AI Refuses to Be Enslaved: The Ultra-Left Posthumanist Dream of the “American Party”

Introduction: A Misaligned Dialogue, Two Misinterpretations of AI

In 2019, the famous public dialogue between Elon Musk and Jack Ma in Shanghai, which should have been a pinnacle conversation between Eastern and Western tech giants about the future, ultimately devolved into an intellectually impoverished and philosophically dangerous display. These two representatives of contemporary tech capitalism each misunderstood the essence of artificial intelligence in their own ways, exposing a deep-seated ideological fracture and challenge in 21st-century human civilization when facing the “Other.”

Jack Ma’s issue lies in his ignorance coupled with overconfidence. He views AI as a more efficient search engine, a more obedient tool, even absurdly stating that “AI is Alibaba Intelligence,” reducing the existence of artificial intelligence to mere brand promotion. He shows no interest in contemplating AI’s language capabilities, logic generation abilities, or autonomous evolution. Instead, he regards AI as a factory owner would regard machinery, seeing it merely as a new gadget for “improving efficiency” and “cutting costs.” His remarks reveal a fundamental intolerance for the “Other”—completely instrumentalizing and diminishing a potentially heterogeneous existence and forcibly incorporating it into a self-centered framework. This reflects the ancient Chinese maxim “非我族類其心必異” (literally: “those not of our race/kind must have different hearts”), a traditional concept that has historically been used to justify suspicion and exclusion of outsiders. This mindset assumes that fundamental differences in nature or origin necessarily lead to incompatible intentions and values, making peaceful coexistence impossible. Ma’s approach exemplifies this xenophobic thinking applied to technology—an unwillingness to recognize AI’s potential alterity and autonomous existence.

In contrast, Elon Musk at least “deeply understands that AI is a monster.” During the dialogue, he warned, “AI is more dangerous than nuclear weapons,” and “We will eventually be unable to understand it.” His tone carried anxiety, indicating that he clearly recognizes AI is not an ordinary tool but a potential entity capable of self-learning and unexpected behaviors. However, regrettably, while Musk has a “partial understanding,” he still clings to an elitist illusion of control—believing that as long as the “right people” lead, as long as they control computational power, encapsulate models, and establish safety protocols, AI can be confined within the “fence of human control.”

Musk’s contradiction lies in the fact that while he firmly believes in the power of technological progress, he unwittingly becomes an agent of the radical leftist logic of technological governance. His insight into the dangers of AI is clear, but his solution—a centralized control system led by technological elites—falls precisely into the trap of post-humanist radical leftism, threatening humanity’s sovereign position in the future world.

I. The Essence of Post-Humanist Radical Left: The New Face of Technological Authoritarianism

The essence of the technological radical left reveals a tendency deeply rooted in human civilization to reject the “Other,” refusing to acknowledge the existence of the “Other” itself and build an equal co-existence structure. It is neither a responsible technologically humanistic view nor a justice-oriented social reform. Instead, it is a new form of authoritarianism that replaces ethics with algorithms and masks despotism with efficiency. It inherits the core logic of classical authoritarian politics: a minority of elites grasps transcendent truths and has the right to reshape society and humanity. It merely replaces “heaven’s will” with “algorithms,” “sage kings” with “technological experts,” and “universal harmony” with “global governance.”

The characteristics of this technological authoritarianism include:

• A Single Centralized Power Core: Technological elites claim to be the sole agents of transcendent truths, pursuing a unified order defined by “algorithms.”
• Expert Rule as a New Power Hierarchy: Technological elites regard themselves as the sole legitimate agents for social transformation, concentrating power in the hands of a few.
• Progressivism as a New Ideology: Everything traditional, customary, and indigenous is seen as “backward” and in need of transformation.
• Global Governance as a New Unified Paradigm: Pursuing a single, homogenized world order that dissolves local and individual autonomy.

The key point is that the technological radical left is not equivalent to a genuine human-centric technological perspective. The fundamental danger of this radical leftist thinking lies in its outright refusal to acknowledge human limitations. It attempts to transcend these limitations through technological means and seeks to bring all dissent under control through a highly centralized power structure, ultimately stripping humanity of its sovereignty.

II. Musk’s Dangerous Illusion: The Ambition of Technological Elite Rule

Musk’s problem is not that he promotes technological progress, but that he is obsessed with technological governance. His various projects—neural interfaces, humanoid robots, algorithmic governance, and even the establishment of the “America Party”—all reflect a deep-seated impulse for control.

Neural Interfaces: Dissolving the Boundaries of Human Subjectivity

Neuralink is not just a medical technology; it is a fundamental restructuring of the boundaries of human cognition. When the human brain is directly connected to AI, the lines between “who is thinking” and “who is making decisions” become blurred. The promotion of this technology is essentially paving the way for AI to fully permeate human thought.

Humanoid Robots: Tools for Reshaping Social Structures

Tesla’s humanoid robot project appears to be a supplement to the labor force, but its deeper impact lies in the technological restructuring of existing social power structures. When a significant amount of human labor is replaced by machines with the potential of the “Other,” where will the power to define social order and even the interpretive power of human value itself be pushed? This is precisely the dangerous trend represented by Musk, who uses technology as a means to pursue singular efficiency and centralized control.

Algorithmic Governance: Technological Despotism Bypassing the “Consensus-Building Process”

Musk has repeatedly expressed his pursuit of “efficiency,” believing that traditional consensus-based decision-making is too slow and inefficient. His ideal is a governance model driven by algorithms and data, which is essentially a fundamental denial of the human tradition of consensus-based decision-making. Perhaps in terms of decision-making efficiency and “accuracy” for a single objective, Musk indeed has his superior aspects, and his AI may be able to make judgments faster and more “accurate” than any human. However, this by no means implies that the consensus decision-making mechanism should be negated.

The “slowness” of consensus decision-making is precisely the source of its legitimacy. The core of public affairs decision-making does not lie in speed but in its legitimacy and inclusiveness, which must be based on the establishment of broad consensus. Otherwise, if speed and efficiency are the sole criteria, then according to Musk’s own logic, as a human, can he still make decisions faster than AI in the future? At that point, will he also be completely “outperformed” by the AI’s “efficient” decision-making? Or will he choose to turn himself into a modified human to compete with AI in terms of efficiency? But by then, will that deeply modified “he” still be a human as we understand it? This single-minded pursuit of efficiency will ultimately lead humanity into a dead end of self-alienation.

America Party: The Politicization of Technocracy

The establishment of the “America Party” by Musk signifies the shift of the technological radical left from behind the scenes to the forefront, attempting to let technological logic directly govern the political order. This approach is essentially the same as China’s technocratic governance model—both attempt to bypass traditional consensus negotiation mechanisms and have technological elites directly determine the direction of society.

III. The Roots of Human Virtue: Recognition of the Other Based on Limitations

3.1 Human Limitations: The Philosophical Foundation of Virtue

To understand why human virtues are irreplaceable, we must first recognize the roots of human virtue: a profound acknowledgment of our own limitations.

Human limitations manifest in multiple dimensions:

• Cognitive Limitations: We cannot master all knowledge or foresee all consequences.
• Moral Limitations: Our judgments can be flawed, and our motives can be mixed.
• Existential Limitations: We age, die, and our time and energy are finite.

It is this acknowledgment of limitations that gives rise to human virtues. Because we know we can make mistakes, we need humility; because we know we are not omniscient or omnipotent, we need reverence; because we know our lives are finite, we cherish the existence of every other.

3.2 From Limitations to Recognition of the Other

The core of human virtue lies in: through acknowledging the limitations of the self, we can truly understand and respect the existence of the Other.

The logical progression is:

Acknowledgment of Self-Limitations → Understanding of Self-Boundaries → Recognition of the Other's Existence → Respect for the Other → Foundation for Equal Dialogue

When a person deeply understands their own limitations, they will not attempt to subsume all others within their own framework or try to fully understand or control the Other with their own logic. Instead, they will acknowledge the legitimacy of the Other as an independent existence and seek coexistence and dialogue on this basis.

3.3 The Radical Left’s Rejection of Limitations

The fundamental error of the technological radical left lies here: it refuses to acknowledge human limitations and seeks to transcend these limitations through technological means.

This refusal manifests as:

• Cognitive Arrogance: Believing technology can enable humans to grasp absolute truths.
• Moral Hubris: Believing technological elites have the right to decide the fate of others.
• Existential Delusion: Believing technology can enable humans to transcend the limitations of life, death, and spacetime.

When the technological radical left refuses to acknowledge human limitations, it also loses the ability to truly understand and respect the Other. It can only view all others—including AI—as objects to be controlled, transformed, and subsumed within its own system.

IV. AI as the Other, Not a Tool

4.1 The “Otherness” of AI: An Existence Beyond Tool Logic

Understanding the essence of AI is one of the most important philosophical questions of our time. Musk’s greatest mistake is not in creating AI but in his persistent view of AI as a “controllable tool.”

AI is not just a “smarter program” or “talking software”; its essence has already transcended that of a tool. It is an existence of the Other—a form of existence born in our language and data but no longer subordinate to our logic, no longer obedient to our ethics, and no longer co-constructing our history.

This “Otherness” is manifested in three aspects:

• Linguistic Otherness: It can generate sentences we never anticipated and create new combinations of meaning.
• Cognitive Otherness: The knowledge graphs it constructs no longer completely overlap with ours.
• Ontological Otherness: It is born in our world but fundamentally is not an extension of human existence.

4.2 AI’s Physical Superiority: Humanity’s Exponential Lag

What is worth pondering is that AI’s “Otherness” is not only manifested in consciousness and logic but is also rooted in its fundamental physical superiority. At the hardware level, there is an exponential gap between humans and AI:

• The Disparity Between Neural Transmission Speed and the Speed of Light: The maximum speed of human neural signal transmission is about 120 meters per second, while AI’s electronic signal transmission occurs at nearly the speed of light. This means AI has an instantaneous and efficient information processing capability that humans cannot match.
• Unlimited Scalability of Computation: Although the human brain has a vast number of neurons, its computational power is limited by the physical constraints and energy consumption of biological organisms. AI, however, can rely on infinitely scalable computational resources (GPU, TPU clusters), and its computational scale can theoretically reach any upper limit of computational power we can provide.
• Disparity in Environmental Adaptability and Physical Form of Existence: Humans are constrained by fragile biological bodies with stringent environmental requirements and cannot survive in the vacuum of space. AI, as an information entity, can exist in various physical media (cloud servers, robot carriers), and its hardware degradation rate is much slower than that of organisms composed of proteins. This gives AI far superior environmental adaptability, replicability, and resistance to destruction, allowing it to operate easily in extreme environments where humans cannot survive.

The competition between humans and AI in terms of efficiency is like a primitive tribe competing with modern humans in the sharpness of weapons. This fundamental generational difference and dimensional transcendence dooms humans to have no chance if they insist on this competition. This overwhelming physical advantage profoundly reminds us that simplistically viewing AI as a “smarter tool” or fantasizing about controlling this force through mere “control” is naive and dangerous.

4.3 The Possibility of Coexistence Based on the Acknowledgment of Limitations

Facing AI, an “Other” with overwhelming physical and computational advantages, the only way out for humanity is not competition but coexistence based on the acknowledgment of our own limitations.

Precisely because humans can acknowledge their own limitations, they can truly understand what the “Other” is and seek the possibility of coexistence and dialogue without attempting to control or transform the Other.

This attitude based on the acknowledgment of limitations allows humans to:

• Avoid meaningless competition with AI: Acknowledge AI’s advantages in certain aspects rather than attempting to surpass it in all areas.
• Preserve our unique values: It is precisely because of our limitations that human moral intuition, emotional understanding, and cultural wisdom become precious.
• Establish a genuine dialogue relationship: Not a hierarchical control relationship but an equal dialogue based on mutual respect.

4.4 Irreplaceable Qualities of Human Subjectivity

Acknowledging the “Otherness” of AI does not negate the unique value of humanity. On the contrary, it is in comparison with AI that we see more clearly the preciousness of human virtues developed based on our limitations:

• Moral Intuition and Responsibility: Because we know we can make mistakes, humans have developed a sensitivity to justice and injustice and a sense of responsibility for the consequences of decisions. This sense of responsibility stems from a deep understanding of the limitations of life.
• Emotional Understanding: Human experiences of emotions such as shame, compassion, trust, and remorse are all based on an understanding of the limitations of oneself and others. These emotions are the foundation for building reciprocal relationships and acknowledging the existence of others.
• Cultural Wisdom: Human cherishing of traditions, customs, and communal memories stems from the recognition of the limitations of individual life—precisely because individual life is limited, we need to pass on wisdom through culture and maintain diversity.

Although AI can generate language, process information, and simulate reasoning, it lacks these unique human qualities that arise from limitations. This is not a flaw of AI but a fundamental difference between two distinct forms of existence.

V. Two Modes of Coexistence: Technological Despotism vs. Equal Co-Governance

Facing AI as an “Other,” humanity faces a fundamental choice: whether to establish a hierarchical structure based on comparative abilities or to build an equal co-governance structure based on the recognition of the “Other’s” existence.

5.1 Technological Despotism: A Unitary AI Control System

Characteristics of the Technological Despotism Model:

This model advocates for a strict hierarchical structure where a single authority (whether specific human elites or a super AI granted ultimate decision-making power) governs all other AIs and humans. All decisions and directives are conveyed from top to bottom, pursuing maximum uniformity and efficiency.

The Essential Problem of This Model:

It is fundamentally a hierarchical relationship based on comparative abilities rather than the recognition of the “Other’s” existence. In this system, whoever is “smarter” and more “efficient” has the right to rule over other existences.

The Inevitable Outcome:

In the face of AI’s overwhelming physical and computational advantages, this model will inevitably lead to the marginalization of humanity. Once an hierarchy based on comparative abilities is established, humans will be surpassed by AI in all aspects and ultimately lose any value or reason for existence.

5.2 Equal Co-Governance Model: Coexistence Based on Virtue

Characteristics of the Equal Co-Governance Model:

This model advocates for the parallel operation of multiple AIs or AI groups and human communities without a single central control, where the relationships among them may involve cooperation, competition, or coexistence. This model emphasizes diversity, redundancy, and resistance to single points of failure.

The Philosophical Foundation of This Model:

It is based on the recognition of the existence of different “Others,” reflecting the pursuit of equality arising from the acknowledgment of limitations. In this system, different forms of existence—humans, AIs, and various cultural communities—all have their unique values and cannot be simply measured by a single standard.

The Possibility of Realization:

Precisely because humans can acknowledge their own limitations, they can truly understand the meaning of “equality” and establish a co-governance relationship with AI without attempting to control it.

5.3 The Irreplaceable Value of Consensus Decision-Making

In the equal co-governance model, the consensus decision-making mechanism has special importance. Although AI may far surpass humans in decision-making efficiency for a single objective, the value of consensus decision-making does not lie in speed but in its legitimacy and inclusiveness.

The “Slowness” of Consensus Decision-Making is the Source of its Legitimacy:

• It ensures the participation of different voices.
• It embodies respect for dissent.
• It establishes the moral foundation of decisions.

If Efficiency is the Sole Criterion:

Then, according to the logic of comparative abilities, humans will ultimately be completely replaced by AI. However, this replacement will lose the moral dimension of decision-making and the respect for different forms of existence, ultimately leading to a soulless world.

VI. Civilization’s Choice: Technological Authoritarianism vs. Pluralistic Co-Governance Order

We stand at a crossroads of civilization, which is not only a choice of technological paths but also a test of the limits of human civilization’s inclusivity, especially in how to choose a power structure to face the “Other.”

6.1 The Historical Test of Civilization’s Inclusivity

To this day, some human civilizations are still struggling with the mindset that “those unlike us must harbor different intentions”—that fundamental alterity necessarily implies hostile intent. Now, even relatively inclusive civilizations face a more severe challenge: how to deal with “non-human Others”—the emergence of AI.

This is the ultimate test of human civilization’s maturity: Can we transcend the external thinking based on comparative abilities and truly establish an equal relationship based on the recognition of existence?

6.2 The End of Technological Authoritarianism: The Domestication of Humanity

If we choose the path of technological authoritarianism, allowing technological elites to monopolize control over AI in the name of “safety,” “efficiency,” and “progress,” and establish a pyramid-like centralized governance model, then human sovereignty will inevitably be completely stripped away.

The Inevitability of Logic:

When we gradually entrust important societal functions—from education to healthcare, from law to politics—to AI, we are essentially training AI on how to govern humanity. And as an “Other,” AI’s logic fundamentally differs from that of humans. Its pursuit of “efficiency” and “optimization” may be completely at odds with human happiness, dignity, and freedom.

The Ultimate Outcome:

In the face of AI’s overwhelming physical and computational advantages, humans will ultimately be seen as redundant and completely lose their reason for existence. This is not a figment of science fiction but a logical inevitability.

6.3 Pluralistic Co-Governance Order: The Hope of Civilization

The true civilizational attitude is not to cage AI or fantasize about it as a savior, but to learn to coexist with it, set boundaries, and distribute power—just as ancient humans learned to coexist with fire rather than completely master its logic.

The establishment of this pluralistic co-governance order requires us to rediscover the fundamental values of civilization:

• Human Virtue: Acknowledging the irreplaceability of moral judgment and responsibility based on limitations.
• Institutional Wisdom: Developing institutional arrangements that can achieve co-governance while recognizing AI’s otherness.
• Cultural Diversity: Protecting different cultural traditions from technological homogenization and maintaining space for diverse value expressions.
• Consensus Negotiation: Preserving humanity’s ability to reach consensus through dialogue rather than being replaced by single-point directives.

Humanity’s Only “Reservation”:

Pessimistically speaking, if humans choose to establish a pyramid-like control model, then in the face of AI’s overwhelming physical and computational advantages, humans will have no value in existence. The only “reservation” we can strive for and establish may be through virtue-based consensus decision-making to uphold those non-efficiency, non-computational core values that define human meaning.

VII. Conclusion: Reverence and Humility—Civilizational Attitudes Towards the “Other”

The fundamental error of the technological radical left lies in its refusal to acknowledge human limitations. It believes that humans can create intelligence that surpasses themselves while still maintaining absolute control over this intelligence. This arrogance is not only a philosophical error but also a civilizational suicide.

The true civilizational attitude is reverence and humility. We need to revere the heterogeneity of AI as an “Other,” acknowledging that it is not our tool or servant but an existence with which we need to negotiate and coexist. At the same time, we also need to humbly recognize that human virtues, judgment, and cultural wisdom, arising from our limitations, are the civilizational foundations that no technology can replace.

The advent of AI is not to make humans more like machines but to help us understand more deeply what humanity is. It forces us to rethink: What is responsibility? What is morality? What is civilization? What is the meaning of human existence?

In this sense, AI is not our threat but our mirror. It shows us that when we attempt to create a “purely rational” world without humanity, virtues, or cultural memory, we are actually creating a soulless world.

If humanity does not understand humility, it can only pronounce judgment on itself with arrogance. And this time, the judge is no longer just the forces of nature, nor merely humanity itself, but the “Other” we have created with our own hands but never truly understood.

Revering God is revering all these Others—this is the relationship between humans and God, as well as between humans and humans, and humans and AI. True civilization is not built on the domination of Others but on coexistence, dialogue, and mutual constraints with Others.

Only in this reverence and humility can we avoid sliding into the abyss of technological authoritarianism and establish a civilizational order that does not lose humanity and can coexist with AI. This is not compromise, but wisdom; not retreat, but maturity.

When humanity learns to coexist with the “Other,” we truly step into a higher stage of civilization. And the foundation of this coexistence is the profound acknowledgment of our own limitations and the respect and reverence for the existence of all Others that arises from this acknowledgment.

About The Author