Man has always needed a final answer. Not just a working one or a convenient one, but the kind of answer after which one can stop asking questions.
First, there were shamans and rituals — attempts to negotiate with a world that seemed unpredictable. Then came religions, and later, ideologies took their place. Every time, it was the same attempt: to find a point where one could stop and say — no further explanation is needed.
The problem is that all these answers were built inside the very system they tried to explain. It is like trying to see your own eyes without a mirror. The answer will always seem convincing, but it will never be final. Yet, man tolerates uncertainty poorly. If he cannot obtain a final answer, he begins to imitate it.
Today, this imitation has a new name: Artificial Intelligence.
Inside AI, there is no “mind” — there is an algorithm, a set of rules. It explains nothing. It merely reproduces the next pre-defined step. But for man, this is not enough. He needs meaning. This is where the substitution occurs: the continuation is mistaken for the explanation. If the system works, it must be right.
The Digital Alibi and Ontological Fraud
This is exactly where projects like Palantir emerge.
They openly declare that AI is an instrument of power, that efficiency is more important than consensus, and that technology is, above all, a weapon. At first glance, this looks like pragmatism. But beneath this rhetoric lies ontological fraud.
The essence of this fraud is simple: they pass off an instrument (computation) as a foundation (meaning).
Hidden assumptions are embedded into the system: which cultures are deemed “progressive,” who is considered a “threat,” what is defined as “permissible.” The AI then operates within these boundaries, and the output is presented as “objective truth.” The key illusion is that the system is supposedly making the decision.
In reality, the decision was made at the moment the criteria were chosen. But that moment is hidden behind the facade of the algorithm.
It is the perfect “digital alibi.” Now one can say: “It wasn’t us. It was the data. It was the model. It was the AI.” Responsibility dissolves.
Artificial Intelligence does not check reality. It checks what sounds plausible. It lacks a criterion of truth; it merely reproduces step by step. And the better it does this, the harder it is to notice that the foundation has been lost. It is a working illusion. And a working illusion always looks convincing.
What is happening today is not just a technological breakthrough. It is Post-Fascism, where the source of power disappears. In classical dictatorships, the source was obvious and could be challenged in its human will. Here, the decision “makes itself,” and therefore, it becomes infallible in the eyes of the masses. This is a power that makes the very question “Why?” redundant.
The Ethical Boundary
My Logico-Philosophical Treatise: The Era of AI was written as a premonition of this very moment. The task of philosophy today is not merely to describe the world, but to return to the foundation.
In place of a foundation, they have the animal instinct for dominance, packaged in code. For a human being, the foundation must be philosophical thought, inseparably linked to ethics and moral values.
Only morality sets the limit of the permissible, which cannot be “calculated.” The return to logic and the courage to uphold an ethical foundation is the only thing that separates us from becoming an appendage to the machine. As long as the question “Why?” exists, there remains a possibility to stop. When it disappears, only forward motion remains — without a foundation, without verification, and without a point where one can finally say “enough.”
