We criticize tech giants while using their services daily. This contradiction reveals our ambiguous relationship with technologies and calls for rethinking our political engagement.
It has become conventional to rail against major industrialists, systematically portrayed as allies of the Trumpist far right. Yet these same actors were just yesterday supporting the Biden administration and actively participating in widespread censorship, contributing to the suppression of freedom of thought on social networks during the Covid period.
In reality, they are merely opportunistic merchants, aligning themselves with those in power to guarantee their shareholders the expected dividends. We criticize these industrialists with disconcerting intellectual ease, while daily resorting to ChatGPT to optimize our productivity. This contradiction is inevitable: refusing these tools would mean condemning ourselves to a loss of efficiency compared to those who adopt them.
This cognitive dissonance questions me: we denounce and rebel, while remaining the primary consumers of these services that simplify our existence. I believe we need more nuance in our reflection.
Blind adherence to technologies is very naive, as they emerge in political contexts that they transform in return. But systematic opposition proves equally naive, even more pernicious. It claims to embody enlightened virtue and lucid consciousness, but is rooted in hypocrisy: militant discourses radically contradict daily practices. Individuals caught in this contradiction elaborate justifications that allow them to live with this incoherence. We thus witness a simulacrum of engagement that mistakes itself for authentic political action.
True political engagement would not consist in despising those who transform our existences, but rather in deepening our understanding of these technologies and their real implications, rather than believing that our postures could produce changes. It would involve working, in our personal and collective spheres, to develop alternatives in our digital practices, to reduce our dependence on industrial giants. This emancipation remains perfectly accessible, but it requires sustained intellectual effort and sincere commitment to public service and the common good.
This demands effort, continuous learning, but that is precisely where authentic political engagement lies, not in grandiloquent and hypocritical speeches. True engagement does not consist in vilifying today those we may praise tomorrow, nor in glorifying those we will later condemn, based on superficial and contradictory information. It is rather about learning, understanding, acting concretely, transforming our habits and informing ourselves rigorously.
It is indeed about deconstructing our representations, through our actions, to build our freedom. This may seem obvious, but in my view it is of great importance. Let us strive to deconstruct our prejudices and representations concerning technologies, as we do for systems of domination, whether hierarchical, financial, sexist or patriarchal. Everything is interconnected. Let us guard against believing that we hold the truth or that we embody the side of good, just because we criticize without knowing.
We belong simultaneously to both camps. Let us nevertheless progress in our awareness and understanding. This is, it seems to me, the price of our future freedom and that of our loved ones. This is what I mean by authentic engagement for the common good, at a time when Artificial Intelligence technologies are inducing anthropological mutations of unprecedented speed and depth.
Artificial intelligence has emancipated itself from research laboratories and works of science fiction thanks to the public launch in November 2022 of the conversational robot ChatGPT, which was very quickly appropriated by an immense number of people internationally, in professional, educational and even private contexts. The fact that artificial intelligence has now been identified by the human community as part of everyday life finally opens the door to critical awareness on this subject.
Of course, artificial intelligence concerns industry, work, creation, copyright... and we need to anticipate its future productive uses, in order to stay “up to date”. But to accompany our lives as they integrate this new facet, it seems to me essential to produce a critical thought, i.e. to put ourselves in a position to reflect on what is happening to us, what is changing us, to remain lucid and capable of freedom of thought and action.
What is “critical thinking”? It means questioning, from the outside, practices that have been internalized. To do this, I believe that experimentation, cultural action, play and hijacking are highly effective tools for research, exploration, dissemination and reflection. For me, research is collaborative, and intelligence is collective and creative. This requires good methods of cooperation, between human beings and with machines. Here, I bring together stories of experience, methodological texts and practical ideas. I share concrete ways in which artificial intelligence, like any other tool, can be invested in the service of humanism.
Here are a few openings for critical thinking on AI, in the form of questions: