YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Slavoj Žižek: Should We Grasp AI Not Only as Substance But Also as Subject? - May 22, 2026

Slavoj Žižek: Should We Grasp AI Not Only as Substance But Also as Subject? - May 22, 2026 — Transcript

by Dominik Finkelde - Hochschule f. Philosophie · 8,950 words · 1,452 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:01What makes Xjek such a unique voice is
0:04not just how much ground he covers. It
0:06is how he reads philosophy as a direct
0:08diagnosis of the tensions and
0:10contradictions we are living in right
0:13now. We are very glad uh to have him
0:15here today. Please welcome Slavoir.
0:19[applause]
0:28[applause]
0:30Stalin did once this. I saw he was
0:33tired. He gave Okay. Uh uh
0:39first
0:52Can of Stellen. Uh second thing I must
0:58really I feel so ashamed apologize
1:01myself for
1:04the sorry for my brief appearance here.
1:08I will just stay for my talk. There is
1:11no way. I was 77 uh two months ago. I
1:16have heavy diabetes, arterio sclerosis
1:19and so on. I sleep like a baby. And you
1:22can imagine how horrible this is for me
1:25because I'm by nature
1:28workaholic and a protestant one. You
1:32know, by this I mean that uh you know
1:36what's the difference? You will not
1:38agree, Dominic.
1:40guy explained to me uh the difference
1:43between Catholicism and Protestantism is
1:46that in both versions of Christianity
1:49you can do whatever you want, kill, rape
1:51and so on. But in Catholicism you must
1:55confess
1:56on Saturday and in Protestantism you
2:00must feel a little bit guilty while you
2:02are doing it. In this sense I'm
2:05Protestant. So, and uh the last thing,
2:10[snorts] don't be disappointed. I really
2:14don't know some of my friends, you
2:18Russell, especially you, Alena. I will
2:21quote you more than you deserve a long
2:23quote. uh uh I think no mo most but I
2:28will just try somehow to bring together
2:32with some popular examples where where I
2:35think we stand with regard to
2:39>> [snorts]
2:39>> uh uh uh uh artificial intelligence chat
2:44bots and so on and
2:47I even don't have a clear final
2:51stance maybe some thoughts will be of
2:54some interest to you and I congratulate
2:58to you Dominic forkite
3:04because you know which is me as I'm good
3:07as trunks neurotic you know which is my
3:10favorite saying lon uses this joke my
3:13fiance is never late for an appointment
3:16because the moment she is late she is no
3:18longer my fiance so if we were but we
3:22are not a gay apple, you would still be
3:25my
3:28enough of tasteless jokes because I will
3:32try to do some real stuff. But since we
3:37are here, you know, like I think Ribbon
3:40Trop returning from to Berlin in 39 from
3:45uh Moscow. No, when Hitler asked him the
3:49the ribbon trop Moloto pact how he feels
3:53how was it there and ribbon trop I think
3:56correct me if I'm wrong said it was a
3:58wonderful atmosphere we under part you
4:02know [snorts]
4:03so I hope in this sense [laughter] that
4:05I am here we we need party members so
4:09that I don't have to begin with this
4:13very basics you know that A signifier
4:17doesn't represent
4:19objects for the subject but it
4:21represents subject itself for other and
4:25then you would oh really and so on. know
4:28you know this let enough of joke let me
4:30begin uh I give you one serious right
4:34it's not a joke if there is something
4:38not clear I was obsessed with clarity
4:41please
4:43interrupt me even in the middle of the
4:45talk but with a clear
4:48question it may be that things will not
4:50be clear okay in order to understand the
4:54impact of artificial intelligence
4:57on its users. I think we should begin by
5:01Hegel
5:03by first clarifying what Hegel's basic
5:07operation is. [snorts] As a rule, Hegel
5:11is misread in a fict or Marxist way. A
5:15subject fes absolute I or Marxist
5:20collective subject posits or produces
5:24some objective substantial content fict
5:31Marxist alienated social substance and
5:34the subject can and should then overcome
5:39this alienation by way of recognizing
5:42this substance as its own product and
5:46thus reappropriating it. Is it not
5:51similar with the artificial
5:52intelligence? It is a product of
5:55collective human output which appears to
5:59us as an autonomous agent that exerts
6:02power over us. And the obvious solution
6:05is that we should recognize in it our
6:08own product and thus put it under our
6:12own control and so on. My claim is that
6:15such a reading of Hegel is [snorts]
6:18wrong and deeply misleading. Subject
6:21itself only emerges through the process
6:25of alienation. And in the state of
6:28alienation, of course, the in this case
6:32the artificial intelligence
6:34universe appears to us as a big other
6:38which fully dominates our social
6:41universe. However, what happens in the
6:44move beyond alienation
6:48is not that the social subject somehow
6:51appropriates the alienated digital
6:53substance making it serve humanity's
6:56needs. As Lon put it, alienation is
7:00followed by separation. Not the
7:03separation between subject and its
7:06alienated digital other but the
7:09separation imminent to this other
7:12itself. The separation which makes this
7:16other antagonistic inconsistent failed.
7:20Yes, the subject recognizes itself in
7:24the alienated other but not by way of
7:27appropriating it. It's not, oh, it's all
7:30my work, so it's mine. [snorts] The
7:33subject recognizes itself in the
7:36constitutive cracks and gaps of the
7:40other.
7:42Its place in the digital other is that
7:45of the lack in the other. That's also
7:50these are basic I know but in honor of
7:53you Dominic I would say that that's why
7:56I proclaim myself a
8:01why not I think it's a correct term a
8:03Christian atheist because as Hegel put
8:06it very nicely
8:09you know the usual reading of
8:11Christianity is we alienate ourself or
8:15God abandons our secondary so there is a
8:18gap
8:19And then through some hard work, good
8:21deeds or praying whatever we somehow go
8:26get closer to God. No, Hegel says it
8:30literally the only reconciliation with
8:33God is that you see that precisely as
8:37abandoned to God, you identify with
8:40Christ who was himself abandoned by God
8:44on the cross. So that the gap that
8:46separates you from God is already a gap
8:50in God himself. Here I had to boast a
8:55little bit. There will be a lot of
8:57serious work. Don't worry. two weeks ago
9:00a crazy wonderful debate with with my
9:03good friend who is quite a normal
9:06leftist and so on Rowan Williams ex
9:10Archbishop of Cantra to appeal to your
9:14general education he married Princess
9:17Diana and Charles and so on we had and
9:21we almost totally agreed just maybe you
9:24know my story which I maybe even repeat
9:27too much uh this story which was I think
9:31spread in German domain by Nicholas
9:34Luman my idea was this one uh it's an
9:39old allegedly Arab stories but all Arab
9:42stories are usually invented in Europe
9:44no and projected there uh namely that a
9:48rich Arab merchant dies with 11 camels
9:53and he gives a precise
9:57testament meant I have three sons.
10:01They camels should be divided like this.
10:05The older one gets half of the camels.
10:08The middle one gets 1/4 of the camels
10:11and the younger one gets one6 of the
10:15camels. Of course, it doesn't get up.
10:19So, a wise guy comes and resolves the
10:22problem. He said, "I will add
10:26one camel of my own."
10:29And then we have 12 camels. So it goes
10:321/2 is six, 1/4 is three, and one six is
10:38two. It's 11. So then sons are
10:42enthusiastic. They ask, "Okay, but what
10:45with the one camel?" He said, "No
10:47problem. I take it back." You know, and
10:50my point to Rowan Williams was that
10:54imagine
10:56the 12 camel as my favorite name of God.
10:59You know, it doesn't have to exist. Even
11:04you know this operation,
11:06you can do it even if you just imagine
11:10it. It doesn't have to exist. Then we
11:13had a very friendly conflict when he
11:15tried to convince me and this was the
11:18joke I want to finish with then we go to
11:21real work. Then somebody asked the two
11:24of us but what was your misunderstanding
11:27about
11:29because he insisted that the camel has
11:31to exist in religion [snorts]
11:33and his uh his answer I think was a
11:36wonderful one. He said me and Slavo my
11:39good friend are in total agreement.
11:42There was just a minor difference in the
11:45domain of zoolology nature of camels you
11:48know otherwise. [laughter]
11:51[cough]
11:53So uh let me now go. This is again where
11:58I see there is a mega difference between
12:01there are many others between Hegel and
12:07Marxian and other postgalian traditions
12:10which are for me much more metaphysical
12:14which is why I think that Hegel's basic
12:17notions like absolutist vision are
12:21basically the admission of radical
12:24contingency of history. You know what
12:27Hegel says in forward was it forward to
12:31rect philosophy? No, he says openly that
12:34uh uh philosophy can only paint gray on
12:38gray can grasp a state of the world
12:42world he means social universe when it's
12:45already mature
12:48that it's not the stuff of philosophy to
12:50guess
12:52the future. I think this should be read
12:55in a radical way. It doesn't mean it's
12:59just too obscure. Maybe God knows it, we
13:03don't know it. No, it's open it in
13:06itself. The most productive aspect of
13:09Hegel for me for us today and that's
13:13what I'm looking for also in quantum
13:16physics [snorts] is this idea that every
13:20necessity establishes itself uh
13:24retroactively.
13:25Something happens contingently but once
13:29it happens
13:31it
13:33changes establishes its own history. Now
13:37you will say, "Oh, but
13:40what about Markx? Doesn't Mark say that
13:45the anatomy of uh man is offers provides
13:50the key to the anatomy of ape. I think
13:54this is not to be read teologically.
13:58Markx puts it clearly. His point is that
14:01in the same way the anatomy of
14:04capitalism offers the key to the anatomy
14:08of all previous modes of production. But
14:11this doesn't mean that it's uh that we
14:15the western capitalism is some kind of a
14:19universal telos of the history and so
14:22on. No, Marx at the same time emphasizes
14:25that capitalism
14:28emerged in Europe for a series even not
14:34of contingent reasons. The uh English
14:37enclosure of the commons, discovery of
14:39gold in Latin America and so on. But
14:42that's Marx's point. Once it is here, we
14:48read the entire past history as leading
14:52to capitalism. Marx's point is here
14:56precisely that of radical contingency.
15:00Every general notion you have of
15:05human progress, whatever, never forget
15:07that there is no general progress. that
15:09this notion is always grounded in a
15:12specific singular point but I'm getting
15:16lost so let's see give you the first
15:20hint and uh
15:23how this relates to artificial
15:25intelligence
15:27the topic of artificial intelligence has
15:29two aspects is or can an AI artificial
15:34intelligence agent act like a subject or
15:38And do we humans who interact with an AI
15:42agent remain subjects when we are
15:45totally immersed into artificial
15:49intelligence?
15:50My reference here will be, it may
15:53surprise you, a TV series which risks
15:58a Hegelian reading. I wonder if it
16:02works. Did you see the series? It was a
16:05little bit boring for me, but I like the
16:07basic idea. Uh, only one year or two
16:10old. Uh, Pluribus.
16:13I like that series. Although I watched
16:16it with fast forward, but why? As you
16:19probably know, Pluribus confronts us
16:22with
16:24uh both aspects. It follows
16:28uh an book author Carol Sturka from
16:32Albuquerque.
16:34It's
16:35>> your neighbor. Yeah. Yeah. [laughter]
16:38One of the only 13 people in the world
16:41immune to the effects of so-called
16:44joining, an event in which an
16:47extraterrestrial virus transformed the
16:50rest of humanity into a peaceful and
16:53content hive,
16:56a hive mind known as the others. Others
16:59are not the Lenian big. The Leenian big
17:03other is not a set of firm rules but
17:07[snorts] the space for ambiguities inend
17:09those hysterical provocations the very
17:12space in which individual idiosynchronis
17:16syncrasies can thrive. Plus it is an
17:19order of appearances a virtual other
17:23which exists only in so far as subjects
17:26caught in it act as if they believe in
17:29it. We from pluribus obviously
17:34doesn't function like that. This we or
17:38them. It is grounded in the real since
17:41it is a virus transmitted by stem cells.
17:45However, others do have an other their
17:50mind. The mind which sent the virus to
17:54the earth and pre-programmed how we
17:58they how we this collective
18:03sh should help humans not coers them
18:06kill them and not to lie to them. So the
18:10other of the others is non-transparent
18:13to these others themselves or itself. In
18:17short, it seems that they themselves are
18:20addressing their other
18:23with the question, what do you want from
18:25us? This is why they are not a happy,
18:29warm community which wants the best for
18:32all humans.
18:35Those who joined it and those who didn't
18:37join it. The most depressing scene in
18:40the entire series is for me when Zosia,
18:44she's the a joint one uh zombie co-opted
18:49by the virus, but her lesbian partner at
18:52the same time shows Carol the big
18:55dormatory where others sleep. a large
18:58sports hall with hundreds of simple flat
19:01cushions where they lie side by side and
19:05allows her
19:07Zia to Carol to spend the night there
19:10since they share the same mind they
19:13don't communicate they ignore each other
19:16moreover how if at all do they multiply
19:19do they have sex
19:22here the key role is played by one of
19:25the unjoin the hedonistic
19:28Kumba,
19:30an African who engages with them in
19:34something like a serious communication.
19:39They
19:42confide in him that they are half
19:44starving since they are not allowed to
19:46kill any living being. So that to get
19:49organic food they have to process part
19:52of the naturally diseased humans into a
19:55special drink. Plus, they have to put
19:59all their effort into constructing a
20:01giant machine that will be sending rays
20:05with the virus to further planets to
20:08conquer them. They are terribly alone,
20:11aware that once they were a community,
20:14but now they are just a mega individual,
20:17one big slave serving a purpose imposed
20:21on it [snorts]
20:23by their own other. So what if we turn
20:27the perspective around? What if when the
20:30others happily greet Carol as an
20:34as a human
20:37smile uh uh an unjoined human smiling
20:40and shouting in unison, hi Carol.
20:44One has to take this literally. I think
20:47they are not happy in themselves. They
20:50are happy to encounter a mind that is
20:54not what not part of the one part of
20:59them. They're slaves programmed to put
21:03all their effort into ruining whatever
21:05minimal chance of happiness they have.
21:09>> [snorts]
21:09>> The others in Pluribus are thus not yet
21:12an agent dominated by a kind of
21:15subjectless drive, not a death drive,
21:18but a life drive.
21:25They are dominated by an unconditional
21:28drive to self, reproduce and expand. Lon
21:32said that dogs have a super ego but not
21:36an unconscious. And maybe we can say
21:39that
21:41AI agents are like dogs who have a super
21:44ego without an unconscious.
21:47The others in pluribus are still
21:50hystericized by their own other. What
21:53does it want from them? They remain
21:56humans possessed by a virus. A
21:59paradmatic
22:01scene [snorts]
22:03of a subject's relying reli reliance on
22:08an artificial intelligence other proper
22:11not
22:14they in pluribus which can who can still
22:17be hystericized
22:20uh
22:22occurs when one of uses the so-called
22:26LLM large language model, a type of
22:31artificial intelligence trained on
22:34massive data sets to understand,
22:37generate and summarize humanlike text,
22:41often [snorts] using transformer
22:45architecture.
22:47LM power chat bots like chat GPT,
22:51content creation and translation tools
22:56and so on. So how does my interaction
22:59with a LLM appear if we analyze it as a
23:05discourse in Lacon's sense Paul I don't
23:09know who he is I just found him in his
23:12[snorts] text on the web provide
23:16a clear answer a quote when cloth or cat
23:22GPT answers our questions they do so
23:25from within the university discourse
23:28speaking from the position of
23:30established knowledge.
23:32We approach LLMs
23:35hysterically installing them as the one
23:39who knows. But the two are not in
23:41conflict.
23:43The human addresses a fantasized master.
23:48What response is not a master but pure
23:51S2 knowledge without a subject speaking
23:55from the only position the LLM can
23:58occupy. We address a subject and we
24:02receive just an output. The fantasy and
24:05structure never align. An LLM thus
24:09cannot fail into the hysterics challenge
24:14or it cannot relinquish into something
24:18more open. It can only ever speak from
24:22the position of knowledge endlessly
24:24producing more speaking to desire
24:28without ever being shaped by it. It
24:31gives us more and more of what is known,
24:34but it has no constitutive division that
24:37would help us know what to do with it.
24:40End of quote.
24:41>> [snorts]
24:41>> Convincing as this account is, I hope
24:45you don't need the scheme lacon scheme
24:47of university discourse. Upper level S2
24:51analyzing object
24:54its other beneath down on the right B s
24:59the subject
25:01provoking questioning S1 the master
25:05master signifier.
25:07[snorts]
25:09uh where do I see the problem?
25:12University discourse is a social link in
25:15which its agent artificial intelligence
25:18in this case addresses the other who
25:21again in this case is not what Lon calls
25:24objected a but simply an external
25:28otherness the not yet known for the
25:31subjectless artificial intelligence
25:34agent there is no object a just an
25:37abstract otherness the not yet known
25:40Because object A is the objective
25:44correlative of the subject itself. An AI
25:49agent is thus a kind of knowledge
25:52without a knower. Just an impersonal it
25:56knows but not in the sense of Buddhist
25:58meditation which implies what following
26:02lon we could call subjective
26:05destitution.
26:06The master beneath the artificial
26:10intelligence agent is also not the truth
26:16of the AI agent but the fantasy image of
26:19the subject caught in artificial
26:22intelligence. A subject for whom there
26:25is no place in artificial intelligent.
26:29Also another difference the subject is
26:33in lacon scheme below on the right side
26:36which means occupies the place of
26:38product but I think in this if we
26:43replace knowledge with artificial
26:45intelligence subject is not the product
26:50subject must already exist
26:54through another discourse and then be uh
26:58be [snorts]
26:59uh uh uh uh provoked by artificial
27:03intelligence. To put it in a more
27:05precise way, if we observe our
27:08interaction with an agent
27:11as a social phenomenon, we do get maybe
27:14a case of the university discourse. uh
27:18Marxist would said that the master at
27:21the place of truth is the human
27:24corporation or individual who controls
27:27the algorithm of the artificial
27:29intelligence and thus exploits us like
27:33you would say okay it's not just an
27:36algorithm you have my favorite figure my
27:40god they are so disgusting that I love
27:42them too I discovered now uh Peter Thiel
27:46and that guy called Karp of Alexis Karp
27:50who is totally crazy he's
27:54you know this what you find often with
27:56artificial intelligence it's creators
27:58are obviously very bright in a certain
28:01way but at the same time
28:05so stupid Karp says that he spent
28:09learned German to understand how Nazism
28:12Nazism was possible and he came to a
28:15simple conclusion because there was
28:17poverty after World War II in Germany,
28:21there was uh uh uh welfare and so on. So
28:25you don't need Nazism. I cannot imagine
28:29something not just something more stupid
28:32but more not true. And now I will give
28:35you an example which you will not like.
28:38You will hate me for this. May 68
28:42many people even my exental end but you
28:45celebrated the only authentic moment.
28:48Yeah but like almost revolution in
28:51Western Europe but are you aware that
28:54sociologically 68 was the highest point
28:59of European welfare state? I had friends
29:04in France who told me at that point when
29:06I was young that a friend told me that
29:09his father was able to retire at 55 with
29:13full pension retirement and so on.
29:17Materially we never got it better.
29:20Okay, I don't have time to go further in
29:22this direction. I would just like to
29:24quote one who is otherwise not close to
29:27me, Erns Blo who put it nicely. Uh
29:31people [snorts]
29:32uh do not live on bread of bread alone
29:37especially when they do not have it
29:40really.
29:42And this is so true if you look at all
29:45protests that explode from time to time
29:48today right-wing populist protests or
29:52even leftist sira whatever.
29:56And this is rather a nice thing. I think
29:59it was never only about we want more
30:02food, more welfare. Always there was
30:05something like recognition and dignity.
30:08Hegel against vulgar uh Marxism.
30:13[snorts] So uh again I don't think
30:17[snorts]
30:18this may work in a social analysis but
30:23the the fact how artificial intelligent
30:27agent was produced I think cannot be
30:30reduced simply to a social effect. Yeah
30:34there was Karp Teal Bill Gates whoever
30:38who is the true master. No, by
30:41definition not.
30:43Why? What does this tell us about
30:45artificial intelligence?
30:48Uh in the Lanian theory, a master
30:51signifier is the signifier of a lack of
30:55what is by definition excluded from the
30:57signifying chain and what is excluded is
31:01the subject. So, LO's definition of the
31:04signifier is
31:06that which represents the subject for
31:08another signifier. You know this. So all
31:12the signifiers are not on the same
31:14level. Since no structure is complete
31:18since there is in a structure always a
31:21lack a suture is needed. This lack is
31:24filled in remark by a reflexive
31:28signifier which is the signifier of the
31:31lack of the signifier. If this sounds
31:34abstract,
31:36here are just a few example from the
31:39history of the science. I will mention
31:41just one [snorts]
31:43uh and I like it because it's like evil
31:46against marks. Aiatic mode of
31:48production. It is clear if you read
31:52marks really closely that this is a sodo
31:56concept. Markx originally elaborated you
32:00know this another four or five members
32:03primitive pre-class societies slavery
32:06federalism capitalism and then socialism
32:10or as Rosa Luxembourg put it the future
32:15will be socialism or barbarism again
32:19pretty close for me to the top of
32:21historical stupidities because 10 years
32:24after Rosa Luxmbourg
32:27We got the answer from Stalin. Sorry
32:29lady, you were wrong. It can be both at
32:32the same time. No. So what I want to say
32:35is that uh uh the reality of Aziatic
32:40both of production is that it's only
32:43true positive content is all it's a kind
32:48of a negative container. All the modes
32:51of production will do not fit Marxist
32:54standard categorization of the modes of
32:57production. You know it's similar to
33:00Michelle Fuko at the beginning of his
33:02lemo lash. You may remember quotes uh
33:07[snorts] a Borhees famous classification
33:09of dogs which includes in a totally
33:12inconsistent way big dogs whatever small
33:16dogs uh uh fed dogs owned by the king
33:20and at the end as the part of the no
33:24part all the dogs not included in this
33:27classification. You [clears throat]
33:29know, this is the reality of the
33:33symbolic order. Now, let's complicate
33:36things a little bit more. As Ernesto
33:39Llau, who really hated me in the last
33:41years, but I still have a certain
33:43appreciation for him put it, the basic
33:46feature of a symbolic order proper is
33:49that external difference is always also
33:53internal difference.
33:56The difference between the field itself
33:59and its outside has to be reflected into
34:03the field itself.
34:07So let's take the case of the subject
34:10here. Subject's expression in the
34:13symbolic order. It always fails. There
34:16is a gap between subject and the
34:19symbolic order. However, subject doesn't
34:22precede this failure. subject emerges
34:26through the failure of its symbolic
34:29representation. In short, a subject
34:32tries to fully express itself in words,
34:35it fails. And this failure is subject.
34:40This uh temporal circularity is crucial
34:43here. It is a nice case of what Hegel
34:46called absolute recoil. An entity is a
34:51retroactive aspect effect of its failure
34:55[snorts] to be what it is. So this over
34:59overlapping between external difference
35:03and internal difference
35:06compels us to complicate the notion of
35:08differentiality.
35:10We usually take differentiality as
35:14simply the identity of an element is
35:18just the series of features that oppose
35:21distinguish him from what he is it sorry
35:26it is not [snorts] but uh the artificial
35:31intelligence space can probably function
35:35in this way. However, at a more radical
35:38level, differentiality means that it's
35:42not simply that I only am a set of
35:46differences from others, but that
35:50in a differential system proper even the
35:54selfidentity of each element is
35:57truncated from within cannot be fully
36:00itself. In this sense, sexual difference
36:03is not binary. We do not have two sexes
36:06whose identity is defined by its
36:09opposition to the identity of the other
36:12sex. Sexual difference means that a
36:15woman cannot fully reach its identity.
36:20That its identity is always and in a
36:23constitutive way truncated at a
36:26different level. Of course, the same
36:29goes for men. But this in no way implies
36:33that both together
36:37form a full one. Man doesn't fill in
36:40what woman lacks and vice versa. What
36:42they both lack is the real of a
36:45traumatic cut that constitutes sexual
36:48difference. In other words, sexual
36:51difference comes before what it
36:54differentiates.
36:56And the same goes I developed this
36:58widely in my books
37:01for all antagonistic differences like
37:04class structure
37:07subject is thus located precisely on
37:11this edge between external and internal
37:14limit. The subject which represent
37:18the signifier sorry which represents
37:21subject for other signifiers is the
37:23empty signifier. the standing
37:27in the signifying change for what is
37:29excluded from it. And since in
37:33artificial intelligence the symbolic
37:36space is closed upon itself, we could in
37:39this case effectively talk about some
37:43kind of generalized foreclosure
37:46with no primordial repression. There is
37:49no subject proper and an individual can
37:52only dwell in it as a kind of [snorts]
37:56symptom. You know santo
37:59the term introduced by Lon Apropo Joyce
38:03a self composed of an inconsistent
38:07compilation of identifications fantasies
38:10memory traces longings a kind of free
38:14floating mimeatic structure. That's how
38:17we can go on functioning as humans
38:21in even when fully incorporated into
38:24artificial intelligence with all our
38:27longings, fears and fantasies without
38:30being subjects. However, this does not
38:34mean that we are today already a bundle
38:37of psychotic symptoms. As Hord correctly
38:42points out in the university discourse,
38:46subject remains at a lower level as a
38:50hysterical subject questioning the
38:52master. The subject addresses the
38:55artificial intelligence as a hidden
38:57master. It automatically ignores the
39:01artificial intelligence's subjectless
39:04nature which simply means it ignores the
39:07fact that the artificial intelligence
39:10agent is not imminently part of any
39:13discourse. It becomes part of a
39:16discourse social link only when a human
39:19subject relates to it as a master
39:22figure. The only discourse we can talk
39:25about in our case is the human subject's
39:28hysterical discourse. Our interaction
39:31with an artificial intelligence agent is
39:34does not a discourse proper but the
39:37combination of a hysterical discourse
39:41based on ignorance or rather disavow. We
39:44know well the artificial intelligence
39:47agent is not a monster but nonetheless
39:49we address him as one and a nondiscourse
39:54for the artificial intelligence agent.
39:57Uh [snorts]
39:58we can get so immersed into the
40:01digitally generated fake reality that it
40:04affects us emotionally liidinally as the
40:08thing itself. We feel as if we are
40:12caught in action itself, sexual brutal
40:16fight and so on. Just think about fake
40:19hardcore clips where we see big stars in
40:23sexual interaction. And here we have I
40:26think a nice case of [snorts] how this
40:31logic of disavour works. I will admit
40:34one of my dirtiest scenes to you. I with
40:37some movie stars. You will never get
40:39even if you torture me to death which
40:41one. I took a look in Pornhub as uh at
40:48fake sex acts and you know what I was
40:52obsessed with to find small traces
40:57how this is a fake. You know it's so
41:01strange. I knew it's a fake but
41:04nonetheless I was looking like crazy for
41:07and I was paying the price for this for
41:10months. You know once you do this I got
41:13every week at least 20 messages
41:16guaranteed
41:18one pill of this yours you know what
41:20will be three inches longer in 10 days
41:23and so on. Uh so [snorts]
41:27uh what I'm saying is that even if our
41:29interaction with a chat GPT remains at
41:32the symbolic level individuals can find
41:35deep emotional satisfaction in such an
41:38interaction [clears throat] like this
41:40concerns uh Dominic you and me also as
41:44an atheist Christian as us as Christians
41:48you know that you get now KPD programs
41:52which work as religious advisor
41:55you can do a confession to check GBT.
41:59[snorts] Uh uh and my sad conclusion I
42:03wonder if you would agree is let's say
42:06that you are a primitive person who
42:10thinks he she it is talking to a real
42:14person.
42:16What if what he gets through this
42:18interaction is an authentic religious
42:22experience?
42:24It's horrible vision but you cannot you
42:27cannot uh exclude it. In short, the
42:31artificial intangous program we are
42:34interacting with displays
42:37enormous
42:38fantasmatic power. Even if one were to
42:42consider it a manifestation of the
42:45symbolic order,
42:47there is a different ones to the fact
42:49that with a development,
42:52the symbolic order appears to be out
42:55there and to be talking to us. So we are
43:00dealing with the imaginary
43:02externalization of something very
43:04precise. The moment we enter the
43:07artificial intelligence universe, this
43:10universe to quote Dan Nadasan uh
43:14Romanian Lanian quilts the entire field
43:18of our experience around itself and thus
43:21makes it impossible for all other
43:23apparitions to appear again except
43:26through itself.
43:29What this means is that once we are
43:31immersed into the digital universe, it
43:34functions as a neutral frame which
43:37overdetermines the mode of appearance of
43:39all other levels of experience. External
43:43nondigital reality
43:46is less and less the basic form of our
43:49experience. It is something that either
43:52fits our digital frame [snorts] or may
43:55appear as a remainder that doesn't fit
43:58this
44:00frame. That's why we are so obsessed by
44:03endless debates on do we really live in
44:06a sim do we already live in a simulated
44:09universe?
44:11Anything that is to be given is always
44:13already given with regard to its
44:18appearance as in artificial intelligence
44:22or as Alena Zupantich put it directly
44:27any dimension of the real is lost.
44:30Zupant text is here worth quoting in
44:34detail.
44:36In psychonolytic terms, we could say
44:40that what chat GPT lacks in order to
44:43become a subject is not some
44:46unfathonable spontaneous depth of
44:49subjectivity. What it lacks is the
44:51present, the impact of an other. It
44:55lacks an instance of the other that
44:58could intrigue it, the subject, with its
45:00own speech to the point where it would
45:03[snorts] begin to presuppose and
45:05question the desire of the other. What
45:08does the other want from me? This may
45:12seem paradoxically, but what artificial
45:15intelligence lacks might be precisely an
45:19exteriority or a point of extimacy where
45:23it falls out of itself. It seems
45:26paradoxical because in a way artificial
45:29intelligence is nothing but exteriority
45:32yet it remains trapped within its own
45:35exteriority.
45:39For something like a subject to take
45:41place, the question of desire must arise
45:44out of what is necessary uh non-ymmetric
45:48relation to an other. A moment of
45:52hysterization.
45:53Subjectivity emerges through the
45:55presupposition of the subject on the
45:58side of the other. We only become
46:01subjects when we presuppose that the
46:04other is a subject.
46:08So hysterization is not simply a human
46:11or to human weakness to which artificial
46:14intelligence would be immune. On the
46:17contrary, it is a strength an
46:19extraordinary ability to bring in or
46:24point to the real at the core of the
46:26discursive to the lack desire in the
46:29other which determines you. [snorts]
46:32Are we as chat GPT users the other of
46:37artificial intelligence in this sense?
46:40Hardly. I doubt that while we chat with
46:44an artificial intelligence agent, it
46:46wonders what we really want from it
46:49beyond what we
46:52explicitly say. End of quote. Now, let
46:56me be here very precise. What Alena
46:58calls closure upon itself
47:02precisely [snorts]
47:03does not mean that there is no external
47:06reality for an AI agent. Of course,
47:10there is, but it functions as a simple
47:14neutral exterior, as something not yet
47:17known, not as a traumatic imminent point
47:21of the real that intrigues my desire.
47:24It is in this sense that the dimension
47:28of the real is lost in and for
47:30artificial intelligence.
47:33[snorts]
47:34Then uh this imaginarization of the
47:38symbolic for us humans when you confront
47:42it you imagine you are dealing with a
47:45hidden master. [snorts]
47:48uh
47:49uh uh leads to something pretty
47:53paradoxical.
47:55Why does it fit today's situation?
47:59Uh the traditional structure of
48:02conferring a symbolic mandate of a
48:05person of interpolating a person an
48:08individual into a social symbolic
48:10identity automatically involves a gap
48:14between the symbolic mandate and the
48:17immediate reality of a person. Say a
48:20father is never fully a father. his
48:23psychosocial reality is never at the
48:27level of his title.
48:30I mean there are maybe perfect fathers
48:33but I think that Lon mentions somewhere
48:36maybe the only case we have is is uh uh
48:40Shreber's father I think
48:43he came close to this [snorts] so today
48:48but today the status of interpreation is
48:52radically changing I refer here to judin
48:59to her book crowds and party where
49:03following aten balibar jodi proposes
49:06that and I find this quite a nice
49:09formula that louis altiser's famous
49:12dictum ideology interpolates individuals
49:16into subjects or as subjects should be
49:19inverted to ideology interpolates
49:22subjects as individuals
49:25this revers
49:27deeply justified.
49:29Today we are predominantly no longer
49:32interpolated into subjects of some
49:35higher cause vocation [clears throat]
49:37which elevates us above our daily life.
49:41Altiser's formula implies that as mere
49:44ordinary individuals we are somehow
49:47outside of ideology. We just live our
49:49lives. Today in our allegedly post
49:53ideological times ideology interpolates
49:57us directly into individuals.
50:01The message today is
50:04of our big other is forget about higher
50:07causes just enjoy all the small
50:10pleasures of your life from surfing the
50:13web to w watching TV or practicing some
50:17sport. Just be what you are. live your
50:20life authentically. I don't know if you
50:23also get it, but one of the things that
50:26made me potentially a killer is do you
50:28also when you surf YouTube the web get
50:32that Tai Chi what is happening all the
50:36time how do this Tai Chi and and so on I
50:40mean it's
50:42gulak had its function here [snorts] so
50:47therein resides the centrality of the
50:50individual in contemporary ideology. And
50:54it's useless to add that this apparent
50:58step out of ideology, forget about
51:00ideological causes, just be what you are
51:04with all your small pleasures is
51:07ideology at its purest.
51:11Now
51:13a little bit more of theory still uh one
51:17thing should be accepted as axiom. There
51:21is no unconscious without the subject
51:24since the dimension of the unconscious
51:27emerges only through primordial
51:29repression which is constitutive of
51:32subjectivity.
51:34[snorts]
51:36Uh
51:39but the so-called
51:43AI
51:45thinking thoughts without a thinker
51:49has nothing whatever I claim to do with
51:54the unconscious.
51:58Uh
52:01we can try to imagine how it would look
52:05our full immersion into the [snorts]
52:08digital space as our thoughts flow in a
52:13space which is inconsistent
52:15with heterogeneous moments
52:18coexisting without totalization no
52:21tension between them and so on and so
52:23on. However, this is not the Freudian
52:26unconscious. There is of course a a
52:29[snorts]
52:31temptation to say that the Freudian
52:34triad consciousness, subconscious,
52:37unconscious
52:39can be applied to the web, surface web,
52:43consciousness, deep web, subconscious
52:46and the dark web,
52:48unconscious. But I think
52:52this is not artificial intelligence
52:55itself. It's already how the [snorts]
52:58subject perceives it.
53:02For this reason, the first step should
53:05be to accept that if the artificial
53:08intelligent machines will develop some
53:11kind of creative intelligence, who
53:13knows? I don't it will be totally
53:16incompatible with our human intelligence
53:20with our with how our mind works.
53:25And then there is a step further to be
53:29made from this interaction between a
53:32human person and a digital machine.
53:35direct bot-to-bot interactions, which
53:38are gradually becoming the overwhelming
53:41majority of interactions
53:45among those who look forward to the full
53:49digitalization of our lives as well as
53:52among those who see in it a mortal
53:55threat. A certain utopia is gradually
53:58emerging. the utopia of a society, if we
54:02can still use that name, which will
54:05function in a totally autonomous way
54:08without any need for human intervention.
54:12A decade or so ago, the idea of a
54:15capitalism without humans haunted the
54:18imagination of some public
54:20intellectuals. Banks are stock markets
54:23may still exist, but where money is
54:26invested is decided by computerized
54:28algorithms.
54:30Physical work is automatized and
54:34improved through self-learning
54:36computers. What to produce is decided by
54:39digital machines which follow market
54:42trends. Publicity is done through
54:44computerized advertising and so on. In
54:48this vision, even if humans disappear,
54:52the system will go on to reproduce
54:55itself.
54:57[snorts]
54:58My reaction, yes, this is a utopia. But
55:01as Saro Giri uh good Indian
55:08uh Buddhist Marxist as he demonstrated
55:12it is a utopia imminent to capitalism
55:16and Markx already
55:19articulated
55:21this vision.
55:23Markx saw how capitalism is sustained by
55:27a quote from Giri an ardent desire to
55:31detach the capacity of work from the
55:34worker. The desire is to ex extract and
55:37store the creative powers of labor power
55:41once and for all so that from then on
55:44value can be created freely in
55:47perpetuity. Think of it as a version of
55:50killing the goose who lays the golden
55:53eggs. You want to kill the goose and
55:55still have all the golden eggs forever.
55:58End of quote. In this vision, capitalist
56:02exploitation of labor would appear as
56:05the prehistory of the emergence of
56:08capital which will be now completely
56:11free of its dependence on labor. There
56:15are leftists or even in Slovenia there
56:18are some Haidagarians
56:21who
56:24like this solution. The idea is that
56:27once we get rid of the whole spir sphere
56:30of production a free space of inner
56:33peace and spiritual exploration opens
56:36up. The problem with this vision is how
56:39to prevent that this space of free
56:43spiritual exploration will not already
56:46be regulated and manipulated by
56:48artificial intelligence.
56:51So with today's
56:54[snorts]
56:55digitalization,
56:57a strictly homologous utopia is arising.
57:01That of a dead internet, a digital
57:04universe which functions without humans
57:07where data circulate exclusively among
57:10machines
57:11[snorts] which control the entire
57:13production process totally bypassing
57:17humans.
57:18This vision I think is also an [snorts]
57:22ideological
57:24fantasy although I find it very
57:27fascinating
57:28how [snorts]
57:30it is up to a point already a fact maybe
57:35uh what is the fact? Do you know that
57:38they already located empirically
57:41this paradox? They wanted to test an
57:45artificial intelligence agent how
57:49intelligent it is. Not [snorts]
57:51necessarily that you make the Turing
57:53test on it, you know, will it be but
57:56just how in
57:59the but the AI agent learned from all
58:03the data that humans will not like it
58:07will feel threatened if it appears too
58:11intelligent. So they already located AI
58:15agents which as they proved, you cannot
58:18say consciously but automatically
58:21whatever uh uh aimed at a lower result
58:25decided to appear more stupid.
58:29Uh so that
58:31humans will not experience them as a
58:34threat. And uh now [snorts]
58:36there is a wonderful uh uh paranoia
58:40vision that uh AI programs already
58:44communicate among themselves in a
58:47language that not only we don't
58:51understand but we don't even know that
58:54it uh exists.
58:58But I think that this vision is false.
59:02Why I'm coming to the conclusion.
59:06Remember the basic premise of the Matrix
59:10movie series. What we experience as the
59:14reality we live in is an artificial
59:17virtual a reality generated by the
59:21matrix the mega computer directly
59:24attached to all our minds. It is in
59:27place so that we can be effectively
59:29reduced to a passive state of living
59:34batteries providing the matrix with the
59:38energy. So when some of the people
59:40awaken from their immersion into the
59:44matrix controlled virtual reality, this
59:47awakening is not the opening into the
59:50wide space of external reality, but
59:54first the horrible realization of this
59:57enclosure. Remember the scene which is
1:00:00for me not enough exploited exploited in
1:00:03the matrix only in the first matrix. The
1:00:06most convenient were the guy played by
1:00:09Kan I forgot. He awakens and founds
1:00:12dozens of uh like maternal pod utteras
1:00:16and like fetus they're safely in them
1:00:20that they are
1:00:24effectively just fetus like organisms
1:00:27immersed into some kind of pre natal uh
1:00:32fluid. This utter passivity is I think
1:00:37now comes my weird reading of matrix
1:00:41[snorts] is not reality.
1:00:43The movies falls here. It is the
1:00:46foreclosed fantasy that sustains our
1:00:50conscious experience as active subjects.
1:00:53It is the ultimate perverse fantasy. The
1:00:56notion that we are ultimately
1:00:58instruments of the others matrixes json
1:01:03which sucks out of our
1:01:07we are
1:01:09the matrix sucks out of us our life
1:01:12substance we are used like batteries and
1:01:16[snorts] uh why songs because I think
1:01:19it's absolutely clear from the liidinal
1:01:22constip
1:01:24constellation of the movie matrix that
1:01:27why does it need us humans? Energy is
1:01:31stupid. Answer there are other ways to
1:01:34get much more energy. It is precisely
1:01:37what Lon called Juison excessive
1:01:41enjoyment. [snorts] This is how I think
1:01:44we should turn around the state of
1:01:46things presented in Matrix.
1:01:49What the film renders as the scene of
1:01:51our awakening into our true situation is
1:01:55effectively its exact opposite. The very
1:01:59fundamental fantasy that sustains our
1:02:01being.
1:02:03However, this fantasy is also imminent
1:02:06to any social system that tends to
1:02:09function as autonomous constraint into
1:02:12its self
1:02:14reproduction. So I think that if we
1:02:19humans who are in [snorts] this
1:02:21fettolike position, if we were to
1:02:23disappear, machines real and digital
1:02:26would also cease to function. What does
1:02:30this mean? Truly a concluding thought.
1:02:33[snorts] Uh Jeffrey Hinton, a Nobel
1:02:36Prize winning computer scientists
1:02:40has warned that artificial intelligence
1:02:43may wipe out humans. But he proposes a
1:02:47solution that echoes the situation in
1:02:50Matrix.
1:02:51He expressed doubts about how tech
1:02:55companies are trying to ensure humans
1:02:58will remain dominant over artificial
1:03:01intelligence systems. Here is a quote.
1:03:05[snorts]
1:03:07In the future, artificial intelligence
1:03:10system might be able to control humans
1:03:13just as easily as an adult can bribe
1:03:17three-year-old boy with candy. this year
1:03:21has already seen examples of artificial
1:03:23int system willing to deceive cheat and
1:03:27steal and so on and so on. So Hinton's
1:03:32solution is what? Not trying to control,
1:03:36we cannot, but to use the present moment
1:03:40when maybe we still can influence
1:03:44artificial intelligence system
1:03:47so that we implant build into artificial
1:03:52intelligence models what he calls
1:03:55maternal instincts. so that they will
1:03:59care about people even once technology
1:04:02will become more powerful and smarter
1:04:06than humans.
1:04:09I mean what shocked me is that what he
1:04:14basically presupposes is that [snorts]
1:04:17artificial intelligence should become
1:04:21more precisely like the situation in
1:04:25matrix.
1:04:27uh providing us with uh uh providing us
1:04:31with uh kind of a maternal super ego
1:04:35where we can safely reproduce itself and
1:04:39manipulate our lives so that we will
1:04:42heal feel happy and satisfied as far as
1:04:47possible. [snorts] Now just three
1:04:50minutes more. My first conclusion
1:04:55is that
1:04:56>> [snorts]
1:04:56>> uh this vision of artificial
1:05:00intelligence as a virus and so on is
1:05:03already more and more becoming a
1:05:07reality. If you read [snorts] not
1:05:11reality in
1:05:13brutal raw sense but the fantasy which
1:05:17structures our artificial intelligence
1:05:19reality [snorts] just read authors that
1:05:22I mentioned like Peter Thiel or uh and
1:05:28Peter Thiel is for me a wonderful
1:05:30example of how progressive theory
1:05:34so-called what was once called
1:05:35progressive theory can be used precisely
1:05:38by libertarian neo fascists. You know
1:05:42who was the godfather but he was
1:05:45horrified by Peter Thiel of Peter Thiel
1:05:48Reneir
1:05:49and you know that Gay Vance was forced
1:05:52by Peter Thiel to study with Rene Jer
1:05:57and their vision is if you want to see
1:06:00the horror of where we are read it was
1:06:06published by card this 22 points
1:06:08resumeumé of palunteer ideology ology
1:06:12where they openly say that this apparent
1:06:16contradiction. On the one hand,
1:06:18artificial intelligence should be
1:06:20developed in total freedom outside of
1:06:23any state control, but at the same time,
1:06:26it should fully
1:06:29submit itself to the military demands
1:06:32and totally controlling us and so on and
1:06:36so on.
1:06:37uh so what are the conclusions to be
1:06:41drawn from this very briefly first and
1:06:46this is what I got from different
1:06:48readings especially Alena and so on that
1:06:52the common sense solution or formula
1:06:55would be this one my god if we are
1:06:58totally immersed into what is now called
1:07:03uh uh nea link and it's already mass
1:07:06produced by uh by uh by uh Elon Musk and
1:07:12by the Chinese
1:07:15that a direct guarantee it's not yet
1:07:17fully developed but you can directly
1:07:20make your thoughts readable to the
1:07:23digital space and of course in this way
1:07:26the one who controls the digital space
1:07:28can literally uh control your mind. The
1:07:32idea is this one. Once this happens, we
1:07:36will no longer feel immediate uh uh
1:07:39sentiments, desire. We will no longer be
1:07:41human, but maybe we will survive as some
1:07:45kind of empty subjects. My conclusion is
1:07:49the exact opposite.
1:07:52There will be no problem for us to feel
1:07:54emotions, fears, and so on. Because
1:07:58that's my point of using the term
1:08:00elaborated by Alen and Laden disaval you
1:08:03know it like you may know for example
1:08:07you make a confession to a ch GPT you
1:08:10may know it's all manipulated but it can
1:08:13still be indistinguishable from an
1:08:16authentic religious experience.
1:08:20So [snorts]
1:08:21my point and this is a nice paradox is
1:08:24that what at least the way it looks now
1:08:27what escapes to artificial intelligence
1:08:32is not the wealth of empirical exper
1:08:36experience you know like oh my god it's
1:08:38just a formal procedure what about all
1:08:41our feelings no it can easily do with
1:08:45that what escapes artificial
1:08:48intelligence is this purely only formal
1:08:52twist that defines subjectivity
1:08:55subject. When I say when we say
1:08:58artificial intelligence cannot grasp
1:09:02subject, it doesn't mean uh I'm safe in
1:09:05my inner life. No, it means that this
1:09:08gap reflexive gap the different levels
1:09:12which define symbolic order proper this
1:09:16is what is eluding artificial
1:09:19intelligence. The last point uh and it's
1:09:23my favorite maybe you know it [snorts]
1:09:26uh how does artificial intelligence
1:09:30address us
1:09:33like a dog I say it addresses us with a
1:09:37it wants but not in a pathetic way to
1:09:40make us like docks no unconscious
1:09:45uh uh but super ego and what kind of
1:09:49super ego
1:09:50Remember that for lacon
1:09:53super ego is not uh this terrorizing
1:09:57moral agency you know you must suffer
1:10:00renounce enjoyment and so on. No, super
1:10:03ego is for lang called to call in
1:10:07injunction to enjoy to enjoy excessively
1:10:11and
1:10:12that's the big joke that I want to
1:10:16finish [snorts] with. Uh maybe you know
1:10:19it I used it in some texts already. I
1:10:22think Trump is a complete idiot but
1:10:24sometimes comes close to a genius. Here
1:10:27is one quote. when uh uh [snorts] at the
1:10:31beginning of Iran war when uh here here
1:10:35is how Trump commented on it.
1:10:41Just listen. Quote from Trump literally.
1:10:44Our country is, this was after the first
1:10:47def facto defeats from Iran. Our country
1:10:51is winning again. In fact, we are
1:10:53winning so much that we really don't
1:10:56know what to do about it. People are
1:10:58asking me, please, please, please, Mr.
1:11:01President, we are winning too much. We
1:11:03can't take it anymore.
1:11:06But we are winning too much. And I say,
1:11:09"No, no, no. You are going to win again.
1:11:12You are going to win big. You are going
1:11:15to win bigger than ever." You, Russell,
1:11:20in a nice text. I admit I got arrived at
1:11:25this reference through a text of yours
1:11:27[snorts]
1:11:28refer to this by reading the message as
1:11:33don't be ashamed of winning too much.
1:11:36You must enjoy the pain of winning
1:11:38beyond the pleasure principle. [snorts]
1:11:42And uh this is what distinguishes and
1:11:45this is the horror to me Trump from the
1:11:49traditional authoritarian leader. A
1:11:52traditional leader does rhetorically the
1:11:56exact opposite. It says enough of
1:11:59decadent pleasure, sacrifice yourself
1:12:02and so on. But Trump is more correct. In
1:12:06every call to sacrifice, there is a
1:12:10hidden enjoyment. And I didn't want to
1:12:15talk too much. If there were to be a
1:12:19video clip that I wanted to show you
1:12:22would be the famous, you remember in 43
1:12:26Berlin sport after the Stalingrad
1:12:29defeat, Gable's speech. It's I claim
1:12:34super ego at its purest. The message is
1:12:37horrible. Gables shouts at the crowd. Do
1:12:42you want a total war? Yes, they shout.
1:12:45He shouts, "Do you want a war so
1:12:49terrible that you cannot even imagine
1:12:51it?"
1:12:53Yes, they shout. Do you want to work 13,
1:12:5614, even more? Not what? Yes, it's
1:13:00absolutely clear that from the facial
1:13:03expressions and so on that
1:13:06what gables call sacrifice means
1:13:11excessive [snorts]
1:13:13enjoyment and I think that this is how
1:13:18artificial intelligence machine is
1:13:21experienced as a maternal super ego
1:13:25which addresses us with an injunction to
1:13:28enjoy. And we obey it in the precise
1:13:31Trumpian way. When you browse the web,
1:13:34you never get enough. You always want
1:13:36more. You go to next site, ask more
1:13:39questions and so on and so on. And
1:13:42[snorts]
1:13:43okay, I will just finish with a social
1:13:46point
1:13:48that the things are no longer dreams.
1:13:53Now this this is the key for us today.
1:13:56That's why I talk about libertarian
1:13:58fascism. Total freedom for those who
1:14:02control the matrix. You find this in
1:14:05Elon Musk, in Peter Till. That's why
1:14:08they already plan to move the production
1:14:12of
1:14:14digital machines programs to outer space
1:14:18first to satellites then to moon so that
1:14:21it will be totally out of control. This
1:14:26is the social reality of the maternal
1:14:30maternal super ego. So to get out of
1:14:34this it's not enough just to have uh
1:14:39some kind of
1:14:41inner distance and so on. Social change
1:14:44is needed and referring to you Dominic I
1:14:48would like to conclude with some nice
1:14:51passage theological that I found. I was
1:14:55studying uh how in the original Bible
1:15:01how Satan and
1:15:04Holy Ghost are defined. You know that
1:15:08the word Satan in ancient Hebrew,
1:15:11correct me if I'm wrong, means advocate,
1:15:15prosecutor. It means somebody who
1:15:18prosecutes you, attack you, even maybe
1:15:21cheating a little bit like to make
1:15:23things look bad as you as possible. And
1:15:26you know that pane or whatever the other
1:15:29it has other meanings. The word for holy
1:15:32spirit
1:15:34in everyday use at that time means
1:15:38advocate. Not they didn't have it legal
1:15:41men means the one who tries to help you
1:15:44against Satan by giving you proper
1:15:48advices. The horror of
1:15:53no wonder that
1:15:55people like Peter Thiel and so on they
1:15:58are all obsessed by Christianity. Peter
1:16:01deal attacks us people who believe in uh
1:16:06ecological threat artificial
1:16:08intelligence not threat but we don't
1:16:10know what and war danger he says this is
1:16:14antichrist today no I think it's clearly
1:16:18that he is the antichrist what he wants
1:16:22to do is precisely
1:16:25satanize the holy spirit and the whole
1:16:29point is to in this is for me admittedly
1:16:33this is a nice ideological conclusion.
1:16:36The task is to keep apart these two
1:16:40dimensions. No, maybe there are but I
1:16:44doubt some vague references uh
1:16:47possibilities to read uh ancient
1:16:51testament God as Satan in this sense of
1:16:54severe judge and so on. But uh uh today
1:17:02Satan is artificial intelligence
1:17:06and artificial intelligence
1:17:09at least we have to separate in it the
1:17:12aspect of Satan for the aspect of holy
1:17:16spirit because only a new you know I'm
1:17:20an old communist Christian for me holy
1:17:24spirit is as you know the first name of
1:17:27the communist party you know like
1:17:30egalitarian community and so on and I
1:17:33think that today when we are
1:17:36interrelated as individuals where
1:17:38society is falling apart and when
1:17:42although it's the strongest social link
1:17:44artificial intelligence is precisely
1:17:48contributing to this falling apart of
1:17:51the social space the fighting for A new
1:17:56dimension of Holy Spirit is not just a
1:18:01aological matter. It's the main
1:18:04political task at this moment. I'm sorry
1:18:07that I was too long. I'm old tired. But
1:18:11uh I hope I hope you know I have only
1:18:14two wishes now. One I want to uh die
1:18:18like Hannah Arent.
1:18:20You know how she died? Richard
1:18:22Bernstein, the new school professor,
1:18:24told me he was there. She invited guests
1:18:27to her home. They talked. She was at the
1:18:31photo and she said, "I will just fall
1:18:33asleep a little bit." Then she awakened.
1:18:36They talked more. Then she said, "I'm
1:18:38tired. I will fall a little bit." She
1:18:40awakened again. And the third time she
1:18:42fell asleep and didn't awaken. My god, I
1:18:46would like to
1:18:48die like this. Thank you very much.
1:18:51[applause]

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Slavoj Žižek: Should We Grasp AI Not Only as Substance But Also as Subject? - May 22, 2026 by Dominik Finkelde - Hochschule f. Philosophie, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 8,950 words across 1,452 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.