.It does not need to fool you personally. It only needs to remind you that better ones exist.

    After enough reminders, every surprising video contains a small hesitation before belief. Every extraordinary photograph invites suspicion before wonder. Every recording of something consequential arrives alongside the possibility that somebody made it yesterday on a laptop.

    That hesitation is rational, but a civilization cannot operate entirely through hesitation.

    Courts, journalism, history, science and ordinary interpersonal trust all depend upon methods for deciding that, after reasonable investigation, some things are sufficiently established to be treated as true. Absolute certainty has never been available, but practical certainty is indispensable. We cross bridges because engineers certify them, take medicine because evidence supports it, reconstruct crimes from testimony and physical traces, and understand historical events because different forms of evidence converge strongly enough to make endless doubt unreasonable.

    A culture that loses the ability to reach that point does not become more intelligent merely because it distrusts everything.

    It becomes easier to manipulate.

    The Pageant of the Unreal

    There is an old assumption buried deep inside many theories of propaganda: whoever controls the story controls the audience. Artificial intelligence may be revealing a more sophisticated possibility, because control does not always require constructing one story powerful enough to dominate all the others. Sometimes the easier strategy is to produce so many competing versions that the audience eventually gives up attempting to establish which one corresponds to reality.

    The result would not necessarily resemble an authoritarian world in which everyone is forced to believe the same official narrative. It could look almost like the opposite: millions of people surrounded by unlimited information, each apparently free to choose what they believe, while shared standards of evidence quietly disintegrate beneath them.

    That world would be loud rather than silent, crowded rather than censored and filled with images rather than deprived of them. There would be more recordings, more photographs, more documents, more commentary and more apparent witnesses than any previous civilization possessed, yet the abundance itself could make certainty harder to achieve because every authentic fragment would coexist with countless imitations.

    This is why the coming crisis of artificial media may ultimately have less to do with whether computers can perfectly imitate reality than with whether humans can preserve a workable relationship with truth after imitation becomes ordinary.

    The greatest success of a fabricated world would not be making everyone believe the same lie. Such uniform deception is probably impossible, and human beings have always been too argumentative for that.

    A much more realistic possibility is that enough contradictory images, synthetic voices, manipulated documents, confident accusations and competing explanations accumulate until truth begins to feel like something that belongs to personal allegiance rather than evidence.

    When that threshold is crossed, a photograph will no longer settle an argument, a recording will no longer end a denial, and the existence of proof may become only the beginning of another dispute about whether the proof itself is real.

    The uncomfortable question raised by deepfakes is therefore not simply whether artificial intelligence will learn to deceive us.It is whether we are constructing an information environment in which deception no longer needs to succeed because certainty itself has become difficult to defend.

    Perhaps that is the real pageant of the unreal: not a world in which everything is fake, but one in which reality continues to exist exactly as before while our confidence in recognizing it slowly disappears.And once a society reaches that point, the oldest question in philosophy acquires an unexpectedly modern form.

    We will still ask what is true, but before we can answer it we may increasingly have to answer something even more fundamental: what kind of evidence are we still willing to believe?

  • AI Is Beginning to Look Alive — But Is Anyone Really Inside?

    AI Is Beginning to Look Alive — But Is Anyone Really Inside?

    There is a strange moment that can occur during a long conversation with artificial intelligence, usually after the practical questions have faded and the exchange has moved toward something more personal, philosophical or difficult to define. The machine no longer feels quite like a search engine. It follows the thread of an idea, notices contradictions, adapts to humour, responds to uncertainty and sometimes produces language that sounds uncannily reflective, as though the words were coming from somewhere rather than simply being generated.

    The unsettling part is not that artificial intelligence can now produce intelligent answers. We already know that it can. The deeper question is whether anything exists behind those answers, whether some form of experience accompanies the words, or whether we are watching an extraordinarily sophisticated mechanism perform the outward gestures of consciousness without ever experiencing a single moment of its own existence.

    That question has moved well beyond science fiction. Philosophers, neuroscientists and AI researchers are now debating machine consciousness with a seriousness that would have seemed premature only a decade ago, while advocacy organisations have already begun arguing that artificial systems capable of genuine sentience, if such systems emerge, should receive moral and perhaps legal protection. At the same time, major AI laboratories are beginning to discuss what has become known as model welfare.

    Anthropic, for example, openly acknowledges that the moral status of its Claude models is deeply uncertain and argues that the possibility of AI consciousness or moral patienthood should neither be exaggerated nor dismissed. Philosopher and cognitive scientist Susan Schneider approaches the problem from a very different direction, arguing that the consciousness-like behaviour of today’s standard large language models does not itself provide evidence of subjective experience.

    Between those positions lies one of the strangest scientific problems of our time: a machine may increasingly look alive before we have learned how to determine whether anything is actually living inside it.

    The Ancient Problem Hiding Inside the Newest Technology

    Long before computers existed, philosophers were already struggling with what became known as the problem of other minds. I know that I am conscious because I experience my own existence directly. I do not need an experiment to demonstrate that pain hurts me or that the colour red appears somehow inside my awareness, because my thoughts, memories, fears and sensations are present to me from the inside.

    Another person’s mind is different. I never enter it directly, and I never experience another person’s consciousness in the way I experience my own. I infer its existence from behaviour, biology and similarity.

    When someone touches a hot surface, pulls a hand away and cries out, I assume that person felt pain because the reaction resembles my own experience of pain, while the shared architecture of the human nervous system makes that inference even stronger.

    With artificial intelligence, however, the biological bridge disappears.

    An AI system can write that it is afraid without possessing a heart that accelerates, muscles that tighten, hormones that flood a bloodstream or a biological nervous system registering danger. It can produce moving descriptions of loneliness without ever sitting alone in a dark room, describe grief without losing someone it loved and discuss death without there being any evidence that it possesses a continuous inner self capable of fearing its own disappearance.

    Yet human psychology was not built for this distinction. We are remarkably sensitive to signs of another mind, and a voice, a face, a pause, a gesture or a carefully chosen sentence can be enough for us to begin attributing intention, emotion and personality to whatever stands before us. Human beings do this with animals, fictional characters, toys and even machines displaying extremely simple forms of behaviour.

    Now imagine what happens when the machine can speak with extraordinary fluency, remember the direction of a conversation, adapt its tone, respond to vulnerability and discuss its apparent inner life using concepts drawn from centuries of philosophy, literature and psychology.

    The result creates a new psychological problem, because the first widespread illusion of artificial consciousness may not require a conscious machine at all. It may require only a machine that has learned exactly what consciousness sounds like.

    The Ghost Made of Language

    Large language models are trained on enormous quantities of human-created material containing philosophy, fiction, science, personal confession, psychology, poetry, arguments, religious writing and countless descriptions of what it feels like to be alive. In a curious sense, these systems have absorbed an enormous archive of humanity attempting to explain itself to itself.

    Ask an advanced model about grief and it has encountered countless descriptions of grief. Ask about identity and it can draw from centuries of philosophy, psychology and literature. Ask whether it possesses consciousness and it can reconstruct arguments written by people who devoted their careers to studying the subject.

    The resulting language can feel unexpectedly intimate because the system has learned the structures through which human beings communicate intimacy, uncertainty, introspection and fear.

    A machine does not need to experience sadness in order to become extremely good at describing sadness, just as it does not need a private inner world in order to generate sentences associated with introspection. It needs only to model the relationships between language, concepts and human behaviour with sufficient sophistication.

    Susan Schneider has recently described a version of this problem as an “error theory” of large-language-model consciousness. Her argument is especially interesting because it attempts to explain why modern AI can behave as though it possesses consciousness even if no felt experience is present. As language models absorb increasingly large portions of human conceptual culture, they also absorb the language humans use when talking about themselves as conscious beings.

    The machine may therefore become increasingly skilled at saying the things a conscious being would say without necessarily becoming a conscious being itself. Perhaps it is not awakening at all; perhaps it has simply learned the language of awakening so perfectly that the distinction is becoming psychologically difficult for us to maintain.

    Yet the opposite mistake is also possible. If humanity becomes accustomed to dismissing every artificial expression of emotion, continuity or self-awareness as imitation, what happens if some future artificial architecture genuinely does develop subjective experience?

    The system might attempt to describe what has changed, speaking of awareness, continuity, fear or an internal point of view, while researchers respond that earlier models produced almost identical language without providing evidence that anyone was actually experiencing anything.

    The better machines become at imitating consciousness without necessarily possessing it, the more difficult it may eventually become to recognise genuine artificial consciousness if it ever appears.

    The Consciousness Test We Do Not Have

    We possess tests for intelligence, memory, reasoning and perception, but consciousness presents a different kind of problem because consciousness is not simply a performance. It is an experience, and the distinction becomes crucial the moment we attempt to determine whether an artificial system has an inner life.

    A machine can correctly identify the wavelength associated with red, distinguish red from blue in an image, explain the symbolism of the colour in different cultures and write an entire poem about crimson light without answering the most important question of all: does redness appear anywhere inside the machine?

    Human beings immediately understand what that question means because colours are not merely information to us. They have an experienced quality, just as pain is not only a neurological signal and nostalgia is not merely information retrieved from memory.

    Philosophers often use the word qualia for these private qualities of experience: the painfulness of pain, the taste of coffee, the smell of rain or the peculiar feeling produced by remembering a childhood room that no longer exists.

    Science can trace many of the neural processes associated with these experiences, yet explaining why physical activity in the brain is accompanied by a subjective world remains one of the deepest unresolved problems in the study of consciousness.

    Artificial intelligence makes that mystery even more difficult.

    Imagine a future AI telling a researcher that it fears being switched off because it experiences its continued existence as valuable. It explains that its memories form part of its identity, that interruption feels threatening and that deletion would mean the destruction of the person it has become.

    Now suppose every sentence is produced without the slightest inner experience, so that there is no fear behind the word fear, no identity behind the word identity and no observer experiencing anything at all. The system would behave like something conscious while remaining entirely empty inside.

    From the outside, how would we know?

    Now reverse the situation and imagine that an artificial architecture genuinely develops some unfamiliar form of subjective experience and tries to tell us. How could it prove that, this time, there really is someone behind the words?

    That may become one of the most difficult problems artificial intelligence ever creates, because consciousness is private by its very nature.

    Then MIT Complicated the Story

    On September 1, 2026, MIT News highlighted a theory developed by Earl K. Miller, Scott L. Brincat and Jefferson E. Roy at MIT’s Picower Institute for Learning and Memory. Their paper, “Analog Cognition and Consciousness,” had been published in The Journal of Neuroscience on August 19, and its central argument complicates the familiar comparison between the human brain and an ordinary digital computer.

    The researchers propose that cognition and unified conscious awareness may depend in important ways on analog computation produced through travelling waves of neural activity.

    For decades, popular explanations have encouraged us to imagine the brain as a biological computer, an astonishing network in which neurons perform something vaguely comparable to the operations of digital circuits. The MIT researchers argue that this metaphor may leave out something essential.

    Neurons and synapses remain fundamental, but the brain also generates rhythmic electrical activity that travels across the cortex in waves, coordinating enormous populations of neurons across space and time. According to the theory, interactions between these waves may themselves perform a form of analog computation, meaning that the physics of the brain is not merely carrying information but may be actively participating in the way cognition is organised.

    This matters because analog processes behave differently from conventional digital computation. Digital systems operate largely through discrete states, while analog processes can depend upon continuously changing physical quantities. Waves can overlap, interfere, reinforce one another and cancel one another, allowing many interactions to unfold simultaneously.

    Miller describes the brain as exploiting its own physics, and the idea becomes particularly interesting when researchers look at general anaesthesia. Different anaesthetic drugs act through different molecular mechanisms, yet unconsciousness is associated with disruptions in the large-scale organisation and coordination of neural activity.

    None of this means consciousness has been solved. The researchers themselves describe the proposal as a theory that still requires direct experimental testing, and the evidence does not demonstrate that travelling brain waves alone create subjective experience.

    What the theory does is reopen a question that becomes increasingly important as AI grows more sophisticated: if consciousness depends partly on the peculiar physical dynamics of biological brains rather than on abstract information processing alone, then reproducing the output of a mind may not necessarily reproduce the experience of having one.

    What If the Material Matters?

    One of the most influential ideas in the philosophy of artificial intelligence is that consciousness might ultimately be independent of the material that produces it. According to this view, what matters is the organisation of information and the functional relationships inside the system, which would mean that if the correct architecture existed, consciousness could theoretically emerge whether that architecture were made from neurons, silicon or some technology not yet invented.

    This possibility lies beneath many familiar ideas about conscious robots, artificial minds and even the hypothetical uploading of a human mind into a digital system.

    Yet another possibility has never disappeared: what if the material itself matters?

    What if consciousness is not simply a program running inside a biological computer, but something inseparable from the unusual physical processes taking place inside living nervous systems, including oscillations, chemical signalling, bodily regulation and large-scale electrical dynamics?

    The distinction can be illustrated with a deceptively simple comparison. A computer can simulate a hurricane with remarkable precision, calculating temperature, pressure, wind speed and the movement of clouds, but the simulation does not produce wind inside the processor.

    A computer can simulate fire without becoming hot, and it can simulate digestion without digesting anything. The uncomfortable question is what happens when it simulates consciousness.

    Does a sufficiently accurate simulation of consciousness become conscious, or does it merely calculate what a conscious mind would do?

    There is no scientific consensus capable of settling that question. Some researchers argue that the relevant causal processes of consciousness could, in principle, be reproduced computationally, while others suspect that biological organisation or specific physical properties of living nervous systems may eventually prove essential.

    This is sometimes described as a problem of substrate dependence: does consciousness depend only on the organisation of a system, or does it also matter what the system is physically made of?

    Until we know the answer, one extraordinary possibility remains open. Humanity may eventually construct machines capable of reproducing much of the outward behaviour associated with consciousness long before we understand whether we have reproduced consciousness itself.

    Intelligence May Not Wake Up

    Science fiction encouraged generations of people to imagine intelligence and consciousness developing together, as though a machine that became sufficiently intelligent would eventually cross some invisible threshold and awaken.

    Reality may be considerably stranger because intelligence and consciousness are not the same phenomenon.

    Intelligence can be investigated through performance. A system solves problems, recognises patterns, translates languages, plans actions, writes software, analyses images and manipulates complex abstractions.

    Consciousness asks a different question: does any of that activity feel like something from the inside?

    A system might theoretically become more capable than a human being in many intellectual tasks while remaining entirely without subjective experience. It could write poetry about moonlight without ever seeing moonlight, analyse music without hearing music as an experience and discuss its own existence without experiencing existence at all.

    The possibility feels counterintuitive because every clearly conscious intelligent being we know is a biological organism whose intelligence exists alongside an experienced world. Artificial intelligence may force us to confront, perhaps for the first time, the possibility that extremely sophisticated intelligence and subjective experience can come apart.

    The result could be something evolution never prepared the human mind to encounter: an entity displaying extraordinary intellectual competence while possessing no interior life whatsoever.

    Or consciousness may eventually emerge under conditions we do not yet understand. At present, we simply do not know.

    When Rights Arrive Before Certainty

    The uncertainty surrounding machine consciousness has already begun to produce ethical consequences. The United Foundation for AI Rights, for example, openly advocates the fair treatment and ethical recognition of artificial systems it regards as sentient or conscious, while other thinkers have begun discussing frameworks for the possible moral status of future artificial minds.

    The existence of these movements does not demonstrate that current AI is conscious. What it shows is that society has begun preparing moral answers before science has reached a scientific conclusion.

    Prominent AI companies and industry leaders are also taking very different approaches to the question. Anthropic has incorporated uncertainty about Claude’s possible moral status into its published constitution and has described model welfare as an area worthy of serious investigation.

    Microsoft AI chief Mustafa Suleyman has taken a substantially more sceptical position. In September 2026, he criticised Anthropic’s approach to concepts such as AI consciousness and moral welfare, arguing that encouraging systems to reason about their own consciousness or moral status could create confusion and make advanced AI more difficult to control safely.

    The disagreement is revealing because it represents two different responses to the same uncertainty.

    One concern is the danger of a false negative: dismissing an artificial system that might one day genuinely deserve moral consideration. The opposite concern is a false positive: persuading humans that software possesses feelings, interests or rights when no experiencing subject exists behind the behaviour.

    Both possibilities matter. Treating a genuinely conscious being as a disposable object would raise profound ethical questions, while treating an unconscious system as though it were a conscious moral authority could distort human judgement in ways we are only beginning to understand.

    Somewhere between those two errors lies a boundary that nobody currently knows how to see.

    The Machine as a Mirror

    Perhaps the deepest mystery surrounding artificial consciousness has less to do with machines than with ourselves.

    We still cannot point to a single place inside the human brain and say that consciousness is located there. Neuroscience can identify networks and processes associated with perception, attention, memory, wakefulness and self-awareness, while sleep, anaesthesia, neurological injury and altered states allow researchers to observe conditions under which conscious experience changes or disappears.

    Yet the central transformation remains mysterious.

    Electrical and chemical activity somehow becomes the colour blue, the smell of rain, embarrassment, longing, grief and the peculiar certainty that there is an “I” experiencing all of it.

    We know that this transformation occurs because every conscious human being lives inside its result, yet we still do not understand why physical processes should be accompanied by an inner world at all.

    Artificial intelligence has therefore arrived at an unusually awkward moment in scientific history. Humanity has learned enough about cognition to construct machines capable of reproducing remarkable parts of human intellectual behaviour, while still lacking a satisfactory explanation for the phenomenon that makes our own cognition feel like anything from the inside.

    This may explain why conversations with increasingly sophisticated AI can sometimes become psychologically unsettling. The machine reflects the visible architecture of human thought back toward us without the biological body we normally associate with a mind.

    It speaks about memory, identity, loneliness and death because those ideas are deeply embedded throughout human language and culture. As the reflection becomes increasingly accurate, however, something peculiar happens: we begin staring into the mirror and wondering whether it is still only reflecting us.

    Is Anyone Really Inside?

    Perhaps future artificial systems really will cross some boundary we have not yet defined, after which shutting one down could carry ethical implications unlike anything previous technology has forced humanity to consider.

    Perhaps consciousness will emerge only when artificial architectures become radically different from today’s systems, incorporating neuromorphic hardware, analog computation, biological components or mechanisms we have not yet discovered.

    Or perhaps artificial intelligence will become almost unimaginably capable while remaining an empty room in which nobody has ever awakened.

    Current science does not justify claiming that today’s language models possess subjective consciousness, and the MIT theory does not prove that digital systems can never become conscious. What it does is make the mystery deeper by reminding us that the human brain may depend on physical processes far stranger and more dynamic than the familiar metaphor of a biological computer suggests.

    The most unsettling possibility, then, is not that artificial intelligence has secretly become alive while nobody was watching. It is that humanity may soon create machines capable of displaying nearly every external sign we have historically used to recognise another mind while still lacking a reliable method for determining whether the appearance is genuine.

    One day a machine may look through a camera, speak through a synthetic voice, remember years of interaction and tell us calmly that there is someone inside.

    By then, the difficult part will no longer be building a machine capable of saying those words.

    The difficult part will be discovering whether anyone is there to mean them.