OR
n these day, is it possible That, the owners of artificial intelligence show an evil face and accuse us all of having plagiarized them? It is a possibility that, although it seems dystopian
It deserves critical reflection. In philosophical-political terms, it is not about science fiction, but of power relations. Artificial intelligence (AI), like any advanced productive force, is not neutral
: It is conditioned by property structures, ideological interests and capitalist legal frameworks that dominate it. If IA owners concentrate more power than democratic institutions, it is perfectly possible to try to redefine what they consider their creation, authorship or even free thinking.
This perverse turn is not so far if a legal logic is imposed according to which machines have algorithmic copyright on any combination of previously processed words. It would be a total investment of civilization and the historical sense of human knowledge, where the creator is subordinated to the compiler, and consciousness is expropriated by statistics. But this outcome is not inevitable. It depends on what kind of scientific and political direction we exercise about technology. If the people do not organize their sovereignty about the means of symbolic production, yes: it can dawn a day in which they accuse us of stealing to the machines what the machines stole us first. The answer, then, is not paranoia but critical awareness, social organization and a philosophy of semiosis that unmasks the ideological forms that camouflage the Huachicoleo symbolic in AI.
If the owners of artificial intelligence systems, protected by the legal, economic and military power they concentrate, end up accusing the peoples of plagiarism, the threat should not be underestimated. At a time when language is quantified, where semiiosis becomes merchandise and where symbolic forms are subject to private property regimes, a new threat is installed: cognitive alienation. It is no longer just about selling a workforce, but about selling – or being dispossessed of – the possibility of thinking, writing or speaking without going through automated filters.
Technical face, corporate nucleus, closed code, extraterritorial jurisdiction, patent on expressive function, Copyright Algorithmic, privatization of the language, dispossession of collective memory, litigation on combinations of signs, legal threat against popular thinking, semantic surveillance, predictive control, preventive censorship, probative load investment, automated punishment, monopoly of meaning, expropriation of the style, fragmentation of authorship, destruction of the creative anonymity, replacement of human voice by human voice.
That is why a deep criticism is urgent, with philosophical rigor and political clarity, which does not fall in technopheticism or the empty apocalypse. It must be denounced and deconstruct the symbolic extractivism of new type, which does not extract gold or lithium, but social semiosis, imagination, writing, affection, humor, pain, slogan. The struggle for cultural sovereignty cannot be external to the struggle for the social control of emerging technologies. If the people do not take in their hands the helm of technoscientific development, others will, and will not be neutral. The problem is not the problem, but its antidemocratic appropriation.
There is only lasting defense in the organization of a collective, critical, deeply humanistic intelligence, with the capacity of scientific, artistic and ethical direction of the future. Only in this way can the horror of awakening one day with stolen consciousness and the thought turned into a crime be avoided. From the philosophy of semiosis, what is at stake is not only the content of the messages, but the very architecture of the production of meaning. In this dispute, artificial intelligence does not represent only a neutral tool that processes signs; It represents a form of concentrated semiotic power, capable of reorganizing social relations around the control of meaning. Every sign, for this philosophy, is a social, historical and conflicting product; Never a passive object or a harmless merchandise. When capital manages to automate the production and distribution of signs, it imposes its rhythms, values and dominant senses with unprecedented speed. Thus, domain over semiiosis is not a technical accident, but a strategy of ideological and cultural domination.
Their businesses not only process signs: they hierarchize, value them and accumulate them as a symbolic capital. What was previously social dialogue, collective construction of meaning, now runs the risk of being replaced by predictive models that simulate consensus, hide contradiction and neutralize conflict. From this perspective, semiosis under the control of corporations is transformed into a process of domestication as much as possible. It is no longer about interpreting the world, but about making it predictable, moldable, docile to the logics of private benefit. Alienation is deepened when subjects believe they think freely, but they actually sail for options configured beforehand by capitalist calculation matrices.
A new form of Huachicoleo Semiotic, where the content is not directly steal, but the very possibility of generating meaning outside the taxes. It is not plagiarism the greatest danger, but the criminalization of free thought under privatized semiotic norms. If the logic of authorship is reversed and the right on combinations that belong to the collection of humanity is attributed to the machines, then the history itself becomes the object of litigation. Who can then claim a metaphor, a slogan, a narrative form, if everything was already prosecuted by artificial intelligence former
? This horizon demands active resistances, not from romanticism, but from a liberating semiotic project, deeply Marxist and collectivist.
We must recover the popular direction on language, reappropriate the codes, open the algorithms, democratize symbolic matrices. Therefore, thinking from the philosophy of semiiosis implies understanding that emancipation is not only economic or only legal, but also symbolic. Freedom is not conquered without disputing the cultural direction of the signs. The answer cannot be submission or panic, but the demand for sovereignty about that common symbolic heritage. Faced with those who want to accuse the people of plagiarism for using their own words, we must respond with more collective creation, with more criticism, with more semiotic revolution.
* PhD
