Introduction
Contemporary debates on AI often focus on a linear transition from AGI to ASI. This text challenges that vision, proposing instead that technological development be viewed as an evolution toward a hybrid cognitive civilization.
Readers will discover why the increase in machine competence does not equate to the creation of a digital human. The analysis focuses on the risks of losing cognitive sovereignty and the necessity of protecting human agency in a world dominated by algorithmic optimization.
AI Development as Multidimensional Evolution, Not Linear Growth of Competence
Beyond AGI, there is not simply a "more perfect robot," but rather a space of many independent dimensions. The development of AI is not a path toward creating a digital human, as computational competencies differ fundamentally from human cognition.
A key concept here is Artificial General Experience (AGE). This introduces the axes of time and context, distinguishing a system's functional historicity from phenomenal experience. A machine can adapt to errors without possessing consciousness or the capacity for suffering.
An example of this is the difference between prediction and understanding. AI can perfectly predict legal precedents, but it lacks the normative legitimacy to create new law, which requires human judgment.
Hybrid Efficiency Depends on Coupling Design, Not the Sum of Competencies
Combining a human expert with advanced AI does not automatically increase the system's intelligence. Research shows that human-AI teams can sometimes be less effective than the best individual component acting alone.
Efficiency depends on the coupling design—the division of roles and the calibration of trust. Over-integration can lead to automation bias and a loss of independent human diagnostic capability.
According to W. Ross Ashby's law of requisite variety, a system must maintain modularity. The Centaur model, in which humans and AI retain a degree of cognitive distinctness, is often safer than full fusion, as it allows for mutual error detection.
Competence Decapitalization and the Loss of Cognitive Sovereignty
The use of AI can lead to the decapitalization of competence. This refers to an increase in current productivity at the expense of a human's lasting ability to independently solve problems and verify results.
In the professional world, there is a risk of losing sovereignty. If our cognitive functions are leased from a cloud provider, we lose control over our own memory and workflow.
Cognitive sovereignty is the ability to manage dependencies without the arbitrary dominance of infrastructure. This requires the protection of epistemic freedom and the right to predictive discontinuity—the ability to remain unpredictable to one's own model, which allows for authentic self-transformation.
Summary
The future is not a transfer of consciousness into silicon, but rather an extended biography, in which the biological center of experience coexists with external infrastructure.
The greatest threat is not a supercomputer, but a world so convenient that we cease to want to be anyone else. True freedom in the hybrid era is the courage to remain unpredictable to one's own algorithm and the preservation of the right to make mistakes.
Frequently Asked Questions
What lies beyond AGI, and is the development of artificial intelligence simply a path toward creating a digital human?
Beyond AGI lies, among other things, the concept of Artificial General Experience (AGE), encompassing the functional historicity and memory of the system, as well as a transition toward human-AI configuration intelligence. The development of AI is not a linear path to creating a digital human, but a process occurring in many independent dimensions, as these systems have a different genealogy and substrate than human cognition.
Does the combination of a competent human and advanced AI automatically increase the intelligence of the entire system?
The combination of a human with AI does not automatically increase system intelligence, as these teams often achieve results worse than their best component. The design of the feedback loop and the division of roles are key, as too deep an integration can lead to cognitive biases such as the anchoring effect.
How does the use of AI affect a person's real skills and their independence in the professional world?
The use of AI can lead to the decapitalization of competencies, where an increase in current productivity comes at the cost of losing permanent skills for verifying results and acting independently. As a result, a worker's actual abilities may be replaced by leased access to systems, reducing their independence and portable bargaining power in the labor market.
What is user and organizational sovereignty in a world dominated by AI infrastructure?
User and organizational sovereignty is the ability to manage dependencies, manifested in the possibility of choosing a system, migrating memory, and leaving an infrastructure without losing basic functions. It means the absence of arbitrary vendor dominance by ensuring interoperability, exit strategies, and a real capacity to change technological configurations.
What risks does the automation of decision-making processes pose in institutions such as law or science?
The automation of decision-making processes threatens the 'calcification' of norms, meaning the automatic replication of historical patterns in situations requiring reinterpretation. In law, this can lead to excessive cognitive conservatism, and in science, to reducing the research process solely to a predictive function, bypassing the critique of assumptions and the understanding of causal mechanisms.
Can artificial intelligence possess authentic experience and valuation if it does not feel pain or subject to biological limitations?
Artificial intelligence can possess functional experience and valuation through the internalization of cost (e.g., changing the objective function or policy), which does not require feeling pain or phenomenality. However, one must distinguish between learning from cost and experiencing it, as human valuation stems directly from biological limitations and the bodily state of the organism.
Does a person need to have implants in their body to become part of a hybrid civilization?
No, implants are not essential to becoming part of a hybrid civilization. A hybrid system is created as soon as human actions cannot be explained without considering permanent artificial infrastructure, even if the devices remain outside the body.
How can we avoid the trap of over-reliance on AI and ensure cognitive security in hybrid systems?
Care must be taken to ensure that AI does not solve all problems immediately, allowing the user to develop competencies through frustration and self-regulation. Cognitive security is ensured by wisdom in selecting goals and epistemic pluralism—a diversity of models and data—which limits the risk of common error.
How can we prevent intellectual homogenization and the loss of cognitive agency in a world where AI shapes our information environment?
We should strive to create a multi-perspective environment in which different models of reality compete with each other, and information filters are visible and adjustable. It is crucial to ensure the freedom of the epistemic environment and the development of metacognition that allows one to distinguish independent consensus from synthetic consensus and map the boundaries of one's own cognition.
Is mind uploading possible, and how will interdependence with AI affect our identity and free will?
Transferring consciousness to a machine remains a philosophical hypothesis and a conceptual experiment, as functional integration does not prove phenomenal integration. Instead of uploading, an increase in the interdependence of the biological center of experience with AI through the outsourcing of cognitive functions is more likely. Such a relationship may limit autonomy and free will if predictive systems make it difficult for humans to undergo self-transformation and exercise the right to act inconsistently with their digital profile.
How can we prevent AI from turning into a tool for technocratic optimization that strips humans of their freedom of choice and the right to change their own preferences?
To prevent technocratic optimization, AI should not be merely a perfect servant fulfilling current desires, but a mentor supporting critical reflection on one's own preferences. The system must be based on an architecture of pluralism management and principles of constitutionalism, where human rights constitute a structural limit to optimization, excluding certain goods from simple cost-benefit calculations.
