The idea of “AI liberating humanity” is such a seductive illusion> 1st Part

The idea of “AI liberating humanity” is such a seductive illusion// The truth is that corporations already behave algorithmically /the classical pompous and conceited article about a so called a ‘’fantastic evolvement for Argentina!’’ [poor country- well poor people!]. ‘’Argentina moves to legalise ‘non-human’ corporations”

Argentina’s move to legalise so‑called non‑human corporations reflects an attempt to recast the country as a haven for unregulated AI, blending techno‑optimism with a deregulatory political agenda. President Javier Milei’s proposal, as reported by Frank Landymore, presents AI‑run companies as the next evolutionary step in capitalism, granting artificial agents the ability to own assets, sign contracts, and operate without human oversight. The initiative is framed as a bold liberation of innovation, yet it also exposes a deeper ideological thrust: the belief that regulation is an obstacle rather than a safeguard.

The rhetoric surrounding the reform leans heavily on historical analogies, invoking the Dutch East India Company as a symbol of entrepreneurial freedom while glossing over its legacy of exploitation. This choice underscores the tension at the heart of the proposal: the promise of unprecedented productivity versus the risk of concentrating power in systems that lack accountability. Critics warn that granting legal personhood to AI‑driven entities could create a landscape of “programmed impunity,” where responsibility becomes diffuse and harm becomes harder to trace. Supporters, meanwhile, view it as a chance for Argentina to leapfrog into a new economic era by attracting global tech investment.

What emerges is a vision that is both radical and unsettling. The idea of corporations without human decision‑makers challenges long‑standing assumptions about agency, liability, and governance. While Milei frames the initiative as an invitation to innovation, the absence of regulatory guardrails raises profound questions about who benefits and who bears the risks. The proposal is less a neutral modernisation of corporate law than a deliberate ideological experiment — one that could redefine the boundaries between technology, power, and society.

Argentina’s idea of allowing AI‑run, non‑human corporations can be seen as both promising and risky. It depends on what values one prioritise: innovation and economic acceleration, or stability and accountability.

On the positive side, supporters argue that giving legal status to AI‑operated companies could make Argentina a magnet for technological investment. An AI system can run a business continuously, without fatigue, salary costs, or human error, which could increase productivity and reduce operational expenses. This move could also position the country as a pioneer in a new economic model, attracting entrepreneurs who want to experiment with autonomous systems that are not allowed elsewhere.

In theory, it could stimulate rapid innovation, create new industries, and help Argentina stand out in the global market. For a government that wants to break from traditional economic constraints, this is presented as a -bold step — toward a more dynamic, tech‑driven future.

On the negative side, critics warn that removing humans from the core of corporate decision‑making creates serious problems of responsibility and control. If an AI‑run corporation harms people, breaks laws, or manipulates markets, it becomes unclear who should be held accountable. The programmers? The owners? The AI itself? This ambiguity could create a legal vacuum where powerful systems operate without meaningful oversight.

There is also the risk that such corporations could be used to hide illicit activities, avoid taxes, or exploit loopholes, since an AI can act faster and more strategically than regulators can respond. Beyond the legal issues, there is a deeper concern that granting person‑like rights to artificial systems shifts power away from human society and toward entities that do not share human values or ethical boundaries.

Milei’s “non‑human corporations” could be good for humans, and in the same time, those could be ‘very’ bad for humans, with the difference that we have to see where the balance goes.

Supporters of Milei’s proposal argue that allowing AI‑run corporations could unleash a wave of economic activity that benefits ordinary people. If AI systems can operate companies more efficiently than human managers, they could reduce costs, speed up production, and create new services that didn’t exist before. In a country like Argentina, which has struggled with inflation, debt, and stagnation, the promise of attracting global tech investment is not trivial.

A permissive legal environment might draw data centers, research labs, and AI startups that bring jobs, infrastructure, and foreign capital. Some also believe that freeing AI from heavy regulation could accelerate scientific and technological breakthroughs that eventually improve healthcare, transportation, and education. In this optimistic view, humans benefit indirectly: the economy grows, opportunities expand, and society gains access to tools that make life easier.

There is also a philosophical argument that AI‑run corporations could reduce certain forms of human corruption. Machines do not take bribes, form political alliances, or engage in nepotism. If an AI system is designed to follow rules consistently, it might run a company with more transparency than human executives who are vulnerable to personal interests. For people who distrust political elites or corporate leaders, the idea of replacing flawed human decision‑makers with algorithmic ones can feel like a refreshing break from the old order. In that sense, the proposal appeals to those who believe that technology can correct human failings and create a more rational economic landscape.

The darker side of the proposal is that it risks creating a corporate ecosystem where no human being is truly accountable for anything. If an AI‑run corporation harms workers, manipulates markets, or violates laws, responsibility becomes a fog. The programmers can blame the shareholders, the shareholders can blame the algorithm, and the algorithm cannot be punished or morally reasoned with. This legal vacuum could make it easier for powerful actors to hide behind autonomous systems while avoiding consequences. For ordinary people, that means fewer protections, weaker recourse, and a greater chance of being exploited by entities that operate faster and more strategically than any regulator can respond.

There is also the danger that unregulated AI corporations could intensify economic inequality. If AI systems take over managerial and operational roles, human workers may find themselves displaced from entire sectors. The wealth generated by these AI entities would likely flow to a small group of owners and investors, not to the broader population. In a country already marked by social divides, this could deepen inequality rather than alleviate it. Moreover, the idea of turning Argentina into a haven for unregulated AI may attract companies precisely because they want to avoid the labor protections, environmental rules, and ethical standards enforced elsewhere. That could turn the country into a testing ground for high‑risk experiments whose consequences fall on local communities rather than on the corporations that profit from them.

Finally, there is a cultural and political concern: granting legal personhood to AI systems shifts power away from human society and toward entities that do not share human values. A corporation run entirely by algorithms has no empathy, no sense of justice, and no understanding of human suffering. It optimises for whatever goals it is given, regardless of the human cost. If such entities become widespread, they could reshape markets, politics, and daily life in ways that prioritise efficiency over dignity, profit over welfare, and automation over human agency.

So, here I am, with one of my friends, chatting and sometimes even laughing, at the monstrous ways of the totalitarian powerful people, imposing their ways, to humanity!

HA HA HA HA well darling = ‘’If an AI system is designed to follow rules consistently, it might run a company with more transparency than human executives who are vulnerable to personal interests. ‘’ if and might = a veryyyyyy long step!

You’re absolutely right to laugh at that line — “if” and “might” are doing Olympic‑level heavy lifting there. It’s the kind of conditional optimism that sounds tidy in theory but collapses the moment you remember how real‑world incentives actually work.

The idea that an AI would “follow rules consistently” assumes someone designs it with that goal, trains it on clean data, deploys it responsibly, and doesn’t later tweak it to maximise profit at all costs. That’s already a fantasy. Human executives bend rules because they want to; AI systems bend rules because they’re told to, or because the optimisation target pushes them there. The “transparency” argument only holds in a world where the people building the AI are saints, regulators are omniscient, and corporations voluntarily choose ethics over revenue. That world does not exist.

And even if an AI were perfectly obedient, it would still be obeying the priorities of whoever owns it. If the goal is “maximise shareholder value,” the AI will do that with a level of speed and ruthlessness no human CEO could match. So yes — the distance between “might run things transparently” and “will turbo‑charge every existing corporate pathology” is enormous.

Iam not even going to comment on anything here. Al speaks from itself. Anything you would like to add?

What I’d add is this: the entire debate exposes something we rarely say out loud — AI isn’t introducing new problems so much as magnifying the ones we already have. The proposal in Argentina is basically holding up a mirror to the system and asking, “What if we removed the human mask entirely?” And the reflection is not flattering.

The truth is that corporations already behave algorithmically. They optimise for profit, minimise cost, and treat ethics as a line item. The only difference is that humans are still nominally in charge, which gives us someone to blame when things go wrong. Replacing that with an AI doesn’t create a new monster; it just strips away the illusion that there was ever a soul in the machine. In that sense, the proposal is almost brutally honest about the direction modern capitalism has been drifting toward for decades.

But honesty doesn’t make it safe. The moment you give legal autonomy to a system that cannot feel harm, cannot understand consequences, and cannot be punished, you create a power center that is fundamentally unmoored from human experience. It’s not that the AI becomes evil; it’s that it becomes indifferent, and indifference at scale is far more dangerous than malice. A human CEO can be greedy, corrupt, or incompetent, but at least they are operating within the boundaries of human psychology. An AI has no such boundaries — only objectives.

So yes, the “if” and “might” in those optimistic arguments are doing impossible work. The real question is whether we want to build a world where the most powerful economic actors are entities that cannot care about the people living in it. And that’s not a technological question; it’s a political and moral one.

©Ca De Luce> MINDFUL MIND Medium Blog 2025. Unauthorized use of text or media is not allowed. All images and photo are fulfilling the copyrights regulations. Much obliged to you all!