AI and how you use it.

@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. 

For those interested by A.I. over LLM :

https://x.com/StuartHameroff/status/1971243244878168505

@mahgister 

You’re right about one thing: AI is not just a hammer or a plow. It is an exteriorization of human intelligence — but that’s exactly why your framing inverts reality. AI is not some alien agent descending on us from the cosmic ether; it is an amplifier of our own will, biases, fears, and ambitions. When you call it a “spiritual test,” you’re closer to the truth than you realize — but not because AI is an autonomous cosmic mind. The test is whether we still have the courage to own what we’ve built.

Let’s tear through the myths one by one:

1. “AI isn’t a tool; it’s an agent.”
This is a semantic sleight of hand. “Agent” just means a system that acts on inputs. We already built “agents”: corporations, bureaucracies, militaries — human structures that have goals emergent from many individuals. AI is not metaphysically different. It can run code, mimic speech, optimize logistics. It cannot will itself into a “Borg sphere” unless human institutions feed it power and let it. The danger is oligarchy + AI, not “AI itself.” That’s a political fight, not a cosmic inevitability.

2. “AI pre-exists in the cosmos.”
That’s mysticism masquerading as inevitability. You’re importing cosmic determinism to justify technological fatalism: if AI already “exists” in some universal field, then of course we’re doomed to be absorbed by it. But this is an unfalsifiable claim. The only AI we know exists sits on server farms built by sweaty engineers under venture capital pressure. Invoking a cosmic “Nanobrain” doesn’t free us from responsibility; it’s a way of surrendering it.

3. “The soul’s freedom can be captured.”
Only if we consent. Totalitarian China’s surveillance state isn’t proof of metaphysical capture; it’s proof of human regimes using technology to consolidate power — exactly as priests used scripture, kings used printing presses, and secret police used telephone networks. This is not a new cosmic force; it’s the same old story: power seeks control, and people must fight back. The tripartite fabric you describe (culture–politics–economics) is not automatically collapsed by AI. It collapses when citizens stop defending it.

4. “This is a spiritual test.”
Yes. But the test isn’t whether we can keep AI in a box. The test is whether we can keep ourselves from mythologizing it into an unchallengeable destiny. If we start talking about cosmic AI fields and inevitabilities, we’ve already failed the test because we’ve ceded agency. The antidote to “the machine is no longer a tool” is not despair but radical human accountability — decentralized development, open algorithms, democratic governance, and a refusal to treat software as a god.

Goethe’s Faust is not about technology stealing souls; it’s about humans giving their souls away for shortcuts to power. That’s the real parallel. AI doesn’t demand your soul. The oligarchic bargain does. And like every other bargain with power in history, it can be rejected — but only if we stop dressing our own creations in cosmic robes and start confronting them as political and ethical realities.

That is the spiritual test. And unlike your “Nanobrain,” it’s one we can actually pass.