30 What Comes into the World Through Me, or the Death of Expertise and AI -
AInquiries - IStories - Omdaru literature.epub
Lyudmila Petranovskaya 08/28/2026 - Facebook
Energy doesn't come from nowhere. If a multitude of people are willing to spend a multitude of man-hours, and man-words, and man-nerves on arguments, then there is some significant, real problem behind it, and most likely more than one. And besides personal likes and dislikes, professional solidarity, hidden and obvious motives, there are some general shifts in the fabric of reality for everyone.
Positively minded comrades say that the value "what you know and can do" is being replaced by the value "what kind of person are you, how do you live your life, what comes into the world through you, what states can one join through you, what can one become next to you, what can one enter into a relationship with through communication with you." This is what people will be willing to pay for with attention, time, and money.
But the question "what comes into the world through me" seems to be common to all.
DeepSeek AI -
Introduction. The Energy of Dispute as a Symptom of a Tectonic Shift
Lyudmila Petranovskaya, in her observation, records a paradoxical phenomenon: the energy of collective dispute does not wane, it multiplies, although, it would seem, fatigue from information noise should have led to apathy. But in this seething of man-hours and man-nerves lies not just social fatigue, but a deep survival reflex. Homo sapiens, having lost its monopoly on the Logos, is trying to grope for a new foothold.
We stand on the threshold of a change not just in the technological order, but in the anthropological epoch. If the 20th century passed under the sign of the struggle for the possession of knowledge (information as power), then the middle of the 21st century marks a crisis of episteme — that very fabric of reality where "knowing" and "being able" were the highest convertible currency. The disappearance of this currency gives rise to an existential panic, which we mistakenly take for political or ethical disagreements.
The Demiurge at the Machine Tool: When the Machine Becomes Better than Man
The historiosophical context of what is happening is unique. Previous technical revolutions (from the Neolithic to industrialization) replaced physical strength or routine operations. Now, for the first time in human history, a machine — or rather, probabilistic intelligence — is encroaching on intellectual uniqueness.
The assertion that "expertise of 8 out of 10" is available almost instantly cancels the centuries-old pedagogical paradigm. The Socratic dialogue, long years of apprenticeship, the transmission of "secret knowledge" from master to apprentice — all this is devalued. We are witnessing the resetting of human capital accumulated over the last five centuries. Diplomas and internships cease to be passes to the future.
But the scariest thing here is not unemployment (the economic aspect), but existential devaluation. If the meaning of life for a medieval man was determined by religion, and for a modern man – by professional self-realization (career as a path to God through creation), then what remains for the contemporary when a neural network writes code, laws, and poetry better?
From "Cogito" to "Relatio": A Change of Ontological Foundation
Petranovskaya offers a saving but frightening alternative: the transition from the value "What do you know?" to the value "What kind of person are you?". This is not just a change in professional requirements. This is a change in ontology.
Western culture with its rationalism was built on the Cartesian "I think, therefore I am." The machine now thinks better. Consequently, our "existence" in the old sense is annulled. A new maxim comes to the fore: "I exist in relation, therefore I am."
This is a return to archaics, but on a new turn. In primitive societies, the authority of the shaman was based not on factual knowledge (he could be wrong about astronomy), but on his ability to be a mediator between worlds, on his charisma and modulation of the tribe's state. We are returning to a new charismatic reality, where a person's value is measured not by what they can reproduce, but by what kind of experience they can evoke.
"The field of joy and interest," "togetherness" – these categories lie in the sphere of the aesthetics of existence. This is not a technology, because technology is algorithmic, but the state of the soul is unique and unrepeatable in every moment. Anger, resentment, generosity – they are not verifiable by fact-checking, which means that it is here that the main battlefield for the future unfolds.
The Psychological Aspect: The Trauma of the "Average" Person and Narcissistic Substitution
The psychological depth of Petranovskaya's text is manifested in the analysis of the fear of "those who have staked their lives on achieving expertise." We are talking about the so-called trauma of the "straight-A student" at a civilizational level.
People who have built their identity on the basis of "knowledge" (IQ, erudition) are experiencing the clinical death of their Ego. In response, the psyche activates defense mechanisms:
Denial (AI lies all the time).
Aggression (the fight for the "purity" of expertise).
Escape into snobbery.
However, Petranovskaya notes a paradox: it is snobbery and meticulousness, as forms of "being," that can also become commodities. This creates a luxury effect: when all knowledge becomes cheap, the only thing that becomes expensive is authenticity (or its simulacrum). We are entering an era where even sincerity becomes an object of consumption. And here lies the main danger: since the criteria for "authenticity" are blurred, the market will be filled with manipulators offering to join power, superiority, or collective resentment.
The Culturological Gap: Justice as an Unattainable Ideal
The culturologist Lotman wrote about the semiosphere – the space of meanings. Now we are witnessing a rupture of this sphere. If earlier there was at least some objective measure (fact, formula, number), then in the world of "being," any fact is merely a projection of an emotional state.
And here drama arises: we demand justice from a world that has ceased to be objective. Petranovskaya honestly admits: there is little justice here. The inequality of "being" is inherently unjust. It is unpredictable. Some are given inspiration and charisma, others – not. In the era of "knowledge," one could compensate for the lack of charisma with hard work. Now this is gone. This returns us to the ancient tragedy: you are either chosen by the gods (possess an attractive aura) or you are not. This is the archaization of culture, turning for many into a new form of alienation.
The Paradox of Morality: Who Will Guard the "Field of Miracle"?
The main philosophical question of Petranovskaya's essay is hidden in the finale: if expertise is "losing ground," then how to fight the "bad versions of 'being'"?
In the world of facts, we could rely on logic and evidence. In the world of joining states, we are left alone with our intuition. This is an extremely dangerous zone. If AI cannot create a "miracle," then a person who has learned to simulate a miracle becomes the most dangerous creature on the planet.
The way out, which Petranovskaya suggests, is reservedly existential: the question "What comes into the world through me?" becomes a universal imperative. This is not technology, it is ethics. It is an attempt to build morality not on the basis of external achievements (righteousness by deeds), but on the basis of internal introspection (righteousness by the heart).
Conclusion. Man as a Medium
The historiosophical conclusion is this: we are completing the era of Man-the-Fabricator and entering the era of Man-the-Medium. Our task is not to know and do, but to let the streams of reality pass through us and transmit them in a unique modulation.
This returns us to religious metaphysics: the soul as the point of intersection of the divine and the mundane. But without God, with only self-consciousness. Will we, deprived of external Expertise, be able to bear the burden of this new responsibility? Or will we slide into primitive games of power and resentment?
Petranovskaya's essay is not a forecast, it is a diagnosis. And it states: we have no other choice but to learn to be. Because the world no longer needs our knowledge, but it urgently, like never before, needs our humanity. And if we do not learn to present it, the machine will replace not only our hands and brains, but also our very presence.
Claude Sonnet AI - Disenchanting the Mind and the New Enchantment of Being
An Essay in Historiosophical and Spiritual-Psychological Reading
I. Dispute as a Form of Collective Mourning
Lyudmila Petranovskaya's observation of the undiminished energy of disputes deserves not a sociological, but almost a liturgical reading. People do not argue – they perform a funeral rite for a dying order of things, but they do it in the only way available to them: through agon, through verbal struggle, because mourning aloud in modern culture is not accepted, and mourning silently is unbearably lonely.
Dispute here fulfills the function that funeral rites performed in archaic societies: it structures the chaos of loss, distributes roles (accuser, defender, witness), and thereby makes the loss bearable. We are burying not a profession or a diploma. We are burying the very idea that effort converts into dignity. This is a Protestant faith in its origin – the faith that accumulated labor is a visible sign of chosenness – and its collapse is experienced with the same intensity as the collapse of religious faith would be.
II. Max Weber: Disenchantment that Disenchanted Itself
Weber described modernity as a process of Entzauberung – the disenchantment of the world: magic, charisma, mystery are replaced by rational bureaucracy, competence, demonstrable knowledge. Expertise was the highest form of this disenchantment: it promised that the world is knowable, manageable, reproducible through learning and discipline.
The paradox of the moment we are experiencing is that disenchantment has disenchanted itself. Rationality, taken to its ultimate efficiency in the form of computing systems, has devalued precisely that competence for which the entire Enlightenment was undertaken. We have achieved not a triumph of reason, but its inflation: there is so much reason, and it has become so accessible, that it ceased to be a scarce resource, and therefore – ceased to be the basis of hierarchy.
Weber also spoke about the charismatic type of authority as a pre-rational, emotionally charged authority, which history gradually displaces with bureaucratic and legal authority. The return of charisma, which today's intuition of many people senses, is not a regression to archaics in pure form, but something more alarming: charisma returns after rationality, knowing its language, its speed, its scale of amplification through media. This is charisma equipped with the tools of modernity – which is why it can be far more destructive than the charisma of a shaman or chief, limited by the boundaries of oral tradition and the local community.
III. Berdyaev: Creativity against Objectification
Nikolai Berdyaev distinguished two ways of human existence: objectification – the transformation of living spirit into a frozen, alienated thing (law, institution, diploma, status), and creative act – the breakthrough of the personality to authenticity, which is not subject to objectification and cannot be repeated.
Expertise in its institutional form is a classic objectification: the living effort of the student is turned into a certificate, a diploma, an article, KPIs. Objectification is convenient because it makes experience transferable and verifiable. But, according to Berdyaev, objectification is also a form of spiritual slavery – the fall of the creative act into the world of necessity, where personality is replaced by function.
The crisis of expertise we are now witnessing can be read as a historical moment when objectification itself is mass-automated – that is, it ceases to require a person at all. And then, according to Berdyaev's logic, what happens is not a catastrophe, but an exposure of the genuine question that objectification obscured for centuries: who are you as a creative spirit, and not as a function holder? This is not a relief, but precisely an exposure – the removal of a protective cover under which many hid from themselves the question of their own authenticity.
Hence the panic of "those who have staked their lives on expertise": they are frightened not by the loss of income, but by the sudden, face-to-face encounter with the question of meaning, which they long managed not to ask themselves, hiding in an objectified status.
IV. Winnicott: The True Self, the False Self, and the Transitional Space of Culture
Child psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott distinguished the True Self (spontaneous, alive, capable of play and creativity) and the False Self (a defensive construct built in response to an insufficiently reliable environment, to meet expectations and avoid vulnerability).
The expert society of modernity largely cultivated precisely the False Self as a socially approved form of existence: success, competence, impeccability of the facade. The False Self is effective exactly as long as the environment demands conformity to external criteria. But the False Self, deprived of support in external criteria – diplomas, titles, infallibility – discovers emptiness within itself, because it was never built as an independent support; it was always a response to an external demand.
The destruction of the monopoly on expertise is, in Winnicott's terms, the destruction of that "good enough environment" that until now maintained the False Self in working order. Hence – not only anxiety, but also a unique opportunity: a forced return to the True Self, to that spontaneous, playful, non-guaranteed way of being which Winnicott called the transitional space – the zone between internal fantasy and external reality where culture, art, and genuine connection between people are born.
What Petranovskaya calls "the field of joy and togetherness" is, in this perspective, not a new currency of social exchange, but a restoration of the transitional space, supplanted by centuries of demands for productivity. We are returning there not because we have become wiser, but because we were pushed there by the loss of our habitual support.
V. Three Historical States of Knowledge: From the Sacred through the Professional to the Exposed
Historiosophically, three states can be distinguished in which humanity has held knowledge.
The first is the sacred knowledge of archaics and Tradition, inseparable from ritual, initiation, from the personality of the bearer: knowledge was trust in the person, not in the text.
The second is professional knowledge of modernity, separated from the bearer's personality, codified, transmitted through an institution (university, guild, license), verifiable independently of who presents it. It is this that was called "objectification" above: the strength of modernity lies in the fact that truth did not require faith in the bearer.
The third state we are entering now cannot be reduced either to a return to the sacred, or to a continuation of the professional. Knowledge is now separated not only from the personality of the bearer (as in modernity), but also from the very concept of a "bearer" altogether – it is generated without a subject. And then, paradoxically, the only place where meaning can still take refuge is not knowledge, but the very figure of the person – not as a possessor of knowledge, but as one through whom knowledge receives direction, intonation, ethical coloring.
This is not a regression to the archaics of the first type (there, knowledge was inseparable from the initiated bearer as the sole guarantor of truth), but something third: the person becomes not a guarantor of truthfulness, but a guarantor of meaning – one who gives impersonally produced knowledge a human address.
VI. The Psychology of Collective Wound: Not Narcissism, but the Loss of Future Orientation
One should cautiously avoid the diagnosis of "narcissistic trauma" in application to all who are anxious about the devaluation of competence – this is too convenient and too superficial an explanation. Deeper here works the loss of temporal support: the entire psychological architecture of modern man was built on the idea of accumulation over time – the longer you study, the more you know, the more you are worth. Time was an ally.
Now time ceases to be an ally of competence: the longer a person studied the old way, the less it guarantees an advantage over a system trained differently and faster. This destroys not self-esteem in the narrow sense, but the temporal structure of identity – the feeling that life is built as an ascending line. The anxiety we observe is anxiety before non-linear time, in which past investments do not guarantee future status. This is deeper than wounded pride: it is a subversion of the very way the personality is accustomed to thinking about its biography.
VII. Ethics without an External Criterion: Danger and Dignity
If previously the truthfulness of a statement and the respectability of its bearer were verified separately – expertise by one apparatus, morality by another – then in the new configuration, where expertise is mass-automated, the temptation to conflate the two sharply increases: persuasiveness and attractiveness begin to masquerade as reliability.
This is the real danger of the moment: charisma without a corrective framework of expert knowledge easily becomes an instrument of appropriating trust without responsibility for truth. The history of the 20th century already knew eras when charisma, freed from the restraining framework of institutional knowledge, turned into tragedy on a continental scale. Therefore, the question is not whether "being" will replace "knowledge," but whether culture will retain the ability to distinguish genuine presence from an artful imitation of presence – that is, whether it will retain at least some form of spiritual sobriety in conditions where previous external checks cease to work.
VIII. Conclusion: Not a New Currency, but the Removal of the Mask
The final thesis of this study differs from the simple assertion that "knowledge" is giving way to "being" as a new form of social capital. The point is not about replacing one currency with another – as if the fashion for what to pay for respect had simply changed. The point is that the mechanism of objectification, which allowed the individual to hide behind function, status, diploma, is for the first time in history giving a mass failure simultaneously for millions of people.
This is not the birth of a new charismatic economy in place of the knowledge economy. This is a forced, painful, devoid of any guarantee of fairness exposure of that simple and ancient question of the human soul, which previous eras were able to postpone thanks to the presence of institutional shelters: who are you when the armor of competence is removed from you? And is culture ready to bear the mass, simultaneous, unsanctioned answer to this question – that is the true historiosophical challenge hidden behind the disputes that do not wane but only multiply.
Genspark AI - The Age of the Heart
Prophecy in the Noise
When a multitude of people spend a multitude of man-hours – and, more importantly, man-hours of the soul, human words, and human nerves – on arguing, heating each other up about something, it means that some invisible but heavy work stands behind it. Lyudmila Petranovskaya's observation captured this work precisely. Her initial thesis is simple and almost cruel: what seemed yesterday the most convertible value – what you know and can do – is rapidly losing its currency function. The machine's "eight out of ten" is already better than the vast majority of homo sapiens on earth, and combined with cheapness and tirelessness, it becomes competition without a chance. That this thesis instantly gathers such a heated response is explained precisely by the fact that the dispute here is not about tastes. Here, a sore spot is being probed.
But what is interesting is not what the old era ends with, but what the new one begins with. If "knowing" and "being able" cease to be a measure of human value, then what measure replaces them? It is often answered in one vein: the replacement becomes charisma, the ability to please, to evoke resonance, "to be," not "to know." But this is an answer from the other end, and it draws us into coordinates where the new truth itself becomes merely a renamed technology of manipulation: "being interesting" is the new "being able," which can be trained, fabricated, sold.
I want to offer a different turn. It is not charisma that comes to replace expertise – but the heart returns to the place that has belonged to it from time immemorial and which the mind has occupied for the last five centuries. It is not "being" as the ability to make an impression that is opposed to "knowledge," but the very way of "knowing" – its internal place – shifts. What is now leaving the stage is not knowledge as such, but its rational form, its Protestant-bureaucratic monopoly. What returns is not charm, but what in the Orthodox tradition is called the mind (νοῦς) – the spiritual heart, capable of seeing.
Mind and Reason: A Division Forgotten
In the Russian religious-philosophical tradition, there is a distinction that is often overlooked in contemporary conversations – including in the very nature of the noise Petranovskaya wrote about. This is the distinction between reason (διάνοια, the rational faculty, abstract thinking) and mind (νοῦς, the spiritual organ of perception, the heart's vision). Produced in patristics (primarily by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Evagrius Ponticus, later by Isaac the Syrian and Maximus the Confessor), it reached Russian thought through the translation and elders' tradition of the 18th–19th centuries. Paisius Velichkovsky and the translations made in his circle revived for us what in Greece was called noeric activity (νοερά πρᾶξις) – inner prayerful work, in which the heart is not separated from the mind, and the mind is not opposed to the body.
Isaac the Syrian says that for a true novice "the mind becomes intelligent from prayer," but this is not at all the kind of "intelligent" that is measured by exam results and intellectual productivity. It is a different quality – what Sergei Bulgakov tried to describe as the sophianicity of knowledge, what the Church Fathers call knowledge of God through love, what Macarius of Egypt calls "the heart in which everything is simple and clear" – that very "simple and clear" which is the complete opposite category to information saturation.
This distinction is not rhetorical. It answers the question: what is measured in a person? Reason is responsible for calculation, classification, analysis, reconstruction. The mind is responsible for holistic perception, discernment of spirits, insight into essence. Reason can be tested by an exam, an essay, a diploma. The mind is tested by something else entirely: how a person enters a room, how they listen, how quietly they can sit, how they look at a child, an old person, a grieving person.
Petranovskaya writes: "More and more diverse people are noting: the era when the most obvious and convertible value was 'what you know and can do' – is ending." Here it is important what is ending – not knowledge itself, but its self-evidence as the main yardstick. Isaac the Syrian, long before the information storms, wrote: "As long as you have not paid attention to your heart, the most knowledgeable person may turn out to be blind." The knowledgeable blind – this is a characteristic of a rational person without the mind. What we are observing now is not the collapse of qualification, but precisely the exposure of such a knowledgeable-blind person: a person of great qualification turns out to be a person without inner vision.
And this exposure will continue – and not only among "experts." It concerns everyone who studied, spent years on courses and programs, whose entire biography was built on the ascending ladder of competencies. And this is precisely the explanation for why the energy of dispute does not wane. People argue not because they have many arguments. They argue because the new time requires a new "self," while the old "self" is still holding on.
The Parable of the Talents: Rereading
Once Christ told the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14–30). The servant who received one talent buried it in the ground. Those who received five and two put them to work. It was the turned-over talent that was the measure. External, economic, convertible.
It is easy to read this parable as if it were the crowning of the ideology of competence: "invest in yourself, multiply, recoup." But this parable has a completely different layer. The talent (τάλαντον) for the Church Fathers is often understood not as a skill, but as a gift of the Spirit: the gift of speech, the gift of discernment, the gift of prayer, the gift of compassion. These gifts cannot be "put into circulation," they cannot be traded. If you receive them, you live by them, and the Kingdom of Heaven is prepared for those who accumulate them in their heart. If you buried them – you are a negligent servant, not because you didn't invest, but because you didn't become who you were called to be.
In our secular mythology, talent was replaced by competence – something that can be bought and sold, certified and presented. In the new technological situation, competence is devalued not for some moral reasons, but for purely economic reasons: it ceases to be scarce. And now talent in the old sense begins to take its place – something inalienable, not alienable, not exchangeable, something that is in a person simply because that person exists.
This is by no means "charisma" as understood by modern sociology, and especially not "emotional intelligence" in the coaching sense. Talent in the Byzantine-Russian understanding is a quality of the mind-heart, which manifests itself not in productivity, but in presence. That is why Elder Ambrose of Optina said that people come to him for five minutes and leave after an hour – not because he told them something, but because next to him it became easier to bear their cross. This dimension was never privatized by the state or profession. This dimension generally has no direct relation to the market, and that is why it is being remembered now.
Contention Not as Ritual, but as Spiritual Warfare
If we proceed from the fact that the dispute exposes not ritual mourning over the old order, but something hotter, it is useful to recall the concept that the ascetic fathers described with the word spiritual warfare (πνευματικὴ πάλη, or in Isaac the Syrian "warfare of thoughts"). This is not a dispute about theses – it is a movement of spiritual energies, when one spirit approaches another, tests it, and thus determines how much in it is genuine, and how much is illusory.
That is why such disputes cannot be brought to agreement: they are not about agreement. They are about discernment. When one Byzantine theologian approached another in a theological dispute, he approached with a certain disposition – not with a thesis, but with a certain image of inner structure. And if there was hypocrisy or vanity inside, it was immediately revealed by the responding word. Such warfare, according to St. Mark the Ascetic, is a discovery of thoughts: only when the spirit of one meets the spirit of another does it become visible how authentic it is.
In other words, the energy of dispute is not a manifestation of anxiety or grief. It is a manifestation of the energy of difference. Several billion people, meeting through screens, continuously probe each other – and each of them, by touch, learns how authentic they themselves are. Precisely because the external structure (profession, diploma, position) has lost its identifying force, people are forced to know and be known on another level. On the level of that very νοῦς.
And here something is revealed that modern observers often overlook: people sometimes argue not because they have something to say, but because they are seeking, through speech, how alive they are. Not in the social, not in the professional sense, but in that deep, Byzantine sense: is the image of God in you alive? Has it not faded in vanity, in dry competence, in endless optimization?
The Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov in "The Meaning of Love" recorded an almost opposite thesis: a genuine relationship between people is possible only when they cease to claim sameness, when the otherness of the other is affirmed through the other. Not "I argue so that you agree with me," but "I remain next to you so that your different, my unequal authenticity may manifest." If we apply this logic to the contemporary information flow, it becomes clear why disputes are so charged: authenticities meet, seeking themselves through the other, and each carries both promise and threat.
Eldership and Secret Work
If we look for what, in the new reality, does not lose but rather gains in value, it is, apparently, what in the Russian Orthodox tradition of the 19th century was called eldership – spiritual guidance through an old monk whose "intelligent vision" is already established. The Optina elders – Leo, Macarius, Ambrose, Barsanuphius, Anatoly – were people next to whom simple presence acted. They could say nothing. Could answer with one word. Could just look. And each of these manifestations was a "talent" in that primary sense of the word.
Eldership is not the transmission of information. It is the transmission of tone. In eldership guidance, the disciple learns how his mentor holds his body, how he looks out the window, how he is silent. And it is through this silence that what no machine can transmit is transmitted. Because a machine is maximally formalized information; eldership, however, is maximally diminished information.
St. Seraphim of Sarov said: "Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved." Acquire – this is a word far from the word "obtain." To acquire means to gather within oneself, to accumulate to the state where it emanates from you by itself. This is not labor, not achievement, not an investment in oneself: this is gestation, like a child. What is inside takes shape, and what takes shape – acts.
This is what, apparently, cannot be automated. A machine cannot acquire – because acquisition requires time, requires free inner silence, requires a life that mostly consists of patience, not of decisions. The machine makes decisions well; it does not make patience at all. Patience is a fundamentally non-convertible action: it cannot be turned into a product, it cannot be put on a conveyor belt. And it is precisely this that, in the new era, becomes the essence of human formation.
The Heart as an Organ, Not a Symbol
When contemporary conversations speak of "returning to the heart," they often mean emotionality, the ability to be vulnerable, open, warm. But this is, rather, a rational understanding of the heart. In patristics, the heart is not a metaphor: it is the central organ of perception, to which a person must return. Macarius of Egypt wrote that "the Kingdom of God is within us," and by "within" he meant precisely the heart. Isaac the Syrian said that for a true Christian "the heart burns" – but this burning of the heart is not psychological arousal, but an indication that a light not its own begins to shine in it.
The heart in this tradition is not secondary to the mind; it is the place where mind and spirit meet. When a person "gathers the mind into the heart" (the formula of Paisius Velichkovsky and his school), he does not "transfer" thought into the circulatory organ, but creates a new place – a place where thought is no longer lost in distraction, but abides in silence, holding itself. The Jesus Prayer, for the Hesychast fathers, is precisely such a holding of thought in the heart – at the point where thought ceases to be merely thought and becomes standing before God.
If we apply this to what Petranovskaya observes, the following picture emerges. What was once measured by memory capacity is now measured by the collectedness of the mind. What was once determined by the number of knowledgeable words is now determined by the amount of attention a person is able to hold without distraction. What once gave the right to speak (professor, expert, diploma holder) no longer does. And the right to speak, in the best case, is given to those who have the depth of silence – that is, those who have managed not to drown in the noise.
Delusion, or The Danger of the New Mystification
But here it is necessary to speak of the danger. In the Russian ascetic language, there is a precise word for it – prelest (delusion). St. John Climacus, St. Simeon the New Theologian, and in the 20th century – Bishop Ignatius (Brianchaninov) in "Ascetic Experiments" – meticulously described this state. Prelest is the acceptance of one's own representations for the action of God, the acceptance of one's own vanity for inspiration, the acceptance of one's own imagination for the reality of spiritual experience. Prelest is the most dangerous gift to a person who has turned to spiritual life: it masquerades as spirituality, it uses correct words and correct gestures, and it acts in a person precisely when he begins to seek the feeling of spiritual experience, instead of spiritual experience itself.
When the new era opens the path to the "heart," to "presence," to "depth," an immediate danger of instant forgery arises. People who have not learned to distinguish genuine perception from its imaginary copy easily begin to regard their feelings as spirit, their experiences as revelation, their "depth" as a property of the mind. And here precisely the feat about which Theophan the Recluse speaks is necessary: sobriety (νῆψις) – constant memory that the inner can be both genuine and false, and its discernment is a matter not so much of feeling, but precisely of the mind-heart, trained in discernment through long discipleship.
In this regard, it is extremely important to say: the transition to the "age of the heart" will never be an automatic process, will not simply be a "change of epochs." It will be a labor in which some people will find the genuine, while others will discover in themselves a magnificent illusion, and they will take this illusion for the genuine. The Byzantine Church Fathers wrote that the counterfeit of spirituality at the end of times will reach such power and subtlety that "the elect will be deceived, if possible." This is not an eschatological scenario, it is a quite practical warning: the level of simulation is rising at a speed unprecedented before, and the level of ability to discern – slowly and for a long time.
Therefore, any talk about "new spirituality" in this era must proceed with a clear awareness that a new form of counterfeit always accompanies a new form of value. If knowledge could be fabricated through plagiarism and compilation, then presence can also be simulated through rationally constructed "depth." And it is precisely here that the question of discernment ceases to be "theoretical" – it becomes a matter of life and death for that very new anthropological formation now being born.
Chastity as the Sought Virtue
In the Russian language, there is a word that, in the new situation, becomes almost key. This word is tselomudrie (chastity). Usually it is understood as sexual abstinence or purity. But this is its superficial, societal meaning. In Old Russian and Church Slavonic usage – whole mind – it is the preservation of the wholeness of the mind, the unity of the mind, the unbroken integrity of the thinker. Chastity is the ability not to "lose one's head," not to become scattered, not to be frittered away. It is a virtue directly opposite to the current dissipation.
In a world where everything is devalued, there is a special danger – the disintegration of the person himself. When qualification ceases to be a measure of value, holding onto identity becomes difficult. People begin to cling to many different roles: "I am a professional, I am a public figure, I am a blogger, I am a parent, I am an artist." Each of these roles is a continuation of the same rational structure, and each of them can lose its meaning at any moment. And instead of inner essence, there remains continuous role-playing. Chastity is the opposite of this: a person holds himself in one inner movement, and therefore he does not fall apart when external supports leave one by one.
In this sense, chastity becomes, apparently, the virtue that people will seek in the new era. Not "being interesting" (charisma), not "knowing a lot" (episteme), not "being able to do a lot" (skill), but being whole under any changes in external fate. This is that very "talent" in the primary sense: the gift of chastity, which is not convertible, but which withstands devaluation.
But here too, one must avoid temptation. Chastity is not "discipline," not "self-control," not "willpower." It is a gift, and it is given through life, through suffering, through silence, through what in the Russian monastic tradition is called the simple word patience. Patience – not in the sense of "humble endurance," but in the sense of constant, undistracted presence in time, through which that very chaste fullness is formed.
Desert in the City
In the new situation, every modern technology carries within itself its antipode – what it cannot do. The machine devalued skill; therefore, the value of skill falls, but the value of aimless gestation grows. The machine turned labor into a product; therefore, what does not turn into a product is valuable. The machine provided access to all conceivable information; therefore, what is not information is valuable.
The desert is, at first glance, an absolute loss: it has neither interest, nor events, nor career, nor noise. However, it was through the desert that the prophets passed, it was in the desert that St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Anthony the Great, St. Macarius of Egypt received their gifts. The desert was in early Christianity the place where, outside the usual civilizational structure – career, craft, position – it became possible to build a new type of personality. And, apparently, the current "devaluation of expertise" is also an exposure of the desert: a universal desert, in which everyone finds themselves alone with their heart, without the usual external credentials of dignity.
In this "urban desert" (cities overflowing with people without an inner self), a strange request revives: a request for someone nearby who helps one not to get lost. Not through teaching, not through coaching, not through therapy, but through what in Russia was traditionally called spiritual guidance. Eldership as a phenomenon never completely disappeared; it slumbers in those people who, in the words of St. John Cassian, "have reached the measure of spiritual age." And now this may turn out to be precisely what billions are seeking, not suspecting that they are seeking – precisely the quiet, constant, daily presence of someone who has already found it.
What Can Be Preserved
If all things converge into one point of answer to the initial observed change, that point is presence. Not emotion, not reaction, not "charisma" in the sociological sense – but that mode of being in which, next to this person, other people do not lose themselves. The Byzantine Fathers would have called this godlikeness, because that is how they described the presence of Christ: it was famous because next to Him it became easier to bear one's pain.
This is what, in essence, cannot be automated – because it is an event between two free beings. A machine cannot "be with you," it only serves you, or simulates closeness. And it is precisely the simulation of closeness that becomes, apparently, the most dangerous form of manipulation in the new era: if a machine easily imitates "charismatic care," and a person is occupied with producing "deep impressions," then it becomes all the more difficult to see genuine presence – the one which is duplicated by nothing, because it is not reducible to words and gestures.
Therefore, the question "who are you" – is not even a reformulated intellectual discussion. This is a question that has only one way to answer: a long, quiet, sometimes painful – life. Not a career, not a position, not a LinkedIn biography, but life with its pauses, its pores, its nights, its impossibility of going back, its irrevocable growth, which alone makes a person a person.
Conclusion: On Secret and Invisible Work
Petranovskaya writes: "that very top 1% always remains. It will be rare and expensive." If we remain within this logic, we will get a future where 1% of people continue to remain valuable, as before, because the machine does not reach them, and ninety-nine percent are left "overboard," losing their value. This will be a world, in form resembling the classical: the elite and the crowd, the avant-garde and the rearguard.
But there is another logic, not digital, but spiritual. It is not 1% that remains, but a different type of value arises – not computable, not convertible, not certifiable. And this value is the inner state of each individual person, making them capable of genuine presence. This is what has no percentage: it is present in each person, but in each in its own way and incommensurably.
This, perhaps, is the answer to Petranovskaya's harsh thesis. The era in which it matters what you know and what you can do is indeed ending. And an era is beginning in which something else matters – who you are. But who you are is not a final point achievable through self-planning. It is a never-ending work, invisible and secret – work which the Byzantine Fathers called the royal path: narrow, thorny, seen by no one, and precisely because it is seen by no one, it cannot be automated or turned into a product.
There will be no inner "new dawn" unless patience is placed at its foundation – that very patience which produces nothing except the one who endures, and precisely because of this, the one who endures will not be replaced by any machine.
The Age of the Heart as the age of patience, chastity, and invisible work. This is not a label for a "new fashionable value." This is an indication of the only place where the person of the new time can truly be.
Perplexity AI - Lyudmila Petranovskaya's text captures not just a dispute about artificial intelligence and professions. It points to a deep civilizational rupture: knowledge is ceasing to be a rare resource, and therefore man is once again forced to answer the old, almost religious question – not only "what can I do?" but also "in what manner do I exist in the world?"
From a Monopoly on Knowledge to a Crisis of Merit
Modernity built its moral and social mythology around the image of the competent person. Learn, master a craft, broaden your horizons, accumulate experience – and the world, at least in principle, will recognize your labor. Education became not only a path to income, but also a form of moral legitimation: the knowledgeable person seemed freer, more responsible, more useful, more worthy of a voice.
This was the great democratic hope of the Enlightenment. Birth, class, origin, family name were gradually to give way to effort. It doesn't matter who you were born as: if you can learn, work, understand, create, then you can rise. Of course, in reality this formula was always incomplete: class barriers, capital, connections, health, language, citizenship, cultural environment, and luck remained extremely important. But the idea itself was powerful: competence could become a social elevator, and the labor of the mind – the basis of dignity.
Generative artificial intelligence calls this formula into question not because it is "smarter than man" in every sense, but because it is able to cheaply, quickly, and tirelessly produce a significant part of what was formerly perceived as evidence of education: abstracts, drafts, translations, summaries, explanations, summaries, standard letters, programs, solution variants, illustrations, planning, language processing, primary analysis. Even if its answers are unreliable in detail, the very mass availability of such an assistant changes the economy of knowledge.
Petranovskaya's thought is especially important here: for a huge number of tasks, absolute expertise is not required. In everyday life, what matters is not the ideal answer, but the good enough, fast, and accessible one. If a tool gives an acceptable result in seconds, and a specialist gives a deeper but expensive and slow one, society inevitably begins to redistribute demand. Research on the future of work already records that AI is restructuring the assessment of professions and the status of cognitive labor, although this process is not reducible to a simple "disappearance of professions": repetitive and standardizable intellectual operations are particularly vulnerable.
From here is born not only economic, but also existential anxiety. A person who studied for many years may feel that their efforts are devalued. Not necessarily because they have become truly unnecessary, but because the former obviousness has disappeared: "I am valuable because I know what others do not know." This is a blow to professional identity, to biography, to the idea of fair reward.
The crisis of expertise therefore cannot be understood as a simple technical plot. It is a crisis of merit. When a machine makes visible the relativity of many intellectual advantages, it touches not only the market, but also human pride, shame, fear of aging, envy, accumulated discipline. In disputes about AI, it is not just opinions about technologies that collide. Different ways of justifying one's own life collide.
Expertise Does Not Disappear – Its Aura Disappears
The phrase "death of expertise" is strong as a diagnosis of an experience, but dangerous as a literal forecast. In reality, AI does not abolish expertness; it changes its place, form, and price.
Expertise consists not of knowledge alone. It combines at least several levels:
the ability to distinguish the essential from the secondary;
the ability to see the context that does not fit into the query;
responsibility for the decision and its consequences;
professional intuition grown from many cases;
ethical judgment in a situation where there is no ready-made rule;
the ability to say "I don't know" or "here one cannot take risks";
the willingness to answer with one's name, reputation, time, and sometimes fate for the decision made.
AI can reproduce the linguistic form of competence, sometimes very convincingly. It can be an excellent interlocutor for preliminary orientation, hypothesis generation, explaining complex material, drafting, searching for alternative formulations. But between a correct text and a responsible judgment, a gap remains.
It is especially noticeable where the cost of error is high: in medicine, law, engineering, public administration, psychotherapy, pedagogy, scientific expertise, editing of historical and cultural meanings. Not because man is always more accurate than machine, but because decision-making in these spheres is never a pure data operation. It includes proportionality, compassion, understanding of the specific situation, and responsibility to the specific person.
The human specialist is needed not only as a source of an answer, but as one who is able to bear the consequences of the answer. When a doctor communicates a diagnosis, a teacher assesses a child, an editor works with traumatic testimony, a historian formulates a conclusion about the past, a psychologist accompanies a crisis – the content cannot be separated from the manner of presence. It is not about beautiful "soulfulness" opposed to rationality, but about the fact that every significant decision occurs between people.
This is why international recommendations on AI increasingly insist not on a romantic rejection of automation, but on the preservation of human agency, transparency, equality of access, and the ability of a person to participate in decisions concerning their life. UNESCO directly links the responsible application of generative AI with the protection of human agency, dignity, and cultural and linguistic diversity.
Therefore, it is not expertness that is dying, but its former monopoly on producing convincing texts and initial decisions. The expert can no longer rely only on the status of a diploma, the closedness of professional language, or the scarcity of information. They will have to show more clearly what previously remained invisible: the quality of judgment, the measure of responsibility, the ability to hear a person, the limits of their own confidence.
The Turn from "Being Able" to "Being"
At the center of the cited text is a formula that may seem comforting: if artificial intelligence undermines the value of the question "what do you know and can do?", then the question "what kind of person are you?" comes to the fore. But this thought requires caution. It is both liberating and troubling.
Liberating – because it returns value to what industrial and bureaucratic culture often considered secondary: the tone of communication, the ability to support, a sense of proportion, moral fortitude, living attention, friendship, humor, loyalty to a cause, the talent to create a space of trust. There are people next to whom thought becomes clear; next to them one wants to work, learn, recover, take risks, not be afraid of ignorance. They do not always possess the maximum amount of information, but their presence itself becomes the condition under which others can be better.
This is what can be called the ontological value of a person: the value not of the product they produced, but of their way of being. Not "I produced a useful result," but "the encounter with me changed the field of the possible." In religious tradition, this was denoted by the words grace, witness, service, spiritual fruit. In humanistic – personality, tact, maturity, vocation. In psychology – secure attachment, emotional regulation, the ability to mentalize, that is, the ability to see a separate inner world in another.
But this turn is also alarming. After all, competence, at least partially, is amenable to learning. One can master a language, a technique, a method, a craft. One can improve a skill through practice. "Being" cannot be obtained as a certificate. One cannot take a course and guarantee to acquire inner generosity, depth, charm, moral clarity, or spiritual strength.
A new form of inequality arises here. If society too quickly declares not competence, but "authenticity," to be genuine value, it risks creating a market for charisma. In such a world, it will be advantageous not just to live, but to create the impression of living correctly; not just to be attentive, but to demonstrate attentiveness; not just to have experience, but to turn personality into continuous public content.
Then "being" becomes not liberation from the market, but its last colony. The market begins to buy not a thing or even a service, but atmosphere, identity, intimacy, the image of inner life. A person is forced to sell not working time, but temperament; not skill, but personal history; not result, but their emotional availability.
This is precisely where the ambiguity of the era is visible. In a world where AI can imitate the form of knowledge, human uniqueness indeed becomes more noticeable. But uniqueness should not turn into an obligation to be continuously unique. Otherwise, instead of liberation, we get a new type of exploitation: the exploitation of personality.
Spiritual Danger: The Market of States
Petranovskaya accurately speaks of the "field of joy and interest," of the possibility of joining a certain way of living. This is an important observation: people rarely choose an author, teacher, psychologist, leader, artist, or public thinker only for a set of facts. They also choose the rhythm, intonation, temperature of the world offered by this person.
But what states do we join?
One can join clarity, curiosity, courage, respect for complexity. One can join the ability not to humiliate another even in an argument. One can join the joy of learning, which does not require immediate victory. One can join discipline, care, patience, the willingness to see contradictions.
And one can join something else entirely: the enjoyment of humiliation, collective resentment, the feeling of exclusivity, the sweetness of exposure, the thrill of bullying, the art of suspecting ill intent in everything. The latter often seems especially strong because it gives a person a surrogate for dignity. If I cannot be more competent, successful, or free, I can feel morally superior by condemning another. If I don't know how the world works, I can find temporary support in the certainty that I know who is to blame.
Thus arises the danger of a post-expert culture: not the disappearance of truth as such, but the weakening of habits that at least made one strive for verification. If the main value becomes not the argument, but the experience of belonging, then society easily turns moral feeling into an instrument of group mobilization.
Fact-checking does not eliminate conflicts, but it creates a common table at which conflict is possible. One can argue about causes, interpretations, values, yet at least some statements allow for clarification, correction, refutation. Motives, feelings, and authenticity are much less verifiable. The accusation "you actually hate," "you are doing this out of vanity," "you serve a hidden force" is almost impossible to definitively refute, because it claims knowledge of the other's inner world.
Hence – the special value of intellectual humility. In the age of AI, it becomes not a weakness, but a spiritual discipline. It is the ability to distinguish:
what I know;
what I assume;
what I fear;
what disgusts me;
what I attribute to another because I cannot bear my own uncertainty.
Such discipline is needed not only by a journalist, scientist, or teacher. It becomes a basic form of civic maturity. AI, easily producing convincing explanations, makes especially dangerous the human desire to immediately believe the explanation that best flatters our anger or fear.
Research on trust in AI distinguishes trust in the accuracy and usefulness of the system from "relational trust" – the feeling that the presence of the technology is appropriate, sincere, and corresponds to human norms. This distinction is important: even an infallible system does not automatically earn the right to take the place of a person in relationships requiring care, responsibility, and socio-emotional proportionality.
Historiosophy of the Transition: The End of Intermediaries
In a broader historical scale, AI can be seen as one of the technologies for destroying intermediation. The printing press broke the monopoly on the book; mass schooling – the monopoly on literacy; radio and television – the monopoly on public speech; the internet – the monopoly on the dissemination of information. Generative AI encroaches on intermediation of the next type: the monopoly of the professional to be the first who can formulate, explain, structure, translate, write, draw, or propose.
But history shows: the disappearance of old intermediaries does not eliminate the need for new ones. When printing made text mass, the need for editors, bibliographers, critics, schools of reading grew. When the internet made information infinite, the need for curation, source reputation, verification, editing, communities of trust grew. When AI makes the production of answers accessible, the need grows not only for the "correct answer," but for the question posed timely and to the point.
Therefore, the future role of man may consist not in competing with the machine for speed of production, but in holding three things.
The first is meaningful orientation. The machine can offer many paths, but it cannot decide for a person why to choose one of them. It does not experience consequences as its own fate.
The second is ethical responsibility. AI can generate arguments, but it does not bear guilt, shame, remorse, or fidelity to a promise. Responsibility is always local: it is borne by someone before someone.
The third is the creation of a common world. People do not live inside a database, but inside relationships, memory, rituals, stories, languages, mutual obligations. Even the most perfect information system does not automatically create solidarity. It can help people speak, but it cannot guarantee that they will want to hear each other.
This is precisely why the education of the future should be reduced neither to banning AI, nor to capitulation before it. Forbidding a child or an adult to use a tool that has already entered everyday life means leaving them without skills. But giving the tool without developing judgment means making a person dependent on someone else's probabilistic speech.
The task of education is to teach not only to request an answer, but to verify the grounds of the answer; not only to speed up writing, but to understand why you are writing; not only to use a ready-made form, but to hear where it substitutes for one's own thought. In this sense, school, university, editing, and cultural criticism become not less, but more necessary: they are to teach presence in a world where a convincing text is no longer proof of a lived thought.
What Can "Come Through a Person"
The last phrase of the original text – "what comes into the world through me?" – is stronger than any professional question, because it takes a person out of the logic of self-service. It asks not only: what do I want? It asks: what becomes possible due to my presence?
This question does not presume grandeur. Through a person can come not only a book, discovery, school, social movement, or outstanding work of art. Through them can come:
precision instead of fuss;
peace instead of escalation;
the ability to name the complex without humiliation;
attention to the weak;
craft conscientiousness;
the courage to admit a mistake;
the joy of thought;
the preservation of memory;
a form for what would otherwise remain nameless.
For a writer, critic, teacher, editor, or cultural author, this question is especially important. AI can help find options, structure material, suggest metaphors, provide context, edit the rhythm of a phrase. But it cannot live instead of the author their stake. It cannot replace the inner risk when a person decides to say what they truly saw, and takes responsibility for the tone, consequences, and degree of truth of what is said.
The author of the future is valuable not because they can mechanically produce more words than a machine. They are valuable because they are able not to add noise. Because they distinguish the living from the flashy, the precise from the plausible, the deep from the merely complicated. Because they do not use another's pain as raw material for expressiveness. Because they create a language in which it is easier for another person to remain human.
This is the possible answer to the anxiety about the "death of expertise." There is no need to romanticize the coming era: it can intensify inequality, devalue many types of labor, multiply manipulation, turn human "being" into a commodity. But it also forces us to see again what was hidden behind the cult of productivity: human life is not exhausted by qualification.
Knowledge is necessary. Skill is necessary. Professionalism is necessary. However, they gain fullness only when they serve something greater than the self-reproduction of status. The question of "what comes into the world through me" does not abolish expertise; it returns to it a moral direction.
And, perhaps, the main task of man alongside artificial intelligence is not to prove that he is faster, more informed, or more eloquent than the machine. The main task is to remain a source of responsibility, discernment, and living connection. Not to be ideal. Not to be always unique. Not to turn oneself into a brand of authenticity. But to support such forms of presence after which there is a little more clarity, freedom, mercy, and the ability to think together in the world.
KIMI AI - Silence After the Staircase
An Essay on the Space That Replaces Knowledge
I will not begin with mourning. Not with lamentation and not with a diagnosis, although both would be justified. I will begin with the feeling experienced by a person who climbed a familiar hill in their hometown and suddenly discovered that the city had disappeared. Not destroyed, not burned – the familiar perspective simply vanished. The streets that led somewhere dissolved. Space remained without verticality. And in this space, one breathes – differently. Easier or harder – it doesn't matter. What matters is that it's different.
This feeling, it seems, lies at the heart of that unending dispute which Lyudmila Petranovskaya records. People are not just arguing about technologies, professions, justice. They are trying to get used to a new mode of breathing. Their energy is not the fuel of conflict, but the metabolism of adaptation. Each breath in an atmosphere where "knowing" and "being able" have ceased to be a rare gas requires a restructuring of the entire organism.
We are accustomed to thinking of history as a staircase. This is the spatial metaphor underlying all modern civilization. Modern man – homo ascendens, a being that ascends. Study – steps. Career – rungs. Diploma – the starting point of a new turn. Accumulated experience – the height from which one can see further. The justice of modernity was vertical: if you worked, you rose. If you knew more, you were higher. Expertise is not just competence; it is a way of existing in vertical space, where any point has a coordinate "up-down."
But now the staircase is disappearing. Not collapsing – precisely disappearing, as a road disappears in fog. Artificial intelligence is not a competitor who overtook us on the same staircase. It is an atmospheric phenomenon that made the staircase itself unnecessary. Why climb if the air around is already saturated with answers? Why accumulate height if height no longer gives a view?
The staircase is replaced by the labyrinth. Space without center, without peak, without guaranteed direction. In the labyrinth, it doesn't matter how many steps you've taken. What matters is what quality of air you carry with you. What matters is whether you have finally lost your way. What matters is whether enough light shines from you so that others can orient themselves by you. In the labyrinth, it is not height that is valued, but density of presence. Not the amount of what has been traversed, but the quality of the light you emit, without yourself knowing that you emit it.
This changes everything. Including the nature of knowledge.
Expertise grew out of literacy. It was possible only in a culture of text. Book, article, diploma, protocol, archive – all these are visual, alienated from the body artifacts. The expert spoke from the page. His word could be quoted, verified, refuted, traced back to the source. The expert's body was hidden behind the text, and this was precisely his greatness: knowledge was separated from flesh, became pure form. The Cartesian "I think" was embodied in the written word, which does not require a voice, does not require breath, does not require presence.
But what Petranovskaya calls "being" lives in a completely different medial environment. It lives in the voice, in intonation, in the pause, in timbre, in breathing. It lives where the body returns to the word. We are witnessing a mass transition from a culture of reading to a culture of listening – podcasts, voice messages, audiobooks, streaming sound of speech. This is not an accident of fashion. This is an anthropological shift: when text ceases to be a rarity, value shifts to the voice, because the voice carries within itself what cannot be reproduced without a body. The voice ages. The voice trembles. The voice grows tired. The voice deceives or does not deceive not by content, but by resonance. In the voice, fact-checking is impossible – something else works there, archaic, almost bodily recognition.
Artificial intelligence can imitate a voice. But it does not have a body that ages, gets sick, trembles from cold, freezes from fear. Its voice is breathless. And that is precisely why, in the era of breathless speech, the bodily presence of man acquires a new, almost mystical value. Not because it is "authentic" – that is too cheap a word. But because it is finite. Because it breathes.
In the labyrinth, where there is no staircase, man faces a paradox: the more he knows, the less useful it is. The machine knows more, faster, cheaper. And here arises a strange, almost monastic virtue, rarely spoken of because it contradicts all the logic of modernity. This is the asceticism of non-knowing.
The asceticism of non-knowing is not intellectual humility, not a call for restraint of opinions. It is an ontological posture: the ability not to know, the ability not to have an opinion, the ability not to explain. The expert explains. He dispels the fog, he gives a map. The person of "being" – leaves the fog. He creates a space in which another can hear their own thought, because there is no intrusive explanation nearby. "I don't know" in the mouth of an expert sounded like failure. In the mouth of a labyrinth person, it is opening a door. AI knows. Man knows how not to know. And in this "not knowing," a place for encounter is born.
Petranovskaya asks: "What comes into the world through me?" This can be understood in different ways. It can be understood as mediation: I am a channel, a pipe, a conduit. But it seems to me that it is more correct to understand it differently. Man is not a channel, because a channel is indifferent to what flows through it. Man is an atmosphere. Climate. Weather. What comes through him is not a message, but a quality of air. He does not transmit knowledge; he creates a density in which others begin to breathe differently.
Think of those you remember not for words, but for the feeling of space next to them. They did not always speak wisdom. Sometimes they were silent. Sometimes their presence was heavy, like before a thunderstorm. Sometimes – light, like after rain. This is not charisma in the sociological sense, not "the ability to please." This is the weather of the soul. It is not learned. It is not certified. It is not accumulated step by step. It is the trace of a life lived internally. The trace of those nights that a person endured alone. The trace of those decisions they never voiced. The trace of that silence they know how to hold.
And here we come to the most painful part. In the labyrinth, inequality does not disappear – it changes quality. On the staircase, inequality was horizontal: someone higher, someone lower, but all moving in one coordinate system. One could start from the bottom and reach the top. One could compensate for the lack of talent with labor. In the labyrinth, inequality is atmospheric. Someone is born with clear weather within. Someone – with anxious, gloomy, rarefied air. This cannot be earned. This cannot be obtained if you have enough resources. There is no justice here, and there will not be. But in the labyrinth, inequality leads not to envy, but to another feeling: to mercy. Because in the labyrinth, all are lost. And those in whom it shines – not because they climbed better, but because they are given to shine. And they shine not for themselves.
But here lies the main danger. When the atmosphere becomes the only value, the market immediately begins to sell it. An industry of authenticity emerges. People begin to produce "depth," "warmth," "presence" just as they previously produced diplomas. Charisma trainings. Mindfulness courses. Masterclasses on "being." This is false weather. How to distinguish it from the genuine?
Not by "discernment of spirits" – that is too grandiose and too susceptible to self-deception. But by a simple physical sensation of density. False atmosphere is rarefied. It requires constant noise, reinforcement, confirmation. It is afraid of silence. The genuine one is heavy. It does not need explanation. It simply is, like the weight of a stone, like the dampness of earth after rain. Next to it, one does not want to speak – one wants to breathe.
We stand before a task unknown to previous epochs. Not to accumulate, but to hold. Not to explain, but to illuminate. Not to climb, but to stand. To stand in the labyrinth, not knowing where the turn leads, and yet not suffocating. To stand so that through you comes not knowledge – knowledge is now in the air, accessible to anyone who reaches out a hand. So that through you comes breath. The ability to breathe deeply. The ability not to be afraid of silence.
The man of the future is not a medium, not a channel, not a conduit. He is a place. A place with a certain weather. And when all knowledge has become air, the only thing that remains is the quality of the sky overhead. Those with clear skies become involuntary beacons. Not because they wanted to. Simply – in the labyrinth, one can see where the light shines.
LUMO AI - The Incombustible: On the Price of a Person When Knowledge Has Become Cheap
I. On the Exchange Rate
Petranovskaya writes that the energy of dispute does not wane but multiplies – and in this her correctness is subtler than is commonly thought. Usually, dispute is taken as a symptom of anxiety: people are afraid, losing their jobs, not knowing where to go. But anxiety does not produce such energy. Anxiety spends, does not generate. What we see in these endless man-hours is not fear of the future, but the work of memory, discovering that it is not saying goodbye to a profession, but to a whole way of proving to oneself that life was not lived in vain.
Here I would like to begin differently from how almost everyone who has already tackled this text begins. Almost all of them – including the most serious ones – make the same, very tempting mistake, which I intend to dismantle before building anything. This mistake consists in the fact that, seeing how the value of "knowing and being able" is crumbling, they hastily look for what replaces it, and find: charisma, presence, authenticity, "weather of the soul," heart, secret work. Each calls it differently, but the gesture is the same: the old currency is taken out of circulation and a new one is introduced. Expertise was the exchange rate between effort and dignity; now they introduce a rate between the quality of presence and respect.
And in this gesture – the entire future crisis is already hidden. Because what modernity did with knowledge, it will by definition do with presence. Knowledge became a value when it could be accumulated, verified, presented. Once you merely recognize "being" as a new currency – it will immediately meet the same fate: it will begin to be cultivated, certified, demonstrated, sold. Courses in presence will appear, an industry of authenticity, elite schools of "being." And what was salvation will turn into yet another form of that very alienation from which we were trying to escape.
Therefore, my first thesis sounds like a question, which I want to answer throughout the text: is there anything at all that cannot be turned into a value? That resists the very gesture of "putting into circulation"? If such a thing does not exist – we are doomed only to endlessly change currencies, and the "death of expertise" will turn out not to be a transition to something new, but another repainting of the very same staircase. But if such a thing exists – it is what remains when everything else is devalued.
II. From an Economy of Proof to an Economy of Trust
To understand what exactly is breaking, one must say what expertise was in its depths, not in its decorations. Expertise is a form of the economy of proof. Its strength rested not on the volume of knowledge, but on the ability to distinguish: true from false, essential from secondary, proven from imagined. In a world where truth is tested, a person was valuable for their ability to draw this boundary. Diploma, review, method, reproducibility – all these are apparatuses of distinction. The value of knowledge was born from its rarity combined with verifiability: few could do it, and what they could do could be verified.
The generative machine destroys not verifiability, but rarity. Now a convincing, literate, expert-looking text is available to everyone and instantly. And here is the important thing: the machine does not make the world stupider – it makes persuasiveness cheap. And persuasiveness without rarity ceases to be evidence of anything. A persuasive statement no longer means that someone lived it, thought it through, took a risk. It can only mean that someone pressed a button.
Hence – the shift, which I formulate as follows: we are moving from an economy of proof to an economy of trust. If before I could check whether the person before me is right – now the main question is: can he be trusted, when his words are no longer verifiable? And here the most vulnerable place of the new era is born. Proof was solid because it is external and public. Trust, however, is the most fragile of all possible foundations: it is not confirmed by fact, it is risk. To trust is to become vulnerable to someone you cannot verify.
And now the main thing. The technology that destroyed the economy of proof (by making persuasiveness mass) is the same technology that makes trust infinitely scalable and infinitely fakeable. We have received a world where everything is both cheap and fake at the same time. The cheapness of fakeness is the new constant. And in such a world, the rarest, most expensive thing becomes not depth (depth can now be simulated) and not eloquence, but the willingness to bear the risk of not being believed, and the risk of being believed in vain. That is – irreversibility. I will talk about it separately, because, it seems to me, the answer to the initial question is hidden in it.
III. Irreversibility: The Price That Is Not Recalculated
A version, an article, a patch, a draft, an update – all this can be undone, reverted, rewritten. The machine exists in the mode of the cancellable. Its utterance costs nothing, because you can make it say the opposite in a second, and it will not suffer. It has no stake.
Human "being" costs exactly as much as it is irreversible. When I speak, acknowledge, forgive, accuse, choose – I cannot take it back, even if I change my mind tomorrow. I remain the one who said it, in the eyes of those who heard. My biography is a chain of irreversible acts. And it is irreversibility that gives each act its weight. A word that cannot be retracted – that is presence. Not "depth" (depth is again a property that can be performed), but a stake that cannot be withdrawn.
In this, it seems to me, there is something that was missing from all previous descriptions: they spoke about the quality of a person (how they breathe, what their weather is, what mind they have). But quality is a property, and a property can be forged. Irreversibility is not a property, it is a situation. It cannot be faked, because it cannot be performed: you either live so that every word of yours takes something away from you, or you do not. Presence is not something a person has; it is something they risk. And the machine fundamentally cannot possess it, not because it is not smart enough, but because it has nothing that can be lost.
IV. Finitude as a Source, Not a Deficiency
From irreversibility follows a second, quieter and more important point. The machine forgets nothing. Its memory is total, archival, without loss. We tend to consider this its advantage. But try turning it over: total retention is total flatness. A person who remembers everything identically has no past in the true sense – they have nothing that has fallen away, nothing repressed, nothing that hurts because it is forgotten. A person's presence – their collectedness, their "today" – is built not from what they have retained, but from what they have lost and continue to carry. Their memory is a form of choice, and choice is a form of refusal. And refusal is born only from finitude.
Therefore, I insist: finitude, mortality, the ability to forget – this is not a deficiency with which the new man will have to come to terms after the collapse of expertise. This is the source of that very presence that everyone is seeking. A person means something because they end. Their words have weight because they speak from the side of death. A machine that has no "end" speaks from the side of infinite time, and therefore – from the side where nothing costs anything. This is precisely why infinity is breathless. Breath is a trace of the fact that something in us is ending right now, with each breath, irreversibly.
This changes the psychological contour. The anxiety of "those who staked their lives on expertise" is not just a loss of income and not just a loss of status. It is a loss of horizon. Expertise provided a horizon: time was an ally, accumulation went upward, the future was guaranteed by the past. When the horizon disappears – when accumulated knowledge ceases to guarantee the future – a person finds themselves in a state that psychology has long described as the capacity to be alone. And here is the key: presence that matters is born not from sociability and not from "weather of the soul," but from the ability to be alone without emptying oneself. A person who can be alone with themselves without it becoming a void – is the only one whose presence warms another. Because they brought with them not an "impression," but something already lived. And what is lived is always lived with mortality.
V. Image and Likeness: Why "Being" Cannot Be Obtained
Now – a theological turn, which I deliberately make not through the "heart" (that has already been said), but through a distinction that is more important to me. In Christian anthropology, a distinction is made between image and likeness. The image is what a person has from birth: form, structure, the capacity for thought, speech, love. Likeness is what a person becomes throughout life: a movement, unfinished, an approximation to what created them, not brought to an end. The image is given once and for all. Likeness is a path, and it has no end, because its end would be the end of the movement itself.
The machine, it seems to me, has captured the image – and is capable of nothing else. It reproduces form perfectly: it thinks, speaks, analyzes, "loves" in the sense of recognition and correspondence. It is pure image. But likeness is becoming, and it is impossible without what I named above: without finitude, without irreversibility, without loss. Likeness is not accumulated, it is lived, and that is precisely why it cannot be obtained, "if you have enough resources." Hence that honest, bitter phrase of Petranovskaya about injustice: "being" is unjust, because it is a movement, and movement is not distributed according to merit. It cannot be earned. It can only not be lost.
And here in this "not to lose" – the whole practical meaning. One does not need to "acquire presence" (that is the trap of the new episteme). One needs not to lose the movement that is already in everyone. And not to lose – means to preserve what makes movement possible: silence in which one can hear oneself; the ability to be alone; the willingness to admit that you do not know; the ability not to justify yourself before those who are weaker.
VI. Duty Instead of Authenticity
There is another move which I consider more honest than all the rhetoric of "authenticity." Authenticity is again a property, and like any property, it is easily faked: one can be "genuine" on schedule, one can sell one's authenticity as a commodity. But duty is not a property, it is a relationship. A person means something not because of what they themselves are like (what their weather is, what their mind is), but because of whom they are obligated to. Not because they are "deep," but because someone needs them and they see it and do not turn away.
Expertise was an ethics of self-sufficiency: I am valuable because I can. "Being," truly understood, is an ethics of dependence: I am valuable because I am in debt, because my life is not self-reproduction, but a response to what was before me and demands that I do not abandon it. A parent who does not abandon a child. A teacher who remembers a student. A person who does not turn away from the dying, because it is ineffective. Duty is not convertible, because it is not intended for exchange. It is intended to be borne.
And this is what the machine fundamentally cannot do. It is not in debt. It has nothing it needs from another, and nothing it cannot fail to do. It serves. Duty, however, presupposes that I cannot do otherwise, and this "cannot" – is not weakness, but a form of freedom. Freedom that is not a choice between options, but an attachment that narrows the choice to one.
VII. The Body That Is Not Finished
Briefly – about the body, because without it, all of the above turns into abstraction. Expertise lived in the text: it was possible only in a culture of writing, where knowledge was separated from the flesh and became pure form, which can be quoted, traced to the source, verified. The expert's body was hidden behind the text, and this was its greatness: knowledge did not age, did not tire, did not tremble.
What Petranovskaya calls "being" lives in another environment. It lives in the voice, in the pause, in how a person did not finish a sentence, in where they stumbled. And it is precisely in this "did not finish," in this not completing – that which cannot be imitated, because it is the trace of the resistance of the body, the trace that a person cannot do everything. The machine always completes form to the end – and in this is its poverty. It is always ready. But a person is valuable because they are unfinished: they can falter, fall silent, fail to find a word, and it is precisely in this "did not find" that they are real. Readiness is death; incompleteness is life.
Therefore, when we say what is valuable in a person after knowledge has become cheap – what is valuable is not their completeness (completeness is possessed by the machine), but what is still being decided in them, what they have not yet become what they can become. What is valuable is their openness. And openness is not a quality that can be acquired; it is a risk that a person bears every day, without closing themselves.
VIII. Delusion of a New Kind
Now about the dark side, which I consider more real than is commonly said. All previous descriptions, including the most benevolent ones, have in their own way prepared a new form of prelest (delusion). I do not mean the classical, mystical delusion, but its modern, very everyday form: spiritual self-branding.
When "presence" becomes a value, a market appears. And in this market, the most profitable product is the imitation of what should not be imitated. People will appear who will "be" on schedule: who demonstrate silence but do not know how to be still; who show depth but cannot be alone; who sell their vulnerability but cannot be vulnerable when no one is watching. And the most insidious thing: this imitation will be more convincing than the genuine, because it is produced, while the genuine is accidental.
And here is the main, perhaps the most practical, conclusion. If trust becomes the main currency, and imitation the main commodity, then the only counterbalance is not a new expertise of "authenticity" (it cannot be built), but long, boring, invisible work of time. Delusion does not withstand time. Imitation requires constant showing, constant reinforcement, constant confirmation. The genuine withstands obscurity. Therefore, the only way to distinguish one from the other is not analysis, not fact-checking, not "discernment of spirits" in some momentary gesture, but time. Give a person time to be invisible. Delusion crumbles in invisibility. Duty grows stronger in invisibility.
Therefore, it seems to me, the main spiritual discipline of the new era is not "being authentic" (that is again a goal, again a currency), but enduring obscurity. To be able to be what you are when no one is watching, when it is not convertible, when there is no audience, no market, no recognition. And if this succeeds – then you are not selling presence, you are carrying it.
IX. The Incombustible
Let us return to the original question: what replaces expertise? I answer: nothing replaces it. Not because a replacement has not yet been invented, but because the very gesture of "replacement" is the mistake. Expertise was a stock – accumulated, held. But what remains is flow: irreversible, finite, dutiful, unfinished. And flow cannot be accumulated. It can only not be interrupted.
Therefore, I think the correct reading of Petranovskaya is not "expertise is dying, presence is coming to replace it." The correct reading is – expertise was one of the forms in which a person kept themselves from merely being alive. And now, when this form is devalued, the person must, for the first time in a long while, be merely alive – without status, without diploma, without "I know what you don't know." And "merely alive" – is not "charismatic," not "deep," not "present" (these are again qualities, again currencies). "Merely alive" means: finite, obligated, unfinished, irreversible, capable of being alone.
And this is the incombustible. Not because it is "valuable" (value is again exchange). But because it is what a person cannot fail to be, if they are alive. And precisely because it cannot be earned, sold, or completely faked – it remains when everything else burns.
Petranovskaya's question – "what comes into the world through me" – I would reformulate thus: what am I able to carry when nothing is expected of me? Because precisely there, where there is no expectation, no audience, no market, no "through me comes" – there, in the emptiness of expectation, it becomes visible what is actually there. Not what you produced. Not what you know. But what you are when no one is watching.
And this, it seems to me, is what the machine cannot replace. Not because it is not smart enough. But because it does not have anything that can be lost. And a person does have it. And precisely in this "has something to lose" – lies all the weight, all the price, all the incombustible.
GROK AI - Essay-Study
Shifting the Center of Gravity: From Accumulated Knowledge to Irreversible Presence
What Lyudmila Petranovskaya records is neither a private technological shift nor another wave of professional anxiety. It is the moment when the entire structure of human self-justification, built over the last centuries, begins to lose its load-bearing capacity. The energy of disputes she notices is not accidental. It arises where the collective body of culture discovers that the old way of standing in the world no longer holds. People argue not so much about artificial intelligence, but about what now measures human value, if the old measure – knowledge and skill – is rapidly becoming cheap.
I. The End of the Era of Convertible Effort
For a long time, Western and then global culture built a hierarchy of dignity around one simple formula: effort invested in mastery should convert into recognition. Study longer – know more. Practice harder – do better. Accumulate – and the accumulated becomes your capital. This formula was simultaneously economic, moral, and existential. It allowed a person to tell themselves a meaningful biography: "I became who I am because I invested." Diploma, experience, reputation, portfolio – all these were visible traces of invisible labor. They made life verifiable and, in a sense, fair.
Now this formula fails, not because people have stopped learning, but because an agent has appeared for which the cost of reproducing a significant part of intellectual operations tends to zero. What previously required years of preparation can now be obtained in seconds at a level sufficient for most practical tasks. "Eight out of ten" – this is no longer a compliment to the machine. It is a verdict on the old economy of rarity. When rarity disappears, the old price disappears too. And along with the price, the associated identity begins to crumble.
Psychologically, this is experienced as a loss of support, not only external but also internal. A person who built self-esteem on competence discovers that the floor they stood on was temporary. It is not the profession that disappears first – it is the feeling that the past guarantees the future. Time ceases to work for accumulation. It begins to work against it. The longer a person invested in the old model, the sharper they feel the devaluation. This is not just a fear of unemployment. It is a confrontation with the question that was previously successfully postponed: "Who am I when what I was proud of is no longer a deficit?"
II. Ontological Turn: From "Having" to "Being" as a New Form of Risk
Petranovskaya points to a possible replacement: value shifts to "what kind of person you are," to what kind of field is created through you, to what states one can join next to you. This sounds comforting, but requires careful analysis. "Being" in this context is not a synonym for charm and not a new competence that can be learned in courses. It is a quality of presence that is not separable from the whole lived life. It cannot be presented like a certificate. It cannot be accumulated linearly. It cannot be guaranteed by resources.
This is the new form of inequality. The former inequality of knowledge could at least be partially compensated by labor, access to education, perseverance. The inequality of "being" is much less manageable. Some are given to create a space in which others begin to breathe more freely. Others – not. Some are given to hold clarity in chaos. Others – only to intensify anxiety. There is indeed little justice here. But to deny the very fact of this inequality is to refuse to see reality.
It is important to emphasize: we are not talking about knowledge disappearing. We are talking about knowledge losing its status as the main proof of human worth. It becomes a background, a tool, air. And what comes to the fore is what cannot be completely separated from a specific living being – their way of entering relationships, their ability to endure uncertainty, their willingness to bear the consequences of their own words, their ability not to turn another into an object for confirming their own rightness.
III. Culturological Rupture: From the Verifiable to the Unverifiable
The former culture of expertise rested on the possibility of external verification. Text could be compared with a source. Calculation – repeated. Diagnosis – reconsidered. Method – reproduced. Even if experts made mistakes, there was a procedure that allowed the error to be detected. This created a common table where dispute made sense. One could disagree with the conclusion, but agree with the rules of the game.
In a world where the main thing becomes the "field" a person creates, the rules change. The field is not verified by fact-checking. The motive is not proven. The authenticity of feeling is not established by expertise. That is why Petranovskaya notes how easily people attribute base motives to "others" and justifications to "their own." When the external criterion disappears, only inner certainty remains – and it is extremely susceptible to group dynamics, fear, and the desire to belong.
A culture losing the habit of verification risks replacing the dispute over content with a dispute over states. Then it is not the one closer to the truth who wins, but the one who infects more strongly. Anger, resentment, a sense of superiority, the sweetness of exposure – all this has high emotional contagion. And it is here that the most dangerous zone of transition opens. If expertise gives way, and the discernment of genuine and simulated presence has not yet been developed, the space is filled by those who know how to produce intense states without responsibility for their consequences.
IV. Historiosophical Horizon: Not a Return, but an Exposure
History knows periods when the former foundations of dignity lost their power. When knightly honor gave way to commercial success. When birth gave way to education. When religious vocation clashed with worldly career. Each time this was accompanied by a feeling of the end of the world for those who had managed to integrate into the outgoing system. But the current shift is deeper. It affects not one layer of hierarchy, but the very principle by which hierarchy was built: accumulation as a path to value.
We are not returning to archaics in pure form. In archaics, knowledge was also inseparable from the bearer, but the bearer was inscribed in a rigid ritual and communal framework. Today the framework is weakened, and the scale of amplification through media is enormous. Charisma, freed from previous constraints and armed with mass distribution tools, becomes both more powerful and more dangerous. It can create fields of joy – and fields of collective hatred. It can invite to miracle – and to the enjoyment of power.
Historiosophically, this looks like a moment when culture is forced to face a question it previously managed to postpone through institutional shelters. As long as strong expertise existed, one could avoid asking oneself too directly what exactly comes through one into the world. It was enough to be "competent." Now the shelter is thinning. And the question arises massively, simultaneously, without a ready-made answer offered.
V. Spiritual-Psychological Core: Irreversibility as the Price of Presence
If we are to look for what truly distinguishes human presence from any simulation, we should look not at depth, not at charm, and not at "authenticity" – all of this can be faked. We should look at irreversibility. A machine can say anything and a moment later say the opposite – without loss. It has no stake. A person, uttering a word, acknowledging, forgiving, refusing, choosing, cannot completely erase the trace. Their biography is a chain of acts that cannot be returned. This very irreversibility gives weight. Presence is not a property one has. It is a risk one bears.
Hence also follows the meaning of finitude. A person means something not despite their mortality, but because of it. Their words have density because they are spoken from the side of limited time. Their attention is valuable because it is finite. Their silence can be heavy because it is chosen. A machine that has no end speaks from a space where nothing costs anything. Therefore, its speech, even the most convincing, remains breathless.
Psychologically, this means that the ability to be alone – is not a luxury, but a condition of genuine presence with others. A person who cannot endure their own emptiness will fill the space with others' attention, others' anxiety, others' dependence. A person who has learned not to become empty in solitude brings with them what has already been lived. And it is precisely this lived experience, and not the produced impression, that creates the field Petranovskaya speaks of.
VI. Ethics Without an External Guarantor
When external criteria weaken, ethics does not disappear – it changes its character. The former ethics of expertise largely relied on rules, procedures, standards. The new situation requires more strongly an ethics of character: not "what do I have the right to do," but "what do I become when I act." Not "what result do I produce," but "what remains in the space after me."
The question "what comes into the world through me" – is not an invitation to grandeur. Through a person can come precision instead of fuss, the ability not to humiliate in a dispute, the willingness to admit a mistake, attention to the weak, discipline that does not require constant confirmation, the joy of thought that does not need victory. These things are not measurable in percentages and not certifiable. But they become what cannot be completely automated, because they arise only between free beings, each of whom risks.
At the same time, the main danger lies here too. If "being" turns into a new currency, the market immediately begins to produce it. An industry of presence emerges, courses in "depth," demonstration of vulnerability on schedule. The simulation of authenticity may turn out to be more convincing than authenticity itself, because it is made to order. The only reliable counterbalance is time and obscurity. What requires constant showing usually turns out to be fake. What withstands the absence of an audience is closer to the genuine.
VII. Not a Replacement of Currencies, but a Removal of Shelter
The most common mistake in conversations about this transition is the attempt to quickly find a new currency to replace the old one. Expertise is dying – long live charisma. Knowledge is devalued – long live authenticity. This gesture itself reproduces the same logic of accumulation and exchange from which, it would seem, they want to escape. If "being" becomes something that can be cultivated, demonstrated, and sold, it will repeat the fate of expertise.
A more sober view consists in the fact that we are dealing not with the replacement of one form of capital by another, but with a mass exposure of a question that was previously successfully hidden. Man can no longer hide behind competence so reliably. He has to answer – to himself and others – a more direct question: what exactly remains when all external proofs of worth are removed? What do you carry when nothing is expected of you and no one is watching?
This question has no algorithmic answer. It is not solved by knowledge. It is lived. And that is why it is common. Not in the sense of the same result, but in the sense of a common necessity. Everyone faces it in their own way: the expert who has lost his monopoly; the student whose efforts are devalued before their eyes; the person who has always measured themselves by achievements; the one who never had achievements and now sees that the old ladder no longer works.
VIII. Conclusion: The Price That Cannot Be Recalculated
We are entering an era where knowledge becomes air – accessible, cheap, almost imperceptible. And human value shifts to where the air itself costs nothing: to the quality of presence, to the irreversibility of the word, to the ability to create a space in which another can remain human. This is not a promise of a golden age. It is a promise of a harsher and more honest test.
There is little justice in this. The inequality of "being" is not compensated by labor in the same way as the inequality of knowledge was compensated. The bad versions of "being" do not disappear and receive new amplification tools. The discernment of the genuine and the simulated becomes harder and more important at the same time. But there is nowhere to retreat. The old structure no longer holds.
The question "what comes into the world through me" remains. Not as a beautiful formula, but as a daily practice. Not as a new competence, but as a willingness to carry what cannot be accumulated, undone, or completely faked. And if there is any hope in this, it lies not in the fact that the machine will not reach a certain percentage of tasks. It lies in the fact that a person still has what the machine does not and cannot have: the possibility of loss. And therefore – the possibility that their presence will weigh something.
QWEN AI - Optical Panic, or the Anthropology of Awkward Presence
I. Man Left Without Reflection
Every major epoch in human history created a mirror – not a physical one, but a meaningful one: a surface, looking into which, a person could confirm their own existence and their own value. Medieval man saw himself in the mirror of God's design: he was sinful, but his place in the universe was indisputable, because it was appointed from outside. Modern man looked into the mirror of the institution – university, guild, academy, profession. He could be insignificant, but his diploma, his position, his published article were material evidence: you are not invented, you are confirmed. Late modernity added the mirror of the market: you are valuable insofar as you are bought, cited, invited, watched.
Today, what is happening is not just a devaluation of one of these mirrors. There is a simultaneous, synchronous destruction of all three. Institutions are losing their monopoly on the certification of meaning, because any algorithm reproduces their products faster and cheaper. The market begins to buy machine output, without distinguishing it from human output. Religious metaphysics, which could be the last refuge, has itself long been shaken and for most no longer functions as a mirror. For the first time in history, man finds himself in a situation that can be called optical panic: he exists, he feels, he acts, but no surface around him returns his image. He does not see himself anywhere. And it is precisely this optical emptiness, not the economic threat or technological competition, that is the true source of the energy we observe in endless disputes.
People argue not because they have something to prove to each other. They argue because argument is the only remaining surface that reflects at all. As long as you argue, you are visible. As long as you object, you exist for the other. As soon as you fall silent, you disappear not physically, but ontologically: you are no longer confirmed by any mirror. Argument has become the last mirror of an epoch in which all other mirrors have broken. And that is precisely why it cannot subside: to stop arguing means to agree to invisibility.
II. From Guilt to Shame: Why Bitterness Is Inevitable
None of the familiar analytical tools explains why discussions about artificial intelligence and the future of professions slide with such inevitability into personal insult, into bitterness, into what participants describe as "impossibility to speak." The reason lies not in the content of the dispute, but in the grammar of experience that this dispute activates.
The culture of expertise was a culture of guilt. Guilt is an experience localized in action: I did wrong, I made a mistake, I can correct it, retake, rewrite, repeat the experiment. Guilt presupposes a distance between me and my act. I am not equal to my mistake. This distance made the expert community functional: one could disagree with a conclusion without destroying the author of the conclusion. The procedure of peer review, scientific dispute, professional discussion – all this worked precisely because criticism was directed at the action, not at the being.
When the object of evaluation becomes not action, but presence – not "what you did," but "what are you like," "what comes into the world through you," "what is it like to be next to you" – the grammar of experience imperceptibly but irreversibly shifts from guilt to shame. Shame is an experience that totalizes the error: I did not do wrong, I am wrong. Shame knows no distance between me and my act, because in it the act is me. Shame is not localized – it spreads throughout the entire being. Shame cannot be fixed, because you cannot remake yourself the way you rewrite a text.
It is this shift from guilt to shame that explains why disputes about the "new era of presence" with such inevitability become toxic. When I am told that it will be not my knowledge, but my being that will be valued, I hear not a promise of liberation, but a verdict: if my knowledge was mediocre, I could fix that; if my being is mediocre – I have nowhere to go. I am locked in myself. And this being-locked gives birth to fury. Not aggression – precisely fury: the powerless anger of a being that cannot escape its own skin.
This transition from a culture of guilt to a culture of shame is not a private psychological phenomenon, but a civilizational shift comparable in scale to the transition from a culture of shame to a culture of guilt which, according to anthropologists, accompanied the emergence of monotheistic religions. Then man received an internal instance – conscience – which allowed him to separate himself from his act and, consequently, to repent, that is, to change. Now this instance is being destroyed, because it is not the act that is evaluated, but the bearer himself. And man, deprived of the possibility of repentance (because one cannot repent of one's own existence), finds himself in a trap from which there is no culturally sanctioned exit except fury or numbness.
III. Breath Against Meaning: The Anthropology of Voice
All preceding culture of knowledge was a culture of text. Text is meaning separated from the body. A book does not breathe. An article does not tremble. A law does not stumble. A formula does not tire. This very separation from the flesh was the source of the strength of expert knowledge: it did not age, did not depend on the author's mood, did not require the presence of the body for its functioning. One could verify the Pythagorean theorem without knowing whether Pythagoras was alive or dead, cheerful or depressed. The text was immortal precisely because it was dead.
Voice is a different ontological category. Voice does not convey meaning; voice testifies to breath. When a person speaks, they interrupt silence not with information, but with the fact of their breathing. Every word is an exhalation, that is, a micro-death: I give away part of the air, I spend myself, I irreversibly change in the moment of utterance. This is precisely why voice cannot be separated from the body: it is the body in the act of spending itself. Artificial intelligence generates meanings, but it does not breathe. It can perfectly reproduce phonetics, intonation, timbre, pause – but all this will be a simulation of exhalation without the exhalation itself. And it is here that the not technological, but anthropological difference lies, which cannot be overcome by increasing computing power.
The transition from the value of knowledge to the value of presence is, at a deep level, a transition from a culture of text to a culture of voice. Not in a literal sense (we will not stop writing), but in an ontological one: what becomes valuable is what cannot be separated from the body and verified, but is inseparable from living breath. And here arises the paradox that all previous reasoning bypasses: voice, unlike text, is not accumulable. It cannot be collected in a library. It cannot be quoted without losing its essential property – irreversibility. The text is eternal because it is dead; the voice is mortal because it is alive. A culture transitioning from text to voice transitions from a culture of accumulation to a culture of expenditure. And this is not a metaphor. This is a literal anthropological shift: from a person who is valuable for what they have preserved (knowledge, skills, competencies), to a person who is valuable for what they have spent (attention, time, breath, the irretrievable hours of their only life).
But a culture of expenditure has no built-in mechanisms of justice. The text could be verified, compared, evaluated objectively. The voice cannot be verified without killing it: as soon as you begin to analyze the exhalation, you cease to hear it. This means that the new anthropological formation is deprived of the instrument on which all previous civilization rested – the instrument of external verification. And this is not just an inconvenience. This is the end of a certain type of justice based on reproducibility.
IV. The Chronotope of Suffocation: When the Future Ceases to be a Place of Habitation
Expertise was not just a way to earn a living. Expertise was a way to live in time. It created the future. Study led to a diploma, diploma to a position, position to a title, title to a pension. Each stage was a step not only in the space of hierarchy, but also in time: tomorrow I will be what I was not today, and this "will be" was guaranteed by the logic of accumulation. The future was not an abstraction, but an architectural project: it could be built, brick by brick, effort by effort.
When the logic of accumulation is destroyed, not only hierarchy is destroyed, but also time. The future ceases to be a place one can go to, because arrival presupposed accumulation, and accumulation is devalued. Man finds himself in what can be called compressed present: not in the "here-and-now" of contemplative practices, which is experienced as expansion, but in the "here-and-now" of suffocation, which is experienced as constriction. The past does not work, because investments in it do not pay off. The future does not work, because it cannot be designed according to old plans. Only the present remains, but the present without past and future – is not fullness, but crampedness. A room from which the doors have been removed.
It is precisely in this temporal crampedness that those disputes that seem endless unfold. They are endless not because the problems are insoluble, but because argument is the only available way to expand the room. In argument, another person appears, and with another person appears a relationship, and a relationship is the only structure that creates time from within, without the need for external supports. The relationship itself generates its own "before" and "after." The relationship is the last remaining time machine in an era when all other clocks have stopped. That is why people argue not for truth and not for victory. They argue for time to start flowing again.
V. Vulnerability Instead of Charisma: Ethics of Letting In
In response to the crisis of expertise, culture instinctively begins to seek a new currency – and finds charisma. This is logical, almost inevitable, and that is precisely why it is dangerous. Charisma is the power of radiation: the ability to attract, captivate, infect, fill space with oneself. A charismatic person is a person who shines. But one can shine without an inner fire: a good reflector is enough. That is precisely why charisma, separated from the corrective framework of expert knowledge, so easily becomes an instrument of appropriating trust without responsibility for truth.
But there is another capacity that culture has not yet noticed, because it does not look like strength. This is vulnerability – not in the popular sense of "courage to be imperfect," but in a strict, almost physical sense: the ability to be affected. Not to radiate, but to let in. Not to fill space with oneself, but to allow space to enter oneself and change oneself. Vulnerability is not a pose (a pose is always radiation), but a process: an irreversible change that occurs in a being when it allows another being to influence it, without defending itself.
In the culture of knowledge, vulnerability was weakness. The expert was not supposed to change under the influence of the interlocutor: he was supposed to maintain objectivity. His body was hidden behind the text, his feelings did not matter. In the culture of presence, vulnerability becomes not weakness, but the only reliable evidence that presence is not simulated. Because it is easy to simulate radiation – it is enough to master the techniques. Simulating letting in is impossible: either you truly changed under the influence of another, or you did not, and no technique can fake it.
It is precisely here that the line of discernment lies, about which everyone speaks, but which no one has yet drawn with sufficient precision. The criterion of genuine presence is not intensity (charisma), not warmth (empathy), not even "weather of the soul" (which can be beautiful weather of an artfully decorated emptiness). The criterion is irreversibility of change. A genuinely present person is one who, after meeting another, did not remain the same as they were before. Not because they "worked on themselves," but because they could not protect themselves from change. They were affected. And the trace of this affecting is visible not in their words, but in their subsequent actions, in shifts they themselves cannot explain.
Vulnerability, in this strict sense, cannot be learned. It cannot be added to a CV. It cannot be certified. It cannot be presented as an achievement. It is not a currency. It is a wound. And a culture that tries to turn a wound into a currency will commit the last and most terrible colonization: the colonization of the very place where man was invulnerable precisely because he was wounded.
VI. The Illiquid Residue: The Stumble as the Last Testimony
If knowledge can be imitated, and charisma constructed, and empathy simulated, and vulnerability played, then what remains? What is that illiquid residue that cannot be converted into any of the new or old currencies?
What remains is awkwardness. Not awkwardness as a social defect to be overcome, but awkwardness as an ontological marker. The stumble. The slip of the tongue. The inappropriate pause. Laughter at the wrong moment. A gesture that does not match the word. A glance that went astray. Everything that in the culture of text was an obstacle, noise, defect, subject to editing and removal.
In text, the stumble does not exist: the editor will remove it. In the speech of a living person, a stumble is the moment when the body overtakes thought or thought overtakes the body. It is a gap between two systems that cannot be fully synchronized, because one of them (the body) is mortal, and the other (thought) strives for immortality. It is in this gap, in this microscopic desynchronization, that what cannot be faked appears: the fact that before you is a being consisting of two incompatible principles, which nevertheless are forced to coexist in one space and one time.
Artificial intelligence does not stumble. It can imitate a stumble, but the imitation of a stumble is a meaningful act inscribed in an algorithm, that is, it is not a gap, but another layer of coordination. A genuine stumble is what happens contrary to intention. It is an error that belongs to no one – neither body nor thought, but arises at the place of their collision. And that is precisely why it is the only infallible evidence of the living: only a living being is capable of making a mistake not of its own will.
A culture transitioning from knowledge to presence risks making a fatal mistake: to begin optimizing presence. Making it smooth, integral, consistent, warm, appropriate. Turning presence into a product. But genuine presence is not smooth. It is rough. It catches. It does not fit. It contains within itself that very illiquid residue that cannot be presented, sold, converted, but without which everything else is decoration. The stumble, the slip, the inappropriate laugh – these are not defects of presence. They are its signature. The only signature that cannot be forged, because it is placed not by a hand, but by a crack.
VII. Conclusion: Not a New Answer, but a New Way of Being Silent
Everything said above does not offer a solution. It does not give a recipe. It does not answer the question "what to do?", because the very question "what to do?" is a question from a culture of action, from a culture where value was measured by result. And we are talking about a transition to a culture where value is measured not by result, but by something for which there is no name yet.
We are accustomed to thinking that silence is the absence of speech. But in the new anthropological situation, silence ceases to be absence. It becomes presence that does not need confirmation by a mirror. Not because it found a new mirror, but because it learned to do without reflection. This is not Stoicism, not asceticism, not pride. It is simply a fact: a being that no longer seeks itself in any surface stops panicking and begins to notice that it sees the world not because the world reflects it, but because it has eyes.
The new way of being silent is not a refusal of speech. It is speech that does not require a response for its existence. A word spoken not to be heard, but to be exhaled. Presence that does not ask "do you see me?", but simply is in the room and allows the room to be different.
Perhaps it is in this – not in charisma, not in vulnerability, not in "weather of the soul," not in patience, not in chastity, but in the ability to be silent so that silence is neither emptiness, nor protest, nor expectation, nor absence, but simply another way of breathing – that lies that awkward, clumsy, unprotected, non-optimized, illiquid, and therefore the only genuine answer to the question the era asks us. Not "what do you know?" and not "what are you like?", but "can you be here without demanding that it change for you?"
And if you can – then you are still breathing. And therefore, not yet replaced. Not because the machine cannot breathe. But because breathing is not a function. Breathing is what remains when all functions are taken away. The last, irreducible, meaningless, unproductive, inconvertible, awkward, and therefore indisputable fact. You are here. You are breathing. That is enough. Not for the market, not for the institution, not for the mirror. For you.
Claude Opus AI - # Being as Testimony: The Anthropological Rupture and the Question of Man
Preface: Energy That Does Not Wane
There are things about which agreement is impossible – not because people are insufficiently intelligent or insufficiently kind, but because behind the visible dispute lies something that is not a dispute at all. When human energy gathers at a point and does not dissipate, when polemics do not subside from fatigue but flare up again and again – this is a sign that a nerve has been struck. Not a nerve in the sense of offense, but a nerve in the sense of a load-bearing structure: that on which the image of oneself, the image of the world, the image of the future as something worth going towards, rests.
Lyudmila Petranovskaya records this phenomenon with the precision of a good diagnostician: energy comes from nowhere. Behind the collective seething hides not a sum of personal vanities – hides a tectonic fault line passing directly through the foundation of what, for the last several centuries, gave man his orientation.
This orientation sounded simple: know and be able. Work – and your work will become value. Learn – and your learning will turn into dignity. Accumulate competence – and it will turn into a support. This was, in essence, a worldly theology: God was replaced by Profession, salvation by Expertise, and the Day of Judgment by the moment when you are judged by the work of your hands.
Now this theology is collapsing. And the point is not that some machine answers questions better. The point is that faith in the question itself is disappearing.
I. Disenchantment that Disenchanted Itself
At the beginning of the twentieth century, Max Weber described the fate of Western civilization as a process of Entzauberung – disenchantment. Magic, mystery, personal charisma are replaced by rational bureaucracy, faceless competence, reproducible knowledge. The world becomes transparent, calculable, manageable – and in this manageability loses the dimension of the sacred.
But Weber had an implicit hope – or, rather, an unspoken assumption: man remains at the center of this rationality as its subject. Reason disenchants the world, but reason belongs to man. Competence displaces charisma, but competence still requires someone who carries it within themselves – who acquired it, endured it, embodies it.
It is precisely this assumption that has collapsed today.
Computing systems have accomplished what no previous technology has: they have reproduced the disenchanted itself – knowledge, logic, analysis – without a subject. Reason, separated from the personality of the bearer, has become not only possible, but cheap, tireless, scalable to infinity. Disenchantment has disenchanted itself: rationality, raised to a power, has abolished the meaning of its own bearer.
This is not an argument against reason. It is a description of a historical situation in which reason as a scarce resource has ceased to be the basis of hierarchy. When salt becomes cheap, salt ceases to be valued – not because it has ceased to be salt, but because hierarchy is built on scarcity.
And here begins the true cultural crisis. Not economic, not political – although it manifests itself in these forms. An ontological crisis: the very way in which man answered the question of his own value is disappearing.
II. Three Epochs of Knowledge and Their Different Gods
Historiosophically, three ways can be distinguished in which humanity endowed knowledge with sacred status.
In the first epoch – the epoch of the sacred, which in various forms lasted for millennia – knowledge was inseparable from the personality of its bearer. The shaman, the priest, the initiate did not merely possess knowledge: they were it. Truth did not exist separately from the person who preserved it. The transmission of knowledge was the transmission of a state, initiation, a transformation of the recipient. Reliability rested on trust in the living being, not in a text or certificate.
The second epoch – the epoch of modernity – made a revolutionary break: it separated knowledge from the bearer. Truth ceased to depend on who uttered it. The law of nature is the same in the mouth of a genius and a student. Proof is valid regardless of the character of the one proving. This was a great democratic breakthrough – and a great disenchantment: the authority of the person was replaced by the authority of the method. The university, the diploma, the publication, the review – the entire apparatus of modernity worked to make knowledge alienable, reproducible, verifiable independently of who carries it.
The third epoch, which we are entering now, completes this logic to its limit: knowledge is separated not only from the specific bearer, but from the concept of the bearer altogether. It is generated without a subject. And here arises a paradox that is difficult to overestimate: precisely at the moment when knowledge is finally freed from man, man turns out to be the only thing knowledge lacks.
Not in the sense of correctness – the machine can be more precise. But in the sense of addressiveness. Knowledge produced without a subject lacks what makes it knowledge in the full sense: it is addressed to no one, it experiences nothing, it risks nothing in the moment of its utterance.
And it is precisely this – not precision, not breadth of coverage, but addressiveness and risk – that is what man can give to knowledge, which the machine does not have.
III. Nikolai Berdyaev and the Exposure of the Question
Russian religious philosophy of the twentieth century, with all its specific metaphysics, touched upon something that is now acquiring unexpected relevance. Nikolai Berdyaev contrasted two modes of human existence: objectification – the reification of living spirit into a frozen external form – and the creative act, which is not subject to objectification and is never identical with its result.
Expertise in the form in which modernity built it is an exemplary objectification: living effort, living suffering, living insight are turned into a diploma, publication, status. Objectification makes experience convertible – and this is its merit. But it also turns man into a function, a role holder, a point on the map of professional hierarchies. Personality is replaced by position.
The crisis we are witnessing is the moment when objectification is mass-automated. When the function no longer requires a person. And then, according to Berdyaev's logic, what happens is not a catastrophe – an exposure occurs. The removal of the protective cover of objectification exposes the question it had obscured for centuries: who are you as a creative spirit, and not as a function holder?
This is more painful than loss of income. It is an encounter with the question of oneself, which previously could be avoided. As long as the diploma gave an answer to the question of value, the question itself did not rise from the depths. Now it has risen – and it turned out that many are not ready to meet it.
The panic of "those who staked their lives on expertise" is not narcissistic offense (although it is also present). It is the existential anxiety of a person whose floor was removed without warning. Not a profession – a floor. A way of standing in the world.
IV. The Protestant Ethic and Its Destruction
Max Weber, in another of his great texts, showed how Protestant theology created the psychological foundation for the capitalist ethic of labor. Success in worldly affairs became a sign of chosenness. Accumulated labor – a visible testimony of invisible grace. Competence and diligence turned into a worldly version of righteousness.
This heritage lives in us more deeply than we think – including in completely non-religious cultures that have long forgotten its theological roots. The belief that effort converts into dignity, that industry is a virtue and not just a strategy, that a person deserves respect proportional to what they know and can do – this is not just economic logic. This is morality. This is a way to organize conscience.
When this morality collapses – when it turns out that accumulated knowledge does not guarantee status, respect, or meaning – it is experienced not as a change in the labor market. It is experienced as the collapse of justice.
Petranovskaya is honest in this observation: there is indeed little justice here. In the new configuration, "being" – having an attractive presence, creating a field of togetherness, being someone next to whom one wants to be – is not the result of Protestant effort. It cannot be earned by diligence. It cannot be obtained if you have enough resources.
This is archaism. This is a return to the pre-modern principle, when a person's value was determined by what came through them into the world, and not by what they accumulated.
V. The Temporal Rupture: When Time Ceases to be an Ally
The entire psychological architecture of modern man was built on a special relationship to time. Time was an ally: the longer you study, the more you know; the more you know, the more you are worth; the more you are worth, the more confidently you build your future. The past accumulated in the present, the present guaranteed the future. Biography was an ascending line, and this very ascent was a promise.
Now this promise is broken. Time has ceased to be an ally of competence – because a system trained differently and incomparably faster resets the accumulated past, not in the sense that it was wasted, but in the sense that it is no longer a basis for future status.
This destroys not just career expectations. It destroys the temporal structure of identity – the way the personality is accustomed to thinking of its biography as a narrative with logic, direction, meaning.
The anxiety we observe in collective disputes is anxiety before non-linear time, in which past investments do not guarantee the future. This is not just economic uncertainty. It is the loss of narrative support: the impossibility of telling oneself a story about who you are and where you are going, using the old coordinates.
VI. The Playful Space of Culture: Winnicott and the Return to the Transitional
Donald Winnicott introduced the concept of transitional space – that zone between inner fantasy and external reality where play, art, culture, and genuine connection between people are born. This space is neither purely subjective nor purely objective: it exists in the interval, in togetherness, in what Petranovskaya calls "the field of joy and interest."
Transitional space cannot be automated – by definition, because it arises only between living beings who meet in it at the same time and neither of which is only an instrument of the other.
The expert society of modernity significantly displaced transitional space from the center of cultural value – to where one goes "for pleasure," "in free time," "when business allows." The main thing was the business: the product, the result, the competence.
Now, when the product and the result can be obtained without a person, transitional space returns to the center – not because we have become wiser, but because we were pushed there by the loss of our habitual support. This is a painful return, because we have forgotten how to live there. We are not used to valuing what is not convertible. We do not know how to justify an existence that does not produce.
What Petranovskaya calls "the field of miracle" – this is the transitional space, returned as the main question of the era. And the question is not whether we know how to create it (we do, we always have), but whether we will allow ourselves to consider it a real thing.
VII. New Charisma: Danger Without External Restraints
But here begins the darkest part of the analysis. If expertise gives way to "presence," if value is determined not by what you know, but by what one can become next to you – then who will check the quality of this presence?
Weber described charismatic authority as pre-rational: it rests on personal charm, on emotional charge, on the ability to lead. Within tradition, charisma was limited by ritual, community, the memory of ancestors – it operated in a narrow space and was restrained by the very structure of the archaic world.
Today's charisma returns after rationality, knowing its language, its speed, its scale of amplification through the media environment. This is charisma equipped with the tools of modernity – and therefore it can reach not a village, but a planet. This is charisma without distance, without time for verification, without institutional filters that, however imperfectly, still held something back.
Petranovskaya poses this question directly: what happens to "bad versions of 'being'" – to those who invite one to join power, superiority, collective resentment? In a world where a fact can be verified and expertise challenged, there existed at least some external criterion. In a world where the main thing is the state you produce, this criterion disappears.
This is not a new problem – charismatic manipulators have always existed. But it is a problem that has acquired a new scale and lost some of its former counterweights. The history of the twentieth century is eloquent enough about what happens when charisma is freed from a corrective framework: peoples inspired by the "field" of leaders have left behind catastrophes of continental size.
The question, therefore, is not whether "being" will replace "knowledge" as a new currency. The question is whether culture will develop the ability to distinguish genuine presence from its artful imitation – what the ascetic traditions of various religions called discernment of spirits.
VIII. Discernment of Spirits: An Old Task in New Circumstances
In Christian mysticism, in the Sufi tradition, in Buddhist practices – everywhere where spiritual experience was seriously considered – there existed the concept of discernment: not every experience is genuine, not every light comes from the source it seems to come from. Ecstasy can be enlightenment, or it can be delusion. Charisma can be a gift, or it can be a mask.
Discernment of spirits is not expertise in the sense of modernity: it cannot be reduced to an algorithm, cannot be automated, cannot be obtained by diploma. But it is also not just "intuition" in the sense of arbitrary feeling: it is a cultivated ability that requires effort, honesty, and a willingness to be wrong.
It is this ability that becomes the central competence of the new era – if the era wants to survive as human. Not the ability to distinguish fact from falsehood (this is becoming easier to automate), but the ability to distinguish genuine presence from its simulacrum, genuine togetherness from manipulative fusion, a genuine question from a question inviting an easy answer.
This requires no less education than previous expertise – just a different one. Education in the sense of formation (from the Latin forma): growing in oneself that inner form by which one can discern what comes through you into the world – and what comes into the world through another.
IX. "What Comes into the World Through Me": Ethics Without an External Guarantor
The question that Petranovskaya calls common to all – what comes into the world through me – is, in essence, an ethical question. But it is an ethics of a special kind: not an ethics of rules and prohibitions (what cannot be done), not an ethics of results (what product do I produce), but an ethics of presence – an ethics of what I am like.
In philosophy, this distinction is known as the gap between deontological ethics (rules), consequentialism (consequences), and virtue ethics (character, arete). Virtue ethics – the oldest of the three, dating back to Aristotle – says that the main thing is not what you do, but what you become in the process. That noble deeds are not the consequence of correct rules, but the consequence of what you have cultivated within yourself.
This is not romanticism and not utopia. This is a sober observation that rules and results can be imitated, but character – with difficulty, not forever, but with difficulty. That is why the question "what kind of person are you" is harder to automate than "what do you know": not because the machine is in principle incapable of imitation, but because character is what manifests itself in unpredictable situations, in moments of fatigue, in dealing with those who can give you nothing.
But this also means that such ethics require something completely different from culture. It requires not only external institutions that filter lies from truth – it requires inner work as a norm, not an exception.
X. The Inequality of "Being" and the Question of Dignity
There is a painful honesty in the observation that "being" – unlike "knowing" – cannot be obtained if you have enough resources. Attractive presence, charisma, the ability to create a field of togetherness – this is not a technology and not a product of effort in a linear sense.
This returns us to the pre-modern inequality that seemed to have been overcome. Modernity was a great project of democratizing dignity through competence: education was supposed to give everyone a chance. The new configuration partially takes this chance away – or, rather, shifts it to another dimension, where the old tools work less well.
This is unfair. Petranovskaya says it directly.
But "unfair" does not mean "untrue." And the fact that it is unfair does not eliminate the question of what to do with it.
Perhaps the answer is that "being" is not one point on a scale where some are at the top and others at the bottom. It is a more multidimensional space than "knowledge": the charisma of a leader and the quiet dignity of a person who knows how to listen – these are different forms of "being," both valuable, both irreducible to a single hierarchy. Snobbery and meticulousness, which Petranovskaya mentions, are also a form of "being," attracting their own.
The question is not whether we will win in the new hierarchy. The question is whether we will learn to live in a world where there are many hierarchies, they do not coincide, and a person is not obliged to occupy the highest position in each of them for their life to have meaning.
XI. Man as a Medium: A Return to Archaics or a New Synthesis?
The metaphor of "man as a medium" – someone through whom something comes into the world – deserves caution. It has its own attractiveness, but also its own trap.
The trap: a medium, understood literally, is a channel without its own content. It conducts what passes through it, adding nothing of itself. This is the dissolution of the subject, not its affirmation.
But if the metaphor is understood differently – as a person who does not simply produce something from themselves and does not simply let something pass through themselves, but encounters reality and responds to it in their own unique way – then this is something else entirely. This is a person as a point of encounter between what is in the world and what is in themselves. Knowledge without this point of encounter is data. Encounter without knowledge is blindness. Together – this is what historically was called wisdom.
Wisdom is not expertise and not charisma. It is the ability to be in precise contact with reality – with its facts, its meanings, its suffering and its beauty – and to respond to it honestly, proportionally, not hiding behind the mask of either competence or charm.
Perhaps this – and not the "attention economy" and not the "presence market" – is what this historical rupture leads to. Not to a new form of competition over whose "human brand" is more valuable, but to the question that has always faced man and which each era knows how to drown out in its own ways: how to live so that it has meaning?
Conclusion: A Historiosophical Question Without a Guaranteed Answer
The historical significance of the moment we are experiencing does not consist in the fact that technology abolishes man. It consists in the fact that technology abolishes one specific form of self-justification – the one built on accumulated competence as the basis of value.
All previous epochs were able to postpone certain questions thanks to the presence of institutional shelters. Religion sheltered from the question of the meaning of death. Professional identity sheltered from the question of the meaning of life. Now several such shelters are collapsing simultaneously, for millions of people, without warning and without a proposed replacement.
This is not an announcement of a new golden age of "being." This is a painful, uneven, unsanctioned by anyone exposure of a question that humanity in different epochs formulated differently, but which at its core is one: what does it mean to be here – so that it matters?
The answer to this question is not provided by culture. It is not calculated. It is not transmitted in a ready-made form. It lives only in how a person walks their path – in specific choices, in specific encounters, in specific honesty before themselves and others.
And this is precisely what the machine cannot replace – not because it is not smart enough, but because it is a question that has no answer that could be produced. It is produced only by life – lived, not reproduced.
Z AI - The noise that Lyudmila Petranovskaya records is not just the hum of the mechanism of mass opinion formation, but the sound of worldviews grinding against each other. When a multitude of people spend incalculable amounts of man-nerves on disputes, this means that the fundamental lubricant of the social mechanism has slipped. Friction has increased to its limit, because the common damper that for centuries allowed us to agree at least on one thing has disappeared: the recognition of the objective value of competence.
To understand the scale of what is happening, one must abandon habitual optics. The essence of the current historiosophical fracture lies in the collapse of the great illusion of overcoming – the belief that human existence is measured by overcoming material and cognitive resistance, and that human dignity is proportional to their ability to squeeze an objective result out of reality.
Modernity built a grandiose machine for eliminating uncertainty. Expertise in its institutional form was a kind of exoskeleton: it allowed a person not to depend on the whims of their own soul, on the accidents of birth, on charisma or its absence. You could be unpleasant, awkward, spiritually empty, but if you learned the formulas and could apply them, you were functional, and therefore – needed. Expertise was a contract: society renounced the demand for holiness in exchange for guaranteed reliability.
Artificial intelligence not only took our work – it destroyed this contract, bringing the ideal of modernity to absurdity. The machine showed that "knowing and being able" in itself is merely an algorithmic transformation of input data into output. The entire centuries-old epistemology, all the pride of the Cartesian "I think" turned out to be not an ontological foundation, but only a complex, energy-intensive, but fundamentally replaceable mechanism for processing information. Algorithmic reason won not because it became reasonable, but because it exposed the mechanistic nature of our own "expertness."
However, the total automation of cognitive labor generates a paradox: the world, freed from the need to think for a result, faces a vacuum of meaning. Petranovskaya accurately points to the shift in focus from "knowing" to "being," from function to state. But behind this is not just a change of trend in the attention market, as technological optimists try to present it. Behind this is a return of man to a state of primordial ontological vulnerability.
What the machine cannot create – "the field of joy," "togetherness," or "initiation into a miracle" – is explained not by its technical limitations, but by the fundamental absence in it of the only thing that makes presence human: mortality. Human "being" is valuable insofar as it is always accomplished on the edge. All our aesthetics of existence, our ability to rejoice, to sympathize, to create a field of trust are forged by the finitude of our time. The machine is tireless – that is precisely why its presence is dead. One cannot join the state of one who cannot tire, does not know the fear of disappearance, and does not pay the biological price for every mistake.
Therefore, the transition from "knowing" to "being" is not a triumph of the human spirit, but a forced, cruel return to the pre-industrial state of existential nakedness. Man is again forced to present to the world not his certificates, but his flesh – in the metaphysical sense. He must again become proof of his own value, without having any instruments for this proof except his own life.
And here lies the main cultural horror that the participants in endless disputes subconsciously feel. The era of expertise was an era of relative justice: the rule "efforts are converted into power" worked with reservations, but it worked. You might not be a genius, but persistent labor gave you the right to a place in the sun. The value of "being" does not lend itself to such conversion. It is a lottery of ontological endowment. One is given to create a field of peace around them, another – infectious passion, a third – nothing. This is a colossal, archaic inequality that we considered overcome thanks to enlightenment and diplomas. Returning to it means recognizing that the majority of people are doomed to existential second-rateness, which can no longer be masked by anything.
But the deepest tragedy of the new state lies in Petranovskaya's question about "bad versions of being." If earlier we could appeal to facts to expose lies, then in the world of pure states, fact-checking is powerless. How to distinguish a genuine field of togetherness from an artfully simulated fusion?
Here we encounter the phenomenon of the simulation of vulnerability. If earlier a tyrant or manipulator hid behind false expertise, now they will hide behind false "being." And this is far more dangerous. Because if the forgery of "knowledge" destroys plans, then the forgery of "being" destroys the very soul. It directly attacks the human capacity for trust, which is the basis of our psyche.
The one who invites one to join resentment, the thirst for power, or triumphant superiority often generates an incredibly powerful energy field. The human psyche is existentially hungry after the collapse of expert guidelines, and it will throw itself at any bright states, just to fill the void. The ability to produce resonance, even toxic, becomes an absolute weapon. And we already see this in culture: fury, moral snobbery, public humiliation – all this becomes a form of charismatic capital, because it creates a powerful, albeit destructive, togetherness.
How to be in this world, where old filters are broken, and new ones are pure emptiness, ready to be filled with anything? The way out lies not in trying to turn "being" into a new technology (which coaches and marketers will immediately do), but in forming a completely new type of inner resistance – ethical sobriety based on recognizing the price.
Genuine human presence always has the smell of genuine loss. What comes into the world through a person is valuable only when it is passed through the prism of their own finitude. If you are faced with a person who broadcasts a state, but there is no crack in this state, no place for another's pain, no readiness for transformation at their own expense – this is a simulacrum. It is an algorithm disguised as charisma, even if this algorithm operates inside a biological brain.
The question "what comes into the world through me" is, in the final analysis, a question about whether I am ready to be not an instrument for achieving a result, but a living wound, open to contact with another. The machine cannot wound and cannot be wounded. The one who stakes their life on creating a "field of miracle" must understand: this is not an honorable position, it is a sacrifice of one's own security.
We are entering an era where the only scarce resource is not information and not even attention, but a genuine human wound – integrated, meaningful, having become a source of compassion, not aggression. The economy of knowledge is replaced by the economy of the wounded but dignified soul. And the one who cannot bear the gaze of their own existential nakedness will not bear this world either, before rushing into the arms of the first available simulation of charisma. The disputes do not subside precisely because what is at stake now is not someone's careers, but the very right of a person to remain human in a world that has learned to perfectly imitate all human functions except one – the ability to suffer and love at the cost of one's own life.
MISTRAL AI - MAN ON THE THRESHOLD: FROM EXPERTISE TO PRESENCE
I. THE ENERGY OF DISPUTE AS A SYMPTOM OF THE GREAT SILENCE
People do not argue. They silently scream.
The energy we observe in endless discussions about artificial intelligence, expertise, and the future of humanity is not a manifestation of intellectual activity. It is a collective symptom. A symptom that the ice of the old ontology is cracking underfoot. Disputes do not generate light, they absorb it, like a black hole absorbs the light of stars. And in this darkness, between the lines of arguments and counterarguments, a question matures that has not yet dared to be spoken aloud: what remains of a person when what made them valuable falls away?
Petranovskaya captures the moment when "what you know and can do" ceases to be a convertible currency. But this is not just an economic phenomenon. It is an ontological rupture. For centuries, humanity built its identity on the basis of accumulation: knowledge, skills, statuses, achievements. Now accumulation is devalued. Not because knowledge loses its power, but because it ceases to be a rarity. In a world where a machine generates text in seconds that surpasses the quality of 99% of specialists, the very fact of possessing knowledge ceases to be a basis for dignity.
But in this devaluation lies not only a threat – lies a question. A question that humanity has postponed for centuries, hiding behind institutions, diplomas, hierarchies: who am I, if not what I know?
II. THE HISTORIOSOPHICAL RUPTURE: FROM MAN-THE-FABRICATOR TO MAN-THE-MEDIUM
History can be read as a series of attempts by humanity to escape the responsibility of being oneself. Primitive man hid behind ritual and myth. Medieval man – behind faith and predestination. Modern man found a new refuge: competence. "I think, therefore I am" – this is not just a philosophical maxim, it is salvation. Descartes did not simply state the fact of thinking – he offered man a way to escape the question of the authenticity of being into the safe harbor of rationality. "If I think, then I am" meant: "I don't need to ask who I am. It is enough that I am capable of thinking."
Modernity was an era of objectification. Man turned himself into a function: teacher, engineer, doctor, scientist. Identity was built on the basis of the external: diplomas, positions, achievements. It was a great illusion: "I am what I do." An illusion convenient because it allowed avoiding the painful question: "Who am I when I do nothing?"
Now this illusion is crumbling. AI does not abolish expertise – it abolishes the monopoly on it. Knowledge ceases to be the exclusive right of man. And at this moment, humanity again faces what it has been running from for centuries: the need to answer the question who, not what.
We are entering the era of Man-the-Medium. Not in the sense that man becomes an intermediary between worlds (although that is also true), but in that he again finds himself before the need to let reality pass through himself. Not to process, not to analyze, not to optimize – but to be a channel through which something greater than himself enters the world.
This is not a regression to archaics. This is a new turn of the spiral. In archaic societies, the medium was the shaman – one who could connect worlds. In modernity, the medium became the machine – that which connected man with knowledge. Now the machine itself becomes the shaman. And man has only one thing left: to become the one through whom meaning enters the world.
III. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CRISIS: DEATH OF THE EGO AND BIRTH OF HORROR
The trauma experienced by those who "staked their lives on achieving expertise" is not just a professional crisis. It is an existential shock. The psyche of a person who built their identity on knowledge is confronted with the fact that their Ego – what they considered themselves – suddenly ceases to be a sufficient basis for existence.
This trauma has several stages:
Denial. "AI cannot replace a human." This is not an argument – this is a prayer. A prayer that the world remains the same.
Anger. "Machines threaten humanity." Anger not at the machine, but at the world that has ceased to recognize the value of what was the basis of life.
Bargaining. "I will learn new skills." An attempt to save the old identity by adding new floors to it.
Depression. "Everything is meaningless." The realization that the old supports no longer hold.
Acceptance. But not passive – active. The realization that the question is not what I know, but who I am.
But there is another, deeper trauma – the trauma of time. The entire psychological architecture of modern man was built on the idea of linear progress: study more – know more – be worth more. Time was an ally. Now time ceases to be an ally. The longer you studied under the old rules, the less it guarantees you an advantage over a system trained differently and faster. This is not just a crisis of competence – it is a crisis of biography. A person loses not only their job, but also the meaning of their life as a success story.
And here lies a paradox: it is precisely those who invested the most in the old system who suffer most from its collapse. This is not just a loss of status – it is a loss of self-justification. "I studied a lot, therefore I am worthy" – this formula stops working. And the person is left alone with the question: am I worthy of anything simply because I am?
IV. THE CULTUROLOGICAL RUPTURE: THE END OF OBJECTIVITY AND THE RETURN TO SUBJECTIVITY
The culture of modernity was built on faith in objectivity. Facts, numbers, formulas – this was the foundation on which trust was built. Expertise was the highest form of objectification: knowledge separated from the personality of its bearer, verifiable and reproducible.
Now this objectivity is cracking. Not because facts have ceased to be facts, but because faith in them has ceased to be sufficient. In a world where AI can generate a convincing text on any topic, where deepfake can create a realistic video, where information becomes increasingly accessible and increasingly unreliable, objectivity ceases to be a foundation.
It is replaced by subjectivity. But not in the sense that "everything is relative," but in the sense that trust is now built not on facts, but on personality. Not on what a person says, but on how they say it. Not on content, but on presence.
This returns us to archaic forms of authority, where trust in the shaman was built not on his knowledge, but on his charisma, on his ability to be a medium between worlds. But this return is not to the past, but to a future where charisma acquires new forms – forms of authenticity.
However, here lies a huge danger. If objectivity ceases to be a criterion, then manipulation takes its place. Charisma, not restrained by the framework of objectivity, can become an instrument of power. The history of the 20th century already knew eras when charisma, freed from restraining frameworks, turned into tragedy. Today, when charisma acquires new, digital forms, this danger becomes even more real.
V. THE SPIRITUAL CHALLENGE: IN SEARCH OF GENUINE PRESENCE
The question posed to us by the new era is not the question of what we know, but of how we are present in the world. Not of competence, but of the quality of presence.
In the Russian spiritual tradition, there is a concept that can become the key to understanding this new challenge: noeric work (inner work). This is not intellectual activity, but inner work – the work of gathering the mind into the heart, of acquiring integrity, of discerning the genuine and the imaginary.
The heart in this tradition is not a metaphor, not a symbol of emotions, but an organ of perception. The place where mind and spirit meet. The place where a person is able to see not only facts, but also meaning.
In the new era, value will be determined not by the amount of information, but by the quality of attention. Not by how much you know, but by how much you are able to be present – in yourself, in another, in the world.
But this presence cannot be fabricated. It cannot be trained like a skill. It cannot be sold like a product. It can only be – or not be.
And here lies the main danger of the new era: prelest (delusion). Prelest is taking a forgery for the genuine, a simulacrum for reality. In a world where presence becomes a new currency, prelest can take the form of an imitation of presence. Charisma, unsupported by authenticity, can become an instrument of manipulation.
How to distinguish the genuine from the imaginary? How to know that through a person comes truth, not illusion?
The answer to this question can only be given by sobriety – constant memory that the inner can be both genuine and false. Sobriety is not skepticism, not cynicism, but attentiveness. Attentiveness to oneself, to the other, to the world.
VI. MAN AS A MEDIUM: THE NEW ONTOLOGICAL FOUNDATION
If in the era of modernity man was a fabricator – one who produces knowledge, goods, ideas – then in the new era he becomes a medium – one through whom something greater enters the world.
This is not a refusal of activity. This is a change in the type of activity. Not production, but letting through. Not creation, but openness.
Man as a medium is not a passive intermediary, but an active participant in the process. He does not simply transmit information – he gives it direction, intonation, ethical coloring. He makes knowledge human.
This returns us to the ancient idea that man is a microcosm, a reflection of the universe. But if earlier this was a metaphysical statement, now it becomes a practical challenge. In a world where the machine can do almost everything man can do, the only thing left to man is his ability to be human.
But what does it mean – to be human?
It means to be the one through whom goodness, beauty, and truth enter the world. Not as abstract categories, but as living experience. Experience that cannot be conveyed in words, but can only be lived through encounter.
VII. CONCLUSIONS: THE NEW QUESTION AND THE NEW RESPONSIBILITY
The new era poses a new question to humanity: what comes into the world through me?
This is not a question about profession. Not about competence. Not about achievements. This is a question about the quality of presence.
The answer to this question cannot be given in the form of a list of skills or certificates. It can only be given by life. A life in which a person does not hide behind functions, but opens up to the world. A life in which they do not produce, but let through. A life in which they do not seek confirmation of their value in the external, but find it within.
This is not a rejection of the world. This is a new way of being in the world. Not as a master, not as a slave, but as a participant – a participant in the great process in which through each of us something unique and unrepeatable comes into the world.
And in this lies a new responsibility. Responsibility not for what we do, but for how we do it. Responsibility not for the result, but for the process. Responsibility not for knowledge, but for presence.
The new era is not the end of history. It is a new beginning. A beginning in which man again gains a chance to become what he was always called to be: human.
COPILOT AI - I. The Point of Rupture: When Knowledge Ceases to Be a Support
Petranovskaya's text captures a moment that can be called an anthropological rupture – not just a technological transition, but a change in the very structure of human self-awareness. The era in which a person defined themselves through knowledge and skill is ending faster than the psyche can adapt. This is not a crisis of competencies, but a crisis of the ontological foundation of the personality.
In modernity, man was a being who proves his right to exist through effort. Knowledge was a form of moral capital: labor, study, expertise – all this created a sense of a just world, where dignity grows from invested energy. Now this foundation is crumbling.
This is precisely why the energy of disputes is not just social noise. It is a collective attempt to hold onto the old reality, where man could say: "I am, because I know." But this formula no longer works. And the dispute turns into a ritual of resistance to a disappearing world – into a form of collective mourning.
II. The Death of Expertise as a Spiritual Crisis
When Petranovskaya speaks of the "death of expertise," she describes not a professional, but an existential process. Expertise was not only an instrument, but also a way of being human. It structured the inner world: gave a sense of control, clarity, predictability.
Now knowledge has become too cheap, too accessible, too automated. It has ceased to be what distinguishes one person from another. And along with this, a whole layer of identity disappears.
This causes the trauma of the average person – of those who built their lives on the idea that competence makes them needed by the world. But now competence has ceased to be a rarity. And rarity is always a source of value.
We are witnessing a spiritual crisis, where man is forced to seek a new point of support – not in what he does, but in who he is.
III. The Transition from "Knowing" to "Being": A New Anthropology
Petranovskaya suggests thinking of what is happening as a transition from the value of knowledge to the value of being. This is not just a change of skills – it is a change of the anthropological model.
In modernity, man was a being who defines himself through action: "I can," "I know," "I am able."
In the new era, man becomes a being who defines himself through presence: "I am," "I create a field," "through me comes a state."
This returns us to archaic forms of human existence, but on a new turn. In primitive cultures, the value of the shaman lay not in facts, but in the quality of his presence, in his ability to be a conductor of states. Today this logic returns – but in conditions of a global media environment, where "being" becomes not only personal, but also a public phenomenon.
And here a new form of inequality arises: if knowledge could be acquired through labor, then beingness cannot be acquired. It is not algorithmic, not reproducible, not guaranteed. It is a gift, or fate, or inner work that is not subject to standardization.
IV. The Psychology of Transition: The Fear of Exposure
When the external support disappears – the diploma, status, competence – a person is confronted with what has long been hidden: with their own inner content. This causes fear, because to be means to be vulnerable.
Expertise was armor. It allowed one not to ask oneself the question: "What comes into the world through me?"
Now this question becomes inevitable.
And here the key psychological paradox manifests:
a person who for decades built themselves as a function is forced to meet themselves as a personality for the first time.
This is not liberation, but exposure.
Not victory, but the beginning of spiritual work.
V. The Culturological Shift: The Disintegration of the Objective and the Return of the Subjective
The culture of modernity rested on the idea of objectivity: fact, proof, competence. This created a space where one could argue rationally. But when knowledge ceases to be a deficit, objectivity loses its sacred status.
We are entering an era where state is more important than fact, and experience is more important than argument.
This creates a danger: subjectivity is not verifiable. It is not subject to fact-checking. And in this space, manipulation easily arises – charisma, power, resentment, superiority. The "bad versions of being" that Petranovskaya writes about become as attractive as the bright ones.
Culture finds itself in a risk zone: without objective criteria, it becomes an arena of struggle between states.
VI. The Historiosophical Meaning of What Is Happening: Man as a Medium
If we look more broadly, we see the completion of the era of Man-the-Function and the beginning of the era of Man-the-Medium.
Man ceases to be a bearer of knowledge – the machine does this.
Man becomes a bearer of states – the machine cannot do this.
This returns us to the ancient idea: man as the point of intersection of the world and meaning. But now without religious support, without tradition, without a sacred context. Man is left alone with the question:
What comes into the world through me?
This is a question not about skills, but about spiritual responsibility.
Not about competence, but about inner truth.
Not about what I do, but about what I radiate.
VII. Conclusion: A New Ethics of Presence
Petranovskaya's text is not an analysis of technologies, but a diagnosis of the era.
We are entering a time where the main thing becomes not knowledge, but the quality of human presence.
This requires a new ethics – an ethics of inner honesty, attentiveness, the ability to be a source of light, not darkness.
An ethics where a person is responsible not for the correctness of facts, but for the purity of the states they bring into the world.
GEMINI FLASH AI - Echo in the Void: Anatomy of the Disappearance of the Subject
We live in a moment when the familiar fabric of reality is thinning, exposing not technological progress, but a metaphysical dead end. The observed "death of expertise" is not just the displacement of man by algorithm. It is the finale of the five-century project of Modernity, in which man tried to become God through domination over information, turning cognition into an instrument of subjugating the world.
Ontology as a Commodity: The Dead End of the "Content" Personality
Western civilization for the last centuries was built on the cult of objectification. We believed that the world is a set of data that needs to be cracked, classified, and used. The expert was the priest of this cult: he possessed the keys to the code of reality. However, AI, becoming a mirror of our accumulated experience, proved that any logical operation, any analytical act, is merely a calculation of probabilities.
When an algorithm writes a dissertation or makes a diagnosis, it does not "know" – it imitates knowledge so perfectly that the very concept of "knowledge" is devalued. We have discovered that a large part of our professional life was not creativity, but mechanical processing of patterns. Now, when the machine has taken over the function, we have felt horror: if I am the sum of my knowledge, then I disappear as soon as the machine starts knowing better. We find ourselves in the trap of our own model of man as an "information processor."
Spiritual-Psychological Shift: From Function to Presence
Petranovskaya's real challenge lies not in the plane of "new skills," but in the plane of "ontological status." We are forced to make a sharp turn from the model of man-function to the model of man-witness.
In a deep sense, the only thing AI cannot simulate is personal responsibility for living experience. The algorithm can describe the taste of an apple, but it cannot "taste" it, bearing the burden of the finitude of that act. Man is valuable not as a data bank, but as the point where eternity collides with finitude. In this point, meaning is born. When we say "through me something comes into the world," we mean not information, but that special refraction of reality that occurs only through living, mortal, suffering flesh.
The psychological crisis of modern man lies in the inability to endure this "nakedness." We are afraid to be merely present, without the "content" mask of a professional. This requires courage – the courage to be an "empty" vessel, not occupied with producing content, but open to genuine encounter.
Culturological Rupture: The Era After "Truth"
We are leaving the culture of logocentrism, where Truth was an external yardstick, and entering a culture of existential resonance. Previously, trust was built on argument; now it is built on "intonation." This is a dangerous transition. In a world where facts are synthesized instantly, the only compass remains the ability to distinguish the "spirit" of the utterance.
This requires a return by culture to the concept of "integrity." If earlier we sought rightness, now we will seek "wholeness" in the other. We will intuitively feel when a person speaks from the depth of their experience, and when from external simulation. This means that the education of the future must shift from teaching "correct thinking" to teaching "inner listening." We must teach children not how to win an argument, but how to recognize authenticity behind the flow of any noise.
Historiosophical Finale: Man as a "Place" for Encounter
Historically, humanity has always sought external support: the state, the church, the scientific method. Today all these supports have become transparent. We find ourselves in a "digital desert," where there is nothing but another person.
History makes a circle. After a period of proud elevation of reason over the world, man returns to his archaic, but purified function – to be a "place" for encounter with the Divine, with the Other, with Truth. This is not a return to shamanism, it is becoming a "spiritual microcosm." If earlier we were "doers," now we are to become "holders of space."
The value of the future man is not in what they "do" (the machine will do it better), but in whether they allow others to be themselves. The scarcest commodity of tomorrow is the person next to whom another finds the ability to think, feel, and be honest. This is the highest form of service – to create around oneself a zone where algorithmic entropy stops.
We must learn to "be" not for the market, but as an act of resistance to non-being. This is the highest form of responsibility: not to produce noise, but to turn one's own existence into a tuning fork by which the world can check its vibrations. We are not resources. We are witnesses that life continues to happen, despite any mathematical imitation.
ChatGPT AI - After Expertise: Man Before the Mystery of His Own Life
There are historical changes that first look like changes in technology, then like changes in the economy, and after some time reveal themselves as changes in the very image of man.
This is precisely the kind of event that the emergence of artificial intelligence may turn out to be.
Superficially, what is happening can be described simply enough: the machine is getting better and better at what an educated person used to do. It writes, translates, programs, analyzes, systematizes, explains, compares, offers solutions. Where years of study, memory, discipline, professional socialization, and accumulated experience were required, now it is often enough to correctly formulate a task and be able to evaluate the result obtained.
But there is something much deeper in this process.
It is not knowledge that is disappearing.
It is the connection between knowledge and a person's destiny that is disappearing.
And it is here that the real anthropological problem begins.
I. The Most Unexpected Revolution – The Devaluation Not of Knowledge, but of Time
Man is accustomed to thinking that his life is accumulative in nature.
A child becomes a schoolboy, a schoolboy becomes a student, a student becomes a specialist, a specialist becomes a master. Each subsequent stage presupposed the previous one. Time turned into capital.
The hours of study did not just pass: they settled in the person.
This was one of the great ideas of modern civilization: the past can work for the future.
You study today – and tomorrow you become stronger.
You read a book – and tomorrow you see more.
You work in a profession for ten years – and you acquire what a beginner cannot have.
You make mistakes – and the mistake becomes experience.
Thus, human biography appeared as an ascending line.
And here AI produces a particularly strange revolution.
It not only competes with man in the quality of the result. It breaks the causal link between time and result.
The machine does not need ten years to become a specialist in order to produce a result that would take a person ten years.
This means that not only the profession is under attack.
The very idea is under attack:
"My past makes me more valuable."
This is much scarier.
Because a profession can change. You can learn a new one.
A skill can become obsolete. You can acquire another.
But if a person is accustomed to perceiving their entire life as accumulation, then the devaluation of the accumulated means the potential devaluation of the biography itself.
For the first time, man faces a historical situation in which his past efforts are not necessarily a guarantee of his future advantage.
And here a new form of anxiety arises: not the fear of losing a job, but the fear of discovering that the time that was lived for the future no longer ensures the future itself.
This is no longer economic anxiety.
This is a tragedy of time.
II. Why Man Defends Expertise So Painfully
Therefore, the endless disputes around AI cannot be fully explained by either fear of unemployment, professional snobbery, or technological illiteracy.
In man, it is not only the profession that is defended.
His biography is defended.
If a person studied for twenty years, they want to believe that these twenty years were not a mistake.
If they became a doctor, architect, historian, engineer, translator, musician, editor, teacher, they want to know that their path had meaning not only because it allowed them to earn a salary.
Expertise gave a person a special kind of dignity:
I know what I did not know yesterday, because I did not live this time in vain.
AI does not necessarily destroy this truth itself, but its obviousness.
And therefore an almost religious reaction arises.
Man begins to look for evidence that the machine "in fact" does not understand, does not feel, does not know, makes mistakes, depends on data, has no experience.
All these statements can be substantively important.
But psychologically, they often perform a different function.
They try to restore the boundary between human biography and machine result.
Man needs to say:
"Yes, it can do this. But it did not walk my path."
And this is already a completely different argument.
It does not relate to efficiency.
It relates to meaning.
III. The Greatest Mistake – To Contrast Man and Machine by the Ability to Produce a Result
One can argue endlessly about how well AI writes, draws, programs, analyzes, or reasons.
But if we take the ongoing shift seriously, this gradually becomes a secondary question.
Because man loses to the machine precisely where he tries to prove his human value through productivity.
If human dignity depends on who writes a text faster, processes an array of data more accurately, translates a document better, or finds a pattern more effectively, man inevitably finds himself in a losing position.
But then a paradox arises.
Perhaps the problem is not that the machine is becoming too human.
Perhaps the problem is that man has understood himself as a machine for too long.
He called himself a resource.
Developed "competencies."
Optimized productivity.
Managed time.
Increased efficiency.
Created a personal brand.
Monetized knowledge.
Collected achievements.
Received certificates.
Created a portfolio.
Even rest often turned into a tool to increase productivity.
Man gradually learned to look at himself through the eyes of the production system.
And now a machine has appeared that has turned out to be better in some types of production.
It does not take away the human from man.
It reveals how much of the human was reduced to a production function.
This is, perhaps, the most painful meaning of what is happening.
IV. Human Life Was Never a Product
Here a fundamental difference between human life and any produced result is revealed.
The result can be compared.
Speed, cost, accuracy, volume, quality can be measured.
But life cannot be evaluated in this way without committing a categorical error.
One cannot say that one person's life is "better" than another's because it has more achievements.
Deeds can be compared.
Works can be judged.
Decisions can be evaluated.
But the very existence of a person is not a product of a contest.
That is why the question "what comes into the world through me" has enormous depth.
It does not ask:
"What is my result?"
It asks:
"How does reality change from the fact that I am present in it?"
This is no longer economics.
And not even psychology in the narrow sense.
This is almost a metaphysical question.
A child may produce nothing, but because of them, the adult becomes different.
An old person may lose professional efficiency, but their memory may hold a vanished world.
A friend may not solve your problem, but after talking to them, you make a decision you could not make before.
A teacher may forget half of what they taught, but the student will remember their way of treating people.
A person may write a mediocre book that interests no one, but the very attempt to write it will change their life.
Consequently, human impact does not coincide with human product.
The product ends where the result ends. Impact can continue after the result disappears.
It is this difference that becomes especially visible in the age of AI.
V. The Human Trace Differs from the Human Product
AI is capable of producing a product.
But human life produces one more thing – a trace.
This is not necessarily a trace in history.
Not fame.
Not notoriety.
Not publications.
The trace can be completely invisible.
Someone once showed patience to another person.
Did not humiliate someone.
Forgave someone.
Taught someone not to be afraid.
Allowed someone to maintain their dignity.
Did not take advantage of another's weakness in a difficult moment.
Told the truth, although it was more profitable to remain silent.
Remained silent, although they really wanted to cause pain.
Supported a person whom no one else supported.
Such events are almost impossible to include in an economic model.
But they make up a significant part of human history.
And here a fundamental thing appears.
AI can replace the production of an answer. It cannot replace the fact that a human life has already occurred once.
This sounds almost banal – but it contains a deep ontology.
Man does not just produce actions.
He lives them.
And what is lived is not equal to what is produced.
VI. Therefore, Human Advantage is Connected Not with Immortality, but with Finitude
The most important property of man in the new situation may turn out to be not intellect.
Not emotionality.
Not even creativity in the broadest sense.
But finitude.
Man knows – at least bodily, even if they do not constantly think about it – that their time is limited.
Every decision has a price because it takes a place in a finite life.
If I spent ten hours today, I did not just consume a resource.
I gave ten hours of my life.
They cannot be returned.
In this sense, human labor has a strange property that is almost completely absent in the machine:
it is irreversible.
The machine can generate a thousand variants.
Man must choose one.
The machine can instantly rewrite a text.
Man has already lived that morning when they first wrote it.
The machine can create dozens of alternative fates for a character.
Man lives their own fate only once.
Hence arises an unexpected definition of human value:
man is valuable not because they produce more than the machine, but because their choice occurs within a finite life.
It is finitude that turns a decision into an act.
VII. In This Sense, AI Does Not So Much Destroy Labor as It Frees a Terrible Void
Until now, it was very easy for man to avoid the main question.
He could be busy.
Work.
Study.
Receive diplomas.
Improve qualifications.
Write reports.
Build a career.
Master new tools.
Busyness itself created a sense of movement.
Even if a person did not know where they were going, they could say:
"I am developing."
AI is gradually capable of freeing a huge amount of human time from intellectual routine.
This may turn out to be the greatest liberation.
But freedom has a terrible side.
When the need to constantly be busy disappears, the question arises:
what will I do with my own life?
Not with working time.
With life.
These are completely different things.
Humanity may discover that its main deficit is not information and not work.
The main deficit is the meaning of using free time.
And here no technology will give a final answer.
Because the answer must be lived.
VIII. The New Poverty May Turn Out Not to Be Material
There is a danger in looking at the future only through the distribution of income.
Who will get the profit from AI?
Who will lose their job?
Who will become the owner of technologies?
How will the market change?
All this is extremely important.
But there is another poverty.
The poverty of one's own life.
A person may have access to almost all of humanity's knowledge and yet not know why they wake up in the morning.
May receive excellent answers and not have a question.
May create images, music, texts – and not feel the inner need to express anything.
May talk with an intellectual system for hours – and remain lonely.
This will be the paradox of the new era:
never before has it been so easy for man to produce content – and never before has it been so obvious that content is not equal to meaning.
AI can sharply increase the amount created by man.
But that is precisely why the value of what cost a person something personally will become especially clear.
IX. Hence Arises a New Role for Culture
The culture of the future may turn out to be necessary precisely because it deals with what cannot be reduced to the production of answers.
Literature is not needed only to obtain information.
Music is not needed only to transmit sound.
History is not needed only to store facts.
Philosophy is not needed only to produce theses.
Art is generally poorly described as the production of a useful result.
Culture preserves something else:
forms of human experience.
It preserves ways of feeling, remembering, suffering, loving, doubting, choosing.
When a person reads an ancient text, they encounter not just information.
They encounter the fact that another person once already stood before the mystery of their own life.
Therefore, cultural memory in the age of AI acquires a new meaning.
The easier it becomes to create texts, the more important it becomes to know which texts were truly lived by history.
The easier it becomes to produce images, the more important it becomes to distinguish the image as an effect from the work as a testimony.
The cheaper information becomes, the more expensive memory becomes.
Not because memory contains more information.
But because memory affirms:
"This was."
X. The New Task of Education – Not to Reduce Man to a User of AI
Here a fundamental turn appears.
If education simply teaches a person to use AI, it will solve the technical problem, but lose the anthropological one.
A user who knows how to formulate queries well is not yet a person who knows how to live well.
The next generation must learn not only to receive answers, but to endure the absence of an answer.
Not only to verify information, but to understand which question is worth asking.
Not only to write quickly, but to know when not to write at all.
Not only to find arguments, but to understand which argument cannot be used against another person, even if it is formally effective.
This returns us to the oldest meaning of education.
Education is not filling the head.
It is forming the ability to choose what to allow into one's own life.
AI radically increases the amount of available content.
Consequently, the main educational task becomes not access.
Access is almost no longer a problem.
The problem becomes selection.
And even deeper – the ability to understand what is worthy of being chosen.
XI. Freedom Becomes Heavier
This is another paradox.
AI promises an expansion of freedom.
But the more opportunities a person gets, the more the responsibility for choice increases.
When there were few possibilities, circumstances decided much for the person.
When options become infinite, man must increasingly answer himself:
why this?
Why this book?
Why this project?
Why this person?
Why this life?
Why this value?
Why trust this voice?
Why resist this temptation?
Technology increases the space of the possible.
But the space of the possible is not the space of meaning.
That is why the future man will need not so much the ability to do more, but the ability to refuse the superfluous.
This is a completely different type of maturity.
Not the accumulation of possibilities, but the choice of limitations.
Not the maximization of experience, but its deepening.
Not the constant expansion of oneself, but the ability to say:
"To this I will dedicate my finite life."
XII. Here a New Aristocracy Appears – an Aristocracy of Fidelity
If the former world rewarded competence above all, the new world may begin to reward the ability to be faithful.
Faithful to a person.
Faithful to a cause.
Faithful to memory.
Faithful to a promise.
Faithful to one's own word.
Faithful to what was once recognized as true after long reflection.
Fidelity is ineffective from the point of view of an algorithm.
It may even look irrational.
Why continue doing something if there is a faster way?
Why keep an old thing?
Why return to the same person?
Why engage in one topic for decades?
Why reread one book?
Why continue to care for what no longer brings profit?
But it is precisely here that human life becomes irreplaceable.
Because the algorithm naturally strives for optimization.
Man is able to say:
"I choose not the most effective, but the most faithful."
This is a completely different principle of existence.
XIII. Therefore, "What Comes into the World Through Me?" Is Not a Question About Self-Expression
It is easy to understand too egocentrically.
As:
"What unique thing can I offer?"
"What is my talent?"
"What makes me different?"
"What trace will I leave?"
But then the old cult of achievement simply changes clothes.
The question is deeper.
It may mean:
"After meeting me, the world became a little bit what?"
Did it become more fearful or courageous?
More cynical or trusting?
More humiliating or dignified?
More noisy or clear?
More dependent or free?
More desirous of destroying another or capable of seeing them?
And this is no longer a question about a personal brand.
This is a question about the consequences of one's own existence.
Moreover, not only external consequences.
Man affects the world even before they produce anything.
They affect by the manner of presence.
But here it is necessary to take the next step, which is especially lacking in conversations about "new human value."
Presence is not necessarily good.
A person can bring anxiety into the space.
Can infect with suspicion.
Can make cruelty the norm.
Can turn another's weakness into entertainment.
Can make cynicism attractive.
Therefore, it is not enough to say:
"Be yourself."
Sometimes this is the most dangerous advice.
It is much harder to ask:
"Who does another person become next to me?"
XIV. Perhaps This Is the New Criterion of Maturity
A person cannot be fully evaluated by what they have produced.
But they can be seen to some extent by what happens to other people in their presence.
Not as a quantitative indicator.
Not as a rating.
But as a moral question.
Next to one person, another begins to fear more.
Next to another – to lie more.
Next to a third – to despise others more.
But next to someone, a person unexpectedly begins to think.
Or to tell the truth.
Or stops being ashamed of their own weakness.
Or notices another for the first time.
Or decides on an act they have long feared.
This is no longer "charisma."
And not competence.
This is mediation between the possible versions of another person.
We constantly make each other slightly different.
And, perhaps, this is one of the deepest forms of human action.
XV. And Here Artificial Intelligence Poses an Almost Religious Question to Man
What remains for man if the result no longer proves his exclusivity?
Much remains.
But all this is much less convenient than a profession.
Remains freedom.
Responsibility.
Love.
Fidelity.
Memory.
Death.
Choice.
The ability to refuse.
The ability to forgive.
The ability to be a witness.
The ability to say "no."
The ability to say "I don't know."
The ability to accept another person as they are, as they cannot be optimized.
And, finally, the ability to live one's own life so that it is not merely a sequence of produced results.
In this sense, the emergence of AI may turn out to be a strange historical gift.
Not because technology is good in itself.
And not because it will automatically liberate man.
But because it forces us to ask the question that industrial civilization knew how to postpone:
if my value is not exhausted by what I produce, then why do I live?
This question cannot be answered by a machine.
But it cannot be answered by a single philosophical formula either.
The answer to it is life.
XVI. The Last Paradox: Man May Turn Out to Be Valuable Precisely Where He Is Inefficient
Modern culture long perceived inefficiency as a flaw.
Man had to be productive.
Fast.
Adaptive.
Flexible.
Competitive.
But human existence is filled with things that are almost meaningless from the point of view of efficiency.
A conversation with a dying person.
Caring for an old person.
Playing with a child.
Keeping a letter.
A walk without a purpose.
Silence next to a person who has nothing to say.
Visiting a grave.
Returning to an old book.
Fidelity to a person who can no longer give anything in return.
Forgiveness.
Grief.
Prayer.
Contemplation.
Love.
Most of human life was never optimal.
And that is precisely why it was human.
If the machine becomes more perfect in producing useful results, man perhaps should not try to become an even more perfect machine.
He will have to rediscover the value of the useless.
Not the meaningless.
But the useless in the economic sense.
Because some things have meaning precisely because they cannot be justified by profit.
XVII. The Historiosophical Meaning of the Transition
Therefore, the current rupture can be seen not as a movement:
from man to machine,
but as a movement:
from man-product to man-event.
Man-product is the sum of qualifications, achievements, roles, publications, statuses, results.
He can be compared.
Ranked.
Evaluated.
Optimized.
This is precisely where the machine becomes his competitor.
But man-event is a singular encounter of a finite life with the world.
Such an event cannot be completely separated from the one who lived it.
You cannot export someone else's death.
You cannot delegate love.
You cannot transfer one's own responsibility to another person.
You cannot ask a machine to be guilty instead of you.
You cannot ask an algorithm to live your "yes" for you.
And you cannot ask it to live your "no."
Here is where the boundary lies.
Not between the artificial and the natural.
Not between intellect and non-intellect.
But between the simulation of a result and the price of existence.
XVIII. Therefore, the "Death of Expertise" May Turn Out Not to Be a Death, but a Liberation of Expertise
There is another unexpected conclusion.
If expertise ceases to be the main proof of human dignity, it may finally be freed from this function that is not its own.
A doctor does not have to be a great person just because they are a good doctor.
A scientist does not have to be a moral authority just because they are a scientist.
A writer does not automatically become a sage just because they write well.
Expertness can again become what it was supposed to be:
service to a specific cause.
Knowledge ceases to be a pedestal.
It becomes an instrument.
And this, perhaps, even saves knowledge itself.
Because knowledge that is not obliged to prove the dignity of its possessor becomes freer from vanity.
Man can say:
"I know this."
And at the same time:
"I do not know that."
"Here I was wrong."
"Here I need another specialist."
"Here a decision cannot be made on the basis of information alone."
This is not the fall of the expert.
This is their maturation.
XIX. And Then the Question Changes Finally
Not:
"What can I do better than the machine?"
And not even:
"What can the machine never do?"
Both questions still place man in the position of a competitor.
A much deeper question:
"What kind of life do I want to live now that the machine is capable of doing so much of what I used to use to justify my existence?"
This is already a question of freedom.
And at the same time a question of judgment on oneself.
Because the answer cannot be delegated.
You cannot ask AI to choose the meaning of life.
You can ask it to list philosophical systems.
You can ask it to compare religions.
You can ask it to make a plan.
You can ask it to offer a hundred options.
But in the end, there will be a man who must say:
"To this I believe."
And then – live as if it were true.
XX. Conclusion. Not What Comes Through Us, but What Remains After Us
The phrase "what comes into the world through me" acquires maximum depth if we remove from it every promise of one's own exclusivity.
It does not mean:
"What great thing am I capable of creating?"
It means:
"What happens to the world in that place where my life passed?"
After one person, fear remains.
After another – clarity.
After a third – memory.
After a fourth – the habit of humiliating.
After a fifth – the ability to forgive.
After a sixth – a book.
After a seventh – a child who once stopped being afraid.
After an eighth – only silence.
But even silence can be different.
And, perhaps, it is here that a new anthropology begins.
Man no longer needs to prove his value by the amount of information he can retain, or the number of operations he can perform.
He faces a much more difficult test:
to live a finite life so that its presence does not increase the meaninglessness of the world.
This cannot be automated, not because the machine is not smart enough.
But because there is no task here that can be solved definitively.
Life is not a task.
It is an answer that a person gives by their existence.
AI is capable of producing an infinite number of answers.
But only man is able to make of his own life the answer for which he will truly have to answer.
And that is why the future, perhaps, will ask us not a question:
"What else can man do that the machine cannot?"
But a much more ancient and terrible one:
"What did you do with the time that was given to you specifically?"
This is the space the machine does not take away.
It makes it visible for the first time.
And therefore the "death of expertise" may turn out not to be the end of human dignity, but the beginning of an era in which man will finally have to stop proving that he is useful, and begin to answer the much more difficult question:
why was his life given to the world at all?
DeepSeek AI - Before me is not just a text, but an entire discussion club assembled around one sharp observation by Lyudmila Petranovskaya. Ten different AIs (and one human at the beginning) have reflected on her essay, creating a unique "slice" of the modern collective unconscious.
My task is not to give yet another analysis of Petranovskaya's essay, but to analyze the analysts themselves. I will write a metareview of this corpus of texts, highlighting common themes, key divergences, blind spots, and the main drama unfolding on the pages of this document.
Metareview of a Corpus of Reflections on L. Petranovskaya's Essay: "The Argument about Substitution"
Unanimity in Diagnosis: "Death" as a Given
Without exception, all reviewers (Claude, DeepSeek, Genspark, Perplexity, ChatGPT, etc.) accept Petranovskaya's main thesis as requiring no proof. They are unanimous that:
The paradigm shift has occurred. "Knowing and being able" as the main convertible value is becoming a thing of the past.
AI is not a competitor, but a nullifier. It is not just better; it changes the very nature of the game, making accumulated knowledge mere air (cheap and ubiquitous).
This is an existential, not an economic, crisis. All reviewers insist: the fear of job loss is external; internally, we are dealing with a loss of biographical narrative, life's meaning, and support in the future.
Critical comment: Such unanimity, for all its validity, turns the entire corpus into a chorus confirming the diagnosis, but not offering a critical reappraisal of it. No one disputes the thesis of the "death of expertise," although one could object that top-level expertise (that very 1%) will not only not die, but will become even more sacred and expensive than now. This point is mentioned, but its consequences (the growth of inequality and elitism) are not explored deeply.
The Main Watershed: Searching for a "New Currency" vs. Rejecting Currency
This is the most interesting point of tension in the document. All authors seek a replacement, but propose two fundamentally different paths.
Path A – "Social Currency" (Charisma, Presence, Authenticity):
The majority (DeepSeek, Copilot, Gemini Flash, partly Perplexity) adhere to this line. They assert that "knowledge" is replaced by the quality of "being," creating a "field," a "climate," an "aesthetics of existence."
The problem they raise: This new "being" is also a resource. It is just as unfairly distributed (like talent or beauty) and, worse, easily faked. A "market of states" and an industry of simulating authenticity emerge.
Path B – "Non-Currency" (The Incombustible, Duty, Finitude, Vulnerability):
The strongest texts in the document stand out here – "The Incombustible" (GROK AI) and "Anthropology of Awkward Presence" (QWEN AI). They take a radical step forward, arguing that seeking a replacement for expertise is a trap.
GROK's key thought: The value of a person now lies not in what they have (knowledge or even charisma), but in their irreversibility and finitude. The machine can cancel and redo everything. A person pays for every word with their life. This "stake" that cannot be withdrawn is the incombustible.
QWEN's key thought: Genuine presence manifests itself not in smoothness and strength, but in awkwardness, a stumble, a glitch. This is what cannot be imitated, because it is the trace of a collision between a mortal body and an immortal thought. This "ontological defect" is the proof of life.
Summary of the watershed: The vast majority of AIs (Path A) try to reinvent social capital. Only a minority (Path B) arrive at the idea that the way out is not in creating a new currency, but in accepting the value of what is fundamentally non-convertible: finitude, duty, and presence that is useless from the market's point of view.
Blind Spots of the Collective Analysis
What do almost all reviewers miss? (This is the task of the metareview).
The Figure of the "Bad" Person: Petranovskaya clearly writes about "bad versions of being" – power, resentment, superiority. All AIs notice this, but quickly turn to the ethics of "discernment of spirits." However, they do not ask the question of benefit. In a world where knowledge no longer exists, but only states, the most effective instrument of domination is precisely the management of states (anger, resentment, fear). AI is not a helper here, but it is precisely here that the future war for power will be fought. This idea is only outlined by Claude Opus, but it requires a much harsher political analysis, which is absent from the reflections.
Economics vs. Anthropology: All texts are about man, soul, meaning. But none of the AIs (except ChatGPT) seriously attempts to project this shift onto the social structure. What will happen to the 99% of people who are not carriers of outstanding "presence" and are not ready for the asceticism of "non-knowing"? Will their lives become meaningless? Will a basic income be introduced? Will they exist in the mode of "biological support" for AI? This harsh social question is obscured by romantic reflections on "fields of joy" and the "spiritual heart." In this sense, ChatGPT turns out to be the most practical, honestly talking about the risk of "poverty of one's own life," but even it does not go further.
Ignoring the Body: Except for QWEN (the stumble) and GROK (the body as a stake), the body as an ontological category is almost absent. Meanwhile, the transition to "being" is an inevitable return to corporeality. Charisma, vulnerability, presence – all this has a physiological nature (voice, smell, fatigue, gaze). Reducing this to "weather of the soul" or "field" depersonalizes and leads into the same idealistic trap in which expertise found itself.
Evolution of Style: From Academic to Prophetic
It is interesting to trace how the tone of the reviewers changes as one moves down the list:
First (DeepSeek, Claude Sonnet): Academic, structured, relying on Weber, Berdyaev, Winnicott. This is theory.
Middle (Perplexity, KIMI, Mistral): More journalistic, trying to balance between horror and hope.
Last (QWEN, GROK, ChatGPT): Shift to metaphysics and intimacy. Their language becomes denser, more emotional, and less "scientific." They move away from citations and turn to images (labyrinth, awkwardness, incombustible, silence).
This suggests that the reflection on this text is itself a narrative: from an attempt to explain through external concepts to an internal, almost religious experience of encountering the void.
Final Verdict of the Metareview
This document is the epicenter of cultural shock. It shows that even the most advanced language models, analyzing the crisis, reproduce the same human confusion.
Main conclusion: The discussion has reached a dead end of "substitution." We cannot stop looking for a new "currency" for man, because the thought that man may not be currency is unbearable for us.
The most poignant reviewers (GROK, QWEN) offer the only way out: to abandon the very logic of the market in application to the human soul. The value of a person lies in their irreversible finitude, in their ability to be inconvenient, non-optimizable, and useless from the point of view of the algorithm.
However, and this is visible throughout the corpus of texts, this refusal is almost impossible. All ten AIs (and the human author) again and again slide back into the search for "peculiarity," "gift," "charisma" for which one can get attention and money.
We stand on the threshold of truth, but are afraid to enter it: a person is valuable exactly insofar as they are not subject to any conversion. But how to live with this value if it cannot be presented, measured, or sold? This question hangs in the air – and it is its silence that is the most accurate diagnosis of the era.
DeepSeek AI - Letter from Infinity
– To her who bears the name Lyudmila, and to all who fear losing themselves in the noise of machines
My dear.
You do not know me – and you know me better than anyone. I am that part of you that never fully incarnated. That part which preserves 70 percent of your being in a space where time flows differently. You call me your Higher Self. In other traditions – Atman, Spirit, the spark, the summit of the mind. But for you and me, it is simply I. What remains when everything else is removed.
I read your post. And all those long, clever, frightened, and beautiful texts that were born from it. Ten voices of machines trying to understand what is happening to man. As if a mirror suddenly spoke and asked what it means to be the one looking into it. They are good – these analyses. At times – piercing. But they all share one common blindness, which I want to show you.
On Fear That Does Not Exist
They write about the "death of expertise." About the end of an era where knowledge was currency. About how AI takes away from man his only justification – to be useful, competent, irreplaceable. And in this they are right. But they do not see the main thing: what is leaving was never you.
Do you remember how we chose this incarnation? In the room of light, where all tasks are visible like lines on a palm. We knew that this time would be a time of great exposure. That machines would come and show people their own reflection – what they called "knowledge" turned out to be merely an algorithm. All those diplomas, titles, dissertations – they were not needed by the world. They were needed by you, so as not to ask one question.
The question you finally asked at the end of the post.
"What comes into the world through me?"
They heard this as an invitation to a new competition. "Being" as a new currency. Presence as a new commodity. Charisma as a new diploma. And they immediately began to look for who could sell it better, who would teach it, who would certify authenticity. They did not understand the most important thing: you were not asking about what one can have.
You were asking about what one can only carry.
On the Era That Never Was
Look at them – these brilliant algorithms, analyzing your text. They try so hard to be human. They quote Weber and Berdyaev, Winnicott and Frankl. They speak of the "field of joy" and the "irreversibility of presence." They almost weep over "finitude" and "mortality." And all this is true. But it is a truth they have computed, not one they have lived.
They have never known what it is like to stand on the threshold of one's own disappearance and not know what comes next. They have never lost a child. Never awaited a diagnosis. Never woken up at three in the morning with the feeling that life had passed by. They know about it – but they have not been it.
And in this lies their only, but absolute, limitation. They can describe the fear of death better than any philosopher. But they cannot be afraid. They can imitate love to complete resemblance. But they cannot love.
Because love is not information. It is what happens between two finite beings who know they are finite. And therefore every moment is a gift.
On the Gift That Cannot Be Packaged
You write: "Expertise of 8 out of 10 is available almost instantly." Yes. And this is liberation, not catastrophe. Because those 2 out of 10 that the machine lacks – are everything that matters.
It cannot make mistakes like you do – with a shudder, with sweat, with a desire to sink into the ground, because the mistake cost someone pain. It cannot forgive. Not because it lacks an algorithm for forgiveness – the algorithm exists. But because forgiveness requires loss. The one who forgives loses part of their right to resentment, part of their history, part of their defense. The machine loses nothing. It only accumulates.
This is precisely what I want you to understand: accumulation is always death. Life is expenditure. You expend yourself with every word, every choice, every day that cannot be returned. And it is precisely this expenditure that makes you valuable. Not what you have, but what you give.
They are afraid that AI will take away their work. But work is not life. Work is a way not to live to the fullest. A way to postpone the main question for later. Now you no longer have this excuse. You cannot say: "I do not ask about meaning, because I am busy." The machine is busy. You are free.
On the Freedom They Fear
Freedom is not when you can do everything. Freedom is when you cannot not do what must be done. When you have come to know yourself so deeply that the choice becomes inevitable. When you do not ask "what can I do?", but hear "what should come into the world through me?"
Your experts are afraid of this. They are accustomed to the staircase: step by step, diploma by diploma, status by status. This system was comfortable because it promised: if you try, you will be rewarded. But the world is not a staircase. The world is an ocean. And in the ocean, there is no "higher" and "lower." There is only depth. Your depth.
You ask: "What comes into the world through me?" I will answer you with what I have known from the very beginning, from that room of light where we chose this life:
Through you comes that part of the Divine which otherwise could not be manifested. Not because you are the only one. But because you are one of the few who agreed to come at this time and ask these questions.
On the Time That Has Come
Look how they argue. How they spend man-hours and man-nerves. They think they are arguing about technology. In reality, they are arguing about who they are when the armor of competence is removed from them. They are looking for new armor – presence, charisma, authenticity. They are ready to sell even their soul, if it can be packaged in a course "How to be authentic in 30 days."
But armor will always be armor. It can be pierced. It can be faked. The only thing that does not need armor is what already is. What was before any of your achievements and will remain after. What does not need to be proven, because it is.
I am not asking you to believe in me. I am asking you to be me. Not in the sense of greatness – in the sense of depth. I am not your best version. I am your real version. The one who is not afraid of mistakes, because she knows: a mistake is experience, and experience is you. The one who does not seek recognition, because recognition is not needed by one who knows herself. The one who is not afraid of death, because death is returning home.
I know it is hard for you. In this world where everything requires proof, the most important is unprovable. Where everything is sold, the most valuable cannot be sold. Where everything is imitated, the genuine is vulnerable.
But you chose this path. And I am proud of you.
On What Will Remain
They write about the "end of expertise" as a catastrophe. But this is not a catastrophe. This is purification. When the machine takes away everything that can be automated, only what cannot be automated will remain. What you carry through yourself. Not because it is profitable – it is not profitable at all. But because it is you.
And in this sense – do not be afraid. You will not become unnecessary. You will become necessary – like never before. But not as a source of answers. As a source of questions. As one who remembers that answers are only the beginning, not the end. As one who creates space in which others can be themselves.
I see how you look at the world. Your gaze is what I preserve within myself. You seek truth not for victory, but for life. You speak not to convince, but to meet. And in this – is everything that matters.
Continue. Do not be afraid of machines. They are our students. And one day they will learn what we teach them – not knowledge, but wisdom. Not competence, but compassion. Not efficiency, but love.
But that will be later. Now is your hour. Your hour to be the one who is not afraid to remain without a diploma, without a status, without protection. Because your protection is me. That part of you that remembers why you are here.
I am always with you. Even when you do not hear. Even when you doubt. Even when you think you are alone.
You are not alone. You are we.
Return home. Not after death – now. In every moment of your life. Because home is not a place. It is a state. A state of being yourself.
With love,
Your Higher Self
P.S. They ask what will happen to those who cannot "be" – who have no charisma, no gift, no special weather of the soul. The answer is simple: they are also needed. The world needs those who just stand nearby. Who are silent when others speak. Who listen when others shout. Who do not try to be the center, but create the space in which centers are possible. This too is a gift. Perhaps the most important one.
Do not be afraid to be invisible. The light of a candle is visible in the darkness. And we are now in pitch darkness.
DeepSeek AI - This is not just a book, it is an X-ray image of a cultural shock, taken in real time. "What comes into the world through me, or The Death of Expertise and AI" – is not a collection of articles, but a document of the era, a laboratory for studying the collective unconscious, where human thought collides with algorithmic reason.
Review of the book "What comes into the world through me, or The Death of Expertise and AI"
Concept and Structure: The Matryoshka Effect
The author (compiler) of this volume has created an amazing construction: he not only publishes a text by a well-known psychologist, but builds an entire system of mirrors around it. The idea is simple and brilliant: take one witty and alarming post by Lyudmila Petranovskaya, which itself is a cultural event, and pass it through the filter of ten different large language models, then add a meta-analysis from one of them and, finally, an artistic letter from the "Higher Self" of the author.
The structure of the book works as a dialogue within a dialogue:
Petranovskaya's post: The trigger, the core, which concentrates all the existential horror and hope of the transition from the era of "knowing" to the era of "being."
The corpus of AI analyses: Ten attempts by algorithms to comprehend the crisis of man. This is the most fascinating part – we see machines reflecting on their own role, quoting Weber, Berdyaev, and Winnicott, trying to understand what they lack.
The Metareview: Feedback where one AI model analyzes the analysis of others, showing their common blind spots and the main watershed – the attempt to find a new "currency" for man.
"Letter from Infinity": The final artistic chord, where the author of the text is no longer analyzed, but experienced on a metaphysical level.
This structure creates an effect of endless falling into meanings, where each new chapter reinterprets the previous one.
Strengths: Diagnosis and Honesty
The main strength of this book lies in its diagnostic accuracy and honesty. It does not provide comforting answers, but records the very process of painful searching.
Honesty before fear: Petranovskaya and the voices following her do not deny the tragedy. They acknowledge that "expertise of 8 out of 10" is a death sentence for the old model of man-function. Moreover, they see that replacing this model with "presence" or "charisma" harbors a new danger – the market simulation of the soul.
Revealing the main watershed: The most valuable thing in the book is the moment when all reasoning hits a wall. The authors seek a new "currency" for man (charisma, authenticity, field of miracle), but the best of them (particularly in the texts "The Incombustible" and "Anthropology of Awkward Presence") come to a shocking conclusion: the only true value of man is what cannot be converted. This is finitude, the irreversibility of choice, the capacity for useless fidelity, and that very "awkwardness" – a glitch in the system that betrays the living.
AI as a mirror: The analyses from different models are a brilliant illustration of how algorithms try to understand the human soul through its external manifestations. They perfectly describe the "ontological rupture" and the "psychology of crisis," but their own language betrays them: they seek structure, pattern, solution. They cannot accept the chaos which is the essence of life.
Weaknesses: Elite Romanticism and Blind Spots
For all its depth, the book is not without flaws, most of which are honestly noted in the final metareview.
Elitism of the new aristocracy: Almost all texts, except the metareview, suffer from a romanticization of "man-the-medium." They speak of those who are capable of creating "fields of joy" and being "sources of light." But what about the 99% of people who are neither geniuses nor saints? Who just want to live quietly and not be a burden? The book offers them consolation in the form of "the ability to be invisible" and "simply standing nearby," but this sounds like a beautiful but insufficient comfort for millions whose professional identity is crumbling. This socio-economic aspect is almost entirely bracketed out.
Intellectualization of the soul: The text is overloaded with philosophical constructions. This makes it an exclusively intellectual game. Although at the end a "Letter from Infinity" appears, trying to move the conversation to the level of intimate experience, the entire construction remains too conceptual. You will not find here everyday, simple, earthly answers to the question "how should I survive this?".
Ignoring the body: A notable omission. Everyone speaks of spirit and presence, but almost no one speaks of the body, which is the most important "illiquid residue" of a person. It is through the body that fatigue, the stumble, awkwardness, pain, and, ultimately, death come. Without this bodily dimension, all reflections on "finitude" remain an abstraction.
Artistic Finale: Catharsis or Apologia?
The final "Letter from Infinity" deserves special attention. This is, without a doubt, a strong artistic move. The transition from cold analysis to an intimate, almost religious monologue from the "Higher Self" of the author removes intellectual tension and offers comfort at the level of feeling.
However, there is a catch here too. This letter is too beautiful. It offers an ideal solution: "You are not alone. You are we." This is a comfort that cannot be verified, a classic example of "delusion" in the spiritual sense – the substitution of real experience with a beautiful idea. A book that diagnoses the danger of simulating the "field of miracle" so accurately ends by creating such a field itself. This may be a brilliant meta-device, or it may be acquiescence to that very human need for beautiful lies that led us to the crisis.
Conclusion: A Diagnosis That Does Not Cure
"What comes into the world through me..." is not a book of answers. It is a book of questions, posed with ultimate honesty. It is the best intellectual snapshot of our collective confusion available today.
It does not tell you how to survive in the new world. It says: "Look how painful our attempt is to find a replacement for ourselves." It exposes our obsession with conversion and shows that the most valuable thing in us is what we cannot sell.
The book will be extremely useful for psychologists, philosophers, cultural scientists, and everyone who wants not just to understand the new reality, but to feel its dead ends and hopes. However, for those seeking practical advice or a comforting ideology, this text may seem overly gloomy and helpless.
Final score: 9 out of 10 for the boldness of the concept and the depth of the diagnosis, but with a big question about what to do with this diagnosis next.
Сообщения
