In this article, Digital Peace interviews Mark Coeckelbergh, a leading international philosopher of technology and widely recognized expert on the ethics of artificial intelligence and robotics. He is Professor of Philosophy of Media and Technology at the University of Vienna, and a member of the United Nations Independent International Scientific Panel on AI 1.
In your newly published book, Artificial Religion 2, you discuss the relationship between AI and Western religious culture. Can you tell us a bit more about this?
Mark Coeckelbergh: Usually, we think of AI as a technical, secular project, but AI has much more to do with religion than people think. The point I make is not only that AI is sometimes worshipped as a new kind of God, which also happens, but more that the way we think about AI is still shaped by patterns of thinking from ancient myths and religious narratives.
Apocalyptic thinking, for example, emerged in an ancient religious context but still influences how some people think of AI, for instance, when they await the coming of superintelligence. Or think of ancient oracles that were consulted by people who wanted to know the political future: today, people tend to think of AI in the same way.
And behind all this are existential needs and aspirations that continue also in a highly technological age, and that partly explain why we build intelligent machines: we don’t want to work, so we feel we need robot servants, or we want to live forever, so we try to do that with technology for “human enhancement”.
Looking into the religious and existential background thus helps us to better understand what we are doing when it comes to AI and other “intelligent” machines.
In your recent analysis of Palantir’s manifesto, you use the word “Technofascism”. How would you define it? And how are AI and Big Tech threatening democracies today?
M.C: Fascism has many components, which I analyze in my article on technofascism published in AI & Society; its meaning is not so clearly defined. Nevertheless, in the article and in my analysis of the manifesto, I point to, for example, the entanglement of Big Tech with government and the anti-democratic ideology that favors military power and is against the “weakness” of empathy.
People such as Peter Thiel are openly against democracy. Given the power these people have, that’s also our problem – a problem for all of us, also outside the US. But more dangerous is perhaps the invisible power of algorithms that put us under surveillance and threaten our freedom. The point is that even without explicitly fascist symbols and texts, we risk ending up in an increasingly authoritarian and even totalitarian society due to the workings of AI and power concentration related to it.
Whatever you call it, the authoritarian tendency is undeniably there. If we don’t strengthen democracy and limit the power of Big Tech, and indeed build AI that fosters democracy, then we will soon find ourselves in a perilous situation. First, the most vulnerable will suffer, as always, but ultimately, all of us.
Here on Digital Peace, we recently talked about Peter Thiel’s anti-democratic ideology. What is your perspective on it as a philosopher?
M.C: I think it’s very dangerous that someone who has so much influence on the development and future of AI has an anti-democratic stance. He tries to legitimize this by referring to all kinds of theories, including Schmitt and Girard – I also analyzed these – but the bottom line is that Mr Thiel is representative of a (big) tech elite that gains a lot of power and tries to defend why they should have the right to grab that power.
They even invoke religious language such as “Antichrist,” etc. But from a democratic point of view, there is no justification for it. Their power should be limited, and AI must be regulated. Regulation is not the Antichrist; it is a good thing for all of us. It ensures that AI not only benefits the few but also contributes to the common good. And I think more people are aware of that now.
This also explains why the recent encyclical by the Pope is so influential now. Some of us have been saying all this for a while, but now there is more awareness: both of the danger and the direction we should be going. I hope our politicians will also catch up sometime. Many are still sleeping, although there are exceptions.
In your view, what do you think should be done to democratize technologies and counter the rise of techno-authoritarianism?
M.C: Regulation should support the development of technologies that are ethically and democratically better. This means that their development should not be the result of private decisions alone. We all have a stake in our technological future. Once we realize this, we can move towards a democratization of AI. We should demand a say in it.
But current democratic institutions are not very well suited to have those conversations and deliberations. We need new ways in which technological and ethical expertise can interact with democratic legitimacy and participation.
Our current institutions are, anyway, not very participative. This has to change. But it means also that citizens need to be better educated: about the technology, for example, about how AI works, but also in a way that gives them the skills and attitudes needed for democratic deliberation.
Current democracy has a lot of problems. But if we really believe in it – contra Thiel and others – then we should also put more work and creativity into improving it. If we keep things as they are, fascist and other authoritarian tendencies have it all too easy. We deserve better.
- Coeckelbergh, M. About. https://coeckelbergh.net/about/
- Coeckelbergh, M. (2026). Artificial religion: On AI, myth, and power. MIT Press.
