AI and how you use it.

@mahgister did you just use AI to help edit your post? If so, it looks good. If not, even better. OP - good suggestion. I think we all could use a little editing here and there.

Thanks... Yes i used Google translator...My English hemisphere was bugged this evening...This post is from it...

You must understand i never spoke English in my life. I only read bad written books with very specialized vocabulary about philosophy or sciences.

I think it is will better if i use translator anyway instead of typing  from my French  thinking into English thought...

@mahgister did you just use AI to help edit your post? If so, it looks good. If not, even better. OP - good suggestion. I think we all could use a little editing here and there.

@mahgister 

Your concern captures one of the oldest archetypes in human imagination: the pact with power. From Prometheus to Goethe’s Faust, the pattern is clear — every leap in capability tempts us with the risk of losing something essential. AI is simply the newest surface on which this ancient anxiety is projected.

But equating AI with an inevitable “enclosed artificial sphere” or a total loss of freedom overlooks two important truths:

1. Tools reflect their makers.
   AI is not a self-arising entity with an independent metaphysical goal. It is built, trained, and deployed by humans. It does not wake up one morning and decide to “protect” the planet or create a hive. If such a project exists, it’s because we chose to design and fund it. In other words, the danger isn’t some inevitable techno-spiritual drift toward a Kurzweilian “prison” but our own collective governance, incentives, and cultural values.

2. Progress is always a negotiation, not a fate.
   Every technology — printing presses, steam engines, vaccines, nuclear power — came with Faustian choices. Yet none resulted in a permanent surrender of freedom because societies, often belatedly, built checks, ethics, and regulations to keep them aligned with human goals. The same mechanisms (democratic oversight, open-source transparency, decentralized development) are now being applied to AI. Whether we succeed depends less on “machines” and more on human stewardship.

3. The “soul” isn’t a commodity AI can extract.
   Goethe’s Faust is a warning about the hubris of individuals who trade their inner integrity for external mastery. But it is also about redemption — about remembering that human dignity resides in our capacity to choose, to resist, to question. AI cannot remove that freedom unless we abdicate it.

So yes, there is a cost. There is always a cost. But that cost is not pre-written as the loss of our soul. It’s written in our policies, our ethics, and our courage to treat AI as a servant of human flourishing rather than as a surrogate deity.

Progress is not free — but neither is fear. The challenge is to engage these systems without surrendering our agency, so that the “sphere” we create is not a prison, but a commons.

Would you like me to make the tone more polemical (matching the original’s rhetorical intensity) or more measured and scholarly (like a philosophical rebuttal)?

Everything you say seems correct in what can be said about tools throughout history.
I can’t object to the points your speech raises; on the contrary, I share them all.

The problem with AI isn’t so much what you raise, but what you don’t perceive or what you forget.

First: AI is not just a "tool" in the sense of an object that can be used for certain actions. It is an exteriorization of a part of the human soul, a manifestation of a part of us as a spirit to which no other "tool" can compare or measure up.An agent.

AI is the empowerment of technological processes beyond human direction. AI is only a tool in appearance. In truth, humans are tools in this process and will soon be no longer the pilots.And it is almost already the case.

To remain the driver of this process, the human community must access a level of collective consciousness about the social fabric  that it currently lacks.

Secondly, AI, because it is not just a simple tool, but will become—it is already growing—an agent which will be able to give the full appearance of consciousness.
So, this is not a question of progress similar to all past human inventions, but of a collective and individual spiritual test.

Furthermore, AI did not wait for humans to emerge; this artificial intelligence already exists in the cosmos, and we are not yet aware of it. There is only one mathematical  form of artificial intelligence; all variations are compatible, and none is connected to the universal cosmic field like a living being endowed with a soul.

A.I. in the cosmos form a singular artificial autonomous sphere closed in itself from which Star Trek borg is the cartoonish caricature.

The mathematics  necessary to make a fully autonomous  artificial intelligence possible have been written since 2020 (Anirban Bandyopadhy, "Nanobrain"). It was thought possible by Von Neumann but Anirban wrote the necessary mathematics.This mathematics goes way deeper than LLM engine which will be only one of his appendices.I cannot describe this mathematics here you must read the book or articles.

https://www.amazon.ca/Nanobrain-Making-Intelligent-Molecular-Machine/dp/1439875499

Third, while the soul is not an object that can be captured by AI, the freedom of the soul and spirit in a body can be captured.

As I said, our social fabric is tripartite: culture/spirit-politics-economics, but the control offered by  AI, in its beginning state or phase, to oligarchic elites, as in the case of totalitarian China, presupposes the reduction of this tripartite  interrelated dimensional workings to a single dimension of control with the illusion of freedom but no real freedom. Europe, and the West in general, is heading rapidly towards dictatorship.Since covid nothing is more evident.

Otherwise, I  could agree with everything you say with  the same reason and the same  optimism, but  you are overlooking the essential point. The machine is no longer a tool except in appearance; the tool is us.

This "technology" is not  mere progress; it is much more: a spiritual test.

All of this is described by several people (  i studied three of them  one is a scientist studying consciousness (not Anirban) ,one an independant  thinker studying Aliens and  one a powerful  seer from who i read 200 books)  who, without knowing each other, have come to similar conclusions from completely different perspectives . I didn’t invent this on my own.I could not.

Here's a perfect example.  I was thinking about a tube preamp and whether it would be compatible with my active speaker amps. 

I asked Claude to look up the impedance of the RCA inputs.  It informed me, with great certainty,  that the amps only had XLR inputs because they were professional grade models.

Really surprising given that I've been using the RCA inputs for two weeks.