Vladimir Putin has signed a decree establishing a commission on the development of artificial intelligence (AI). The commission will operate under the President of Russia. Yet the issue of AI is not merely—or even primarily—a technical matter. It is a philosophical and conceptual problem. It calls into question rationality itself, the very human capacity for thought.

Because we are the species Homo sapiens—the rational being—this development calls into question humanity as such. Accordingly, in my view, if a commission on AI development is to be created (and it has now been created at the highest level), it must include a philosophical dimension.

What is referred to as AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) or the so-called technological singularity is, broadly speaking, a prospect of the very near future. It implies the replacement of humanity as such by artificial intelligence. This is a subject that demands extremely serious reflection, and technological development in this field cannot proceed in complete isolation from its philosophical implications.

Dmitry Grigorenko and Maksim Oreshkin, who have been appointed to head the newly formed Commission on Artificial Intelligence Technologies—along with the other talented and effective technocratic administrators who serve on it—are not philosophers (with the exception of Defense Minister Andrey Belousov). Yet in my view, the commission must include a philosophical component, because without it any action in this sphere becomes extraordinarily dangerous.

Today, transforming artificial intelligence into a domain of top-level global competition is at least as important as nuclear weapons—perhaps even more so.

Of course, a sovereign civilization-state such as Russia must develop its own sovereign technologies in this sphere. Yet even here—at the level of sovereign AI—the civilizational and philosophical dimension reappears.

The subject of artificial intelligence is, first and foremost, philosophical. Adapting AI to a sovereign civilization-state—to Russia—requires an additional philosophical effort. Yet we often display a pathological disregard for thought. When we rush towards purely technical solutions, we gradually begin to fall behind even there, because technology is nourished by science, and science in turn is nourished by philosophy.

Let me emphasize: thought, theoretical vision, and answers to the most pressing questions—questions that properly belong to philosophy—are what inspire and propel science forward, and science in turn determines technological decisions. Philosophy cannot be replaced by science, nor science by technology. This proper hierarchy must be established at every level of state governance, especially in matters as inherently philosophical as intelligence itself.

How can we speak of intelligence—artificial or natural—when “thinking about thinking” is precisely what philosophy is? Aristotle defined philosophy in exactly these terms: it is that which thinks about thinking, about how we think. The philosophical dimension is therefore indispensable. Yet today it is almost entirely absent from our society. Within our social, technological, and administrative systems, the philosophical dimension is missing. This is deeply regrettable.

For example, Aleksey Chadayev¹ today proposes a number of insightful and well-conceived philosophical frameworks for logistics, including trade. Philosophy can certainly be applied there as well. Even more so in spheres that are philosophical by nature—worldview, geopolitics, civilization, sovereignty in its deepest foundations, strategies for the future, and, of course, high technology and artificial intelligence.

In my view, the neglect of philosophy in our society has now reached a critical stage. This cannot continue. Nothing functions properly in this direction because many people assume philosophy is entirely unnecessary. In reality, it is the one thing we truly need at this moment. And not only we.

1. Aleksei Chadaev is a Russian political strategist and public intellectual known for his work on state governance, ideology, and civilizational sovereignty.

Source