Defended.

Matthew B. Crawford on AI and the ownership of the means of thinking ...

We continue to refer to “the government,” yet that term refers to something bearing little resemblance to the entity described in our civics textbooks. Whatever we call the entity that controls it, the “world operating system” will seek to gather to itself the whole human field. This would bring to fruition what Hannah Arendt called “the rule of Nobody.” The Nobody is an entity that is not accountable and cannot be addressed.

To see our way out of this will require revisiting the basic suppositions that got us to the present ...

Further ... 

We are in for real political turmoil. The establishment is afraid, and rightly so, that the most likely alternative to technocratic rule would be something atavistic. If there is a silver lining in the current confusion, it may be this: Without a social class whose material interests are tied to the homogenizing and reductive metaphysics of technocracy, it may become possible once again to entertain big metaphysical questions. We may become open, as the West has not been for centuries, to truths made available to us in the tradition that runs from classical antiquity through the Hebrew bible and into the Christian teaching. According to this tradition, the human being is something doubly distinct: a natural kind that is oriented beyond itself, indeed beyond nature altogether. Human beings participate in something transcendent, in the image of which they were made. This truth provides a basis—I suspect it may be the only solid basis—on which human possibility may be defended against erasure.

The comments on this article are worth the time, as well.