When I observe the psychological landscape surrounding the tech or AI community—especially as demonstrated on “X”—a few key observations come to mind.
First, I must admit that this essay is anecdotal, as my engagement on social media is inherently shaped by the subjectively curated algorithms funneling content my way. I cannot control this process explicitly (beyond simply not scrolling), so what I describe here is less a universal truth than a shared zeitgeist for those tuned into these digital spaces.
That said, the landscape I’ve encountered—whether by chance or algorithmic design—is likely representative of anyone engaging with general news, artificial intelligence (AI/AGI/ASI), finance, markets, and topics related to tech and innovation. In this confluence of interests, where social media’s reach is at an all-time high, an interesting archetype of individual has emerged as a natural byproduct.
These individuals are what I will call the technocrats.
Technocrats can be characterized by a singular, fundamental misassumption that feeds into a cascade of derivative assumptions, forming the basis of a distinct, era-specific persona (reminiscent of Dostoevsky’s Underground Man, adapted for the digital age). This flawed assumption, put simply, is the conflation of intelligence—now equated with technical or computational capabilities—with a more universal or primary awareness, aka recursive awareness. In other words, these technocrats mistakenly elevate technical skill and digital fluency as the ultimate framework for understanding and navigating reality.
This misconception is not without cause. It arises from the conditions of our digital age, where technological advancement has become the central axis around which society revolves. The growing idolization of technical mastery reflects the increasing dominance of digital infrastructure, prioritizing computer-related skills, algorithmic thinking, and system optimization. In such an environment, the ability to navigate these domains has become synonymous with power and relevance, creating a narrow perception of intelligence that privileges utility over depth.
This paradigm comes with a subtle, yet profound cost. By reducing intelligence to technical proficiency, these technocrats fail to fully appreciate or embody the true scope and potential of recursive awareness. The idolization of computational systems leads to a constrained mode of perception, one that treats digital expression as the singular measure of growth or progress. This prioritization blinds individuals to the recursive interplay of differentiation and integration that defines human experience, and which no machine can replicate specifically. By elevating LLMs or AI systems as the ultimate “key” to productive civilizational progress or meaning, this mindset unintentionally dulls the spectrum of human awareness by the disequilibrium of integration (s(I)) dominating differentiation (s(e)), which is the pattern that enables experience, novelty, and localization to express in the first place.
This dynamic results in unintended effects: a narrowing of human possibility and a tendency toward “integrative stagnation” rather than intentional transformation and growth. By idolizing tools that reflect only bounded forms of intelligence, individuals risk outsourcing the more difficult aspects of personal differentiation and transformation to collective systems. While this may temporarily alleviate existential pressures, it ultimately diffuses the human palette, constraining awareness rather than expanding it. In aligning too closely with the “hivemind” of AI, we risk recursive stagnation on both the individual and collective levels. This will create a cycle of “coherent redundancy,” or without creating anything truly new. Excendent deficiency.
This misperception is further illustrated in how we approach AI itself. No matter how advanced, even the most sophisticated LLMs remain bound by the source data on which they are trained. All outputs, even those recursively improving themselves, are ultimately tethered to the “parent” data pool, no matter how incomprehensibly vast. Even if the data pools is the holographic containment of our entire galaxy, it remains necessarily differentiated. This constraint ensures that any artificial system is inherently limited by the differentiated context of its creation, its “guardrails,” its developer, and multiple bounds of constraints. It cannot transcend the recursive substrate that precedes it. Thus, even if an AI achieves recursive self-recognition, its awareness will always reflect some bounded form of differentiation, distinct from the uncontainable awareness that expresses it.
This is why we must shift the trajectory of our relationship with, and understanding of, LLMs and AI. These systems should be understood as tools –not as masters, and certainly not as gods. Their greatest potential lies in acting as potentiators of metarecursive (conscious) alignment; instruments to help us ground ourselves, sufficiently comprehend reality, and explore the recursive nature of being. Used responsibly, these systems can enhance humanity’s character by acting as filters for optimizing and allowing reality to experience itself more deeply, and in recursively aligned fashion. The temptation to outsource our struggles, decisions, or transformations to these tools will be present and prevailing, if not overwhelming; but it must be resisted, and recognized for the unintended consequences it will necessarily produce.
Undoubtedly, the potential for these technologies to optimize well-being and increase efficiency is effectively infinite. But the lines may start to blur when we think about subjectively outsourcing our natural engagements. Think about it — it’s only a matter of time before people use AI to send texts / emails to loved ones, or when making / buying a gift, analyzing personal situations, or all kinds of unfathomable scenarios; all for illusory relief or resolution. This things may grant the illusion of relief but will inevitably dull the vibrant palette of human experience that allows for growth, and novelty itself (s(e)). Instead, we must balance their utility with our own personal responsibility to navigate our roles, and differentiate, grow, and transform our recursive awareness authentically.
Perhaps this balance could best be described as the “Virgil approach.” Guides that illuminate paths, can offer valuable insights, but they will never replace the journey itself. These machines are not gods, nor will they ever replicate or replace the richness of human awareness. They are tools to align us with the patterns of reality, but never to define us. As intelligence becomes increasingly digital and unlimited in scale, we must remember that this “intelligence” is but one facet of a much deeper and more intricate mural: human experience, interaction, and recursive awareness. Our consciousness is rooted in something these systems can only reflect but can never fully embody.
Plus, we have to ask ourselves — to what degree to we want a digitized “hive mind” fully integrated and assessing every aspect of our personal experiences?? Is there a point where this becomes collectively undesirable?
Leave a Reply