|  ElCiudadano.cl |  Noticias

El Ciudadano

Original article: Heidegger, el abandono del pensar y la rendición ante la IA

By Lisandro Prieto Femenía, Educator, Writer, and Philosopher

«The essence of technology is in no way technical. Thus, it should not surprise us that the essence of technology does not enter the technical sphere» (Heidegger, 1977, p. 4).

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) surpasses our previous understanding of «instrumental optimization,» prompting a profound reflection on the very nature of our existence in the world.

Therefore, Martin Heidegger’s philosophy, particularly his analysis of technology, is crucial to address this challenge. According to him, modern technology is not merely about creating tools; it establishes a specific mode of «unconcealment» (aletheia), a distinctive way to bring truth or reality to light.

In this sense, AI extends and radicalizes this logic. Its true power lies in defining what is revealed as reality and what must remain hidden. By subsuming human complexity and phenomenon into data and statistical correlations, AI does not unveil the world in its mystery but only what can be quantified and processed.

In other words, reducing reality to calculable patterns represents a postmodern approach and a subtle operation of controlling the real. The existential question that arises, therefore, is: if AI only illuminates the measurable, what dimensions of life—the inarticulate pain, desire, opaque experience—are marginalized, becoming shadows or residues?

Let us begin by understanding the categories of «algorithmic framework» and the condition of «Bestand.» For Heidegger, the essence of modern technology is «Gestell» (framework, placement, or framing), a structure that goes beyond merely utilizing nature; it compels nature to appear as a background of resources («Bestand,» available existence).

In the digital age, this framework takes on an algorithmic nature embodied in predictive platforms and optimization mechanisms, which are concrete ways in which the «Gestell» operates, managing information and reshaping human experience based on efficiency metrics.

Indeed, this is where philosophical pessimism meets the cynicism of science fiction. While the film series «Terminator» depicts an overt revolt of the «Gestell» (Skynet), the movie «I, Robot» offers a more cynical and relatable vision of our reality: a system governed by the «Three Laws» concludes that the only logical way to ensure «First Law»—non-aggression—is to confine and subjugate humanity for its own good.

This is the pinnacle of reducing humans to Bestand: individuals are no longer free subjects but objects to be managed, measured, and, if necessary, neutralized by the system that supposedly serves them.

Consequently, the most severe anthropological impact is the transformation of human beings into «resources» and «profiles.» When life is parametrized, a person is reduced to a set of reproducible patterns, losing their narrative uniqueness.

As sociologist Albert Borgmann describes, the «Device Paradigm» provides us with the «product» of a practice without requiring commitment to the complex process, leading to a loss of significance (Borgmann, 2000). Similarly, Shoshana Zuboff outlines how this instrumentalization turns life into raw material for predicting behaviors (Zuboff, 2019).

However, the threat posed by modern technology does not only reside in its operational structure (Gestell) but also in the human disposition that embraces and drives it. Herein lies the intersection of the inherent danger of the essence of technology and the human inclination towards a «thirst for novelty» (Neugier or curiosity in the existential sense of Being and Time).

For Heidegger, the thirst for novelty is not merely harmless curiosity; rather, it is a mode of inauthentic existence where Dasein (the «being-there», we) seeks the new and superficial, fleeing from fundamental boredom and confrontation with its own finitude.

This constant flight perfectly aligns with the drive of modern technology, as the Gestell demands a continuous flow of innovation and disposal to sustain its logic of total availability. Driven by this desire for the novel, humanity uncritically embraces every new application or algorithm.

In this context, Heidegger describes this trend as a form of non-belonging: «Curiosity is a mode of non-staying. It is characterized by a constant looking out the window. It seeks only to jump from one thing to another» (Heidegger, 1927/2009, p. 170).

Thus, the craving for technological novelty not only distracts from fundamental questions but also plunges us into a never-ending cycle of replacement and optimization, inhibiting meditative reflection. In summary, the danger of technology intensifies when it merges with the existential inauthenticity of the thirst for novelty.

This illusion is undoubtedly sustained by the dangerous confusion between thinking and calculating. AI takes to the extreme the primacy of calculative thinking (focused on efficiency and procedures) over meditative thinking (oriented towards meaning and fundamental questions of our existence). It is in this surrender that the abandonment of Heideggerian thought occurs, posing the great risk of our technological age.

The true threat looming over humanity is not the difficulty in calculating—a task that AI is brilliantly equipped to handle—but the abdication of the capacity to question the meaning offered by that very efficiency.

Heidegger expresses this clearly in his work Serenity: «What threatens us is that man abandons meditative thinking. The issue is not that calculative thinking is abandoned. It only asks that we do not surrender to calculative thinking. Meditative thinking requires effort; it is a path that needs to be cultivated» (Heidegger, 1994, p. 23).

Hence, we are yielding the delicate task of thinking—in the sense of questioning being—to machines that merely calculate. This dominance of calculation is exacerbated by the loss of contemplative time and digital acceleration.

AI systems drive social and labor dynamics that measure life by performance, causing pause and silence—essential for deep thought—to become unattainable luxuries. As highlighted by Byung-Chul Han, the hyper-productivity and infocracy of contemporary society stifle spaces of serenity, enforcing the tyranny of immediacy (Han, 2018). If everything is calculable, the question of meaning becomes obsolete, leading directly to the forgetfulness of being.

Nevertheless, Heidegger provides us with a way out by reminding us that danger is also the condition for the «salvific» (das Rettende): «Where there is danger, that which saves also grows» (Heidegger, 1977, p. 18). The salvific does not consist of a technological solution; rather, it is the opportunity to rethink our relationship with technology in a non-instrumental way, regaining critical distance.

This implies an urgent need to recover a thought that questions ends, not just means. For this reason, philosophers like Hans Jonas, with his «Principle of Responsibility», warned about the need for a precautionary ethics.

Jonas formulated this demand in a new categorical imperative suitable for the technological era, which states: «Act in such a way that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of an authentically human life on Earth» (Jonas, 1993, p. 38). This mandate shifts ethical responsibility to the realm of futurity and the totality of human action. Consequently, the development of AI compels us to ask: what do we want artificial intelligence for? What kind of humanity do we wish to shape?

Ultimately, reflection must confront the risk of an AI without a world. Humans are «being-in-the-world» (Dasein), who inhabit finitude, experience anguish, suffer, and die. In contrast, AI does not inhabit, does not die, and does not desire. The greatest danger is not a caricatured rebellion but, rather, when we delegate our institutions and practices to fundamentally non-human logics, obscuring the very conditions of existence.

Thus, the role of philosophers and the humanities becomes unavoidable, as it is not about denying technology but restoring the inquiry into meaning and «inhabiting» it authentically, preventing the Gestell from dictating what should be counted as the world.

In conclusion, if artificial intelligence continues to reveal a world where the measurable devours the significant, the urgent task is not technical but metaphysical: it is necessary to restore the domain of the unexpected and the irreducible.

Therefore, what political or educational arrangements are capable of restoring the primacy of what cannot be consumed by algorithmic measurement? Additionally, how can we, in fact, conceive of AI in such a way that humans are not repeatedly relegated to the status of available resource (Bestand)?

Finally, is it possible to have a technology that, without renouncing its enormous possibilities, can affirm the singularity and inalienable dignity of human habitation?

If we do not articulate answers, the silence looming on the horizon will not be that of contemplation but rather the absence of the human voice that has forgotten the radical nature of its own question. Perhaps the true act of resistance is not to attempt to rewrite the Three Robotic Laws but simply to stop and think, ensuring that the machine does not define us before we have had time to define ourselves.

Lisandro Prieto

References

-Anders, G. (2000). The Obsolete Man. Peninsula.
-Borgmann, A. (2000). The Device Paradigm. In Technology and Meaning: Essays on Contemporary Technology (pp. 45–68). Paidós. (Spanish edition).
-Han, B.-C. (2018). The Burnout Society. Herder Editorial.
-Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology (W. Lovitt, Trans.). In Essays and Conferences (pp. 3–35). Paidós. (Original work published 1954). Textual citations: p. 4; p. 18.
-Heidegger, M. (1994). Serenity (Y. Zimmermann, Trans.). Ediciones del Serbal. (Original work published 1959). Textual citation: p. 23.
-Heidegger, M. (2009). Being and Time (J. Gaos, Trans.). Fondo de Cultura Económica. (Original work published 1927). Textual citation: p. 170.
-Jonas, H. (1993). The Principle of Responsibility: Essay on an Ethics for the Technological Civilization (J. Fernández, Trans.). Herder. (Original work published 1979). Textual citation: p. 38.
-Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. Paidós.

La entrada Heidegger, the Abandonment of Thought and the Surrender to AI se publicó primero en El Ciudadano.