We continue to ask when Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) will arrive. However, a cursory glance at our current social, economic, and judicial structures reveals a startling paradox: we are already restructuring the world as if it has arrived.
Markets are evolving, institutions are adapting, and human identity is being redefined — not due to current technological realities, but because of our collective expectations. This shift is not merely a logistical preparation; it is a profound philosophical surrender. It reflects a shift from simple social constructionism — where shared beliefs influence behavior — to a pre-emptive ontology. We are not merely awaiting AGI; we are actively constructing its throne, ensuring that when it finally “appears,” the world has already been shaped in its image.
The heuristic fiction: The philosophy of “as-if”
To understand this phenomenon, we must look to the German philosopher Hans Vaihinger and his seminal work, Die Philosophie des Als Ob (The Philosophy of ‘As-If’). Vaihinger argued that human progress often relies on “functional fictions” — mental constructs that, while not strictly true, allow us to navigate complex realities.
We treat the corporation “as if” it were a person; we treat the atom “as if” it were a miniature solar system. These fictions are heuristic tools — temporary scaffolds for thought.
However, a grave danger arises when the fiction is “reified” — when we forget the “as if” and begin to treat the construct as a brute, objective fact. In the current discourse surrounding AGI, we are witnessing a global reification. By acting “as if” an autonomous, general intelligence is already a participant in our markets and ethics, we move from using a tool to inhabiting a delusion. We are no longer using the fiction of AGI to solve problems; we are allowing the fiction to dictate the limits of human agency.
Quod cogito, fio: The theological weight of intentionality
The Latin maxim Quod cogito, fio — “What I frequently contemplate, I become” — is often relegated to the realm of self-help. Yet, in the context of our digital evolution, it carries a heavy anthropological and theological weight. It speaks to the intentionality of the human spirit. In theology and depth psychology, intentionality is not merely “aboutness”; it is a “stretching toward” (from the Latin intendere).
When our collective intentionality is fixed upon a post-human intelligence, we begin a process of psychological mimesis. We start modeling our own reasoning, ethics, and social structures after the very systems we have yet to perfect. There is a cyclical truth here: our thoughts influence our actions, actions become habits, and habits shape character — see the works of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry Ford.
However, existence begins with being, not thought. Before any system is created, intelligence expanded, or future imagined, a fundamental reality exists: humanity. Thought arises from this foundation; it does not create it. This distinction matters because our anticipation now outpaces our reality, leading to an ontological inversion where the ghost of the future dictates the terms of the present.
Ontic absence vs. ontological presence
The current moment has been aptly described as a “Schrödinger’s AGI” moment: its existence is uncertain, but its effects are already measurable . To navigate this, we must utilize the Heideggerian distinction between the ontic and the ontological.
- The Ontic: This refers to the physical, brute facts of existence. Ontically, AGI does not exist. There is no silicon consciousness, no sovereign machine agency currently operating in our world.
- The Ontological: This refers to the meaning or presence of a thing within our shared life-world. Ontologically, AGI is already here. It is a “presence” that exerts pressure on global systems.
Jeffrey Funk suggests that claims of AGI’s imminence often function as economic justifications rather than empirical conclusions. The future is being leveraged in the present. While AGI lacks an established ontic status, it is already “real” in its consequences. This is where Vaihinger’s “As-If” becomes a trap: when we treat a future possibility as a current ontological reality, we cede our agency to a shadow.
The responsibility gap: Dennett, Floridi, and the illusion of agency
This institutional shift leads to a quiet, yet systemic, transfer of agency. As systems begin to operate with a facade of autonomy, we treat them as if authority resides within the machine itself. This raises a haunting question: If everything has standing, who stands responsible?
The dilemma is sharpened by the divergent perspectives of Daniel Dennett and Luciano Floridi. Dennett’s “Intentional Stance” provides the cognitive blueprint for our current behavior; he suggests that if treating a system as if it has beliefs, desires, and intentions is the most effective way to predict its behavior, then, for all practical purposes, we grant it a form of agency. In the context of AGI, we have adopted this stance pre-emptively.
However, Floridi warns of a widening “responsibility gap.” He distinguishes between moral agency (the ability to act) and moral responsibility (the ability to be held accountable). He argues that while machines can function as “artificial agents” in a distributed network, they lack the teleological “depth” required for true ethical accountability.
The practical danger is an ontological mismatch: we adopt Dennett’s intentional stance to grant machines functional authority, but we fall into Floridi’s responsibility gap when those systems fail. By treating the machine as an agent before it is capable of responsibility, we risk a “distributed abdication,” shifting accountability away from the humans who build, deploy, and interpret these systems.
The fourth blow: AGI and the anthropological de-centering
From a depth-psychological perspective, this ontological inversion represents a profound de-centering of the human. In his work, Sigmund Freud famously noted that human narcissism had suffered three great “blows” from science: the Copernican (we are not the center of the universe), the Darwinian (we are not separate from the animal kingdom), and the Freudian (we are not masters of our own minds).
The “As-If” arrival of AGI constitutes a fourth blow. It moves the human logos—the unique capacity for reasoned, creative meaning-making—from the center of the cognitive cosmos.
We are witnessing a secular “Apocalypse” — in the original sense of apocalypsis, or “unveiling.” This unveiling does not reveal a superior machine intelligence, but rather a deep-seated human insecurity. By projecting our hopes for moral order and computational perfection onto a yet-to-exist AGI, we engage in a form of depth-psychological displacement. We treat the silicon “Other” as a blank slate for our own “Shadow”—projecting our fears of fallibility and our yearnings for a Deus ex Machina to solve the complexities of the 21st century.
This displacement results in a mimesis of the machine. As we organize our institutions around the “As-If” presence of AGI, we begin to value only those human traits that mimic machine efficiency: data-processing over wisdom, optimization over contemplation. In this sense, the “de-centering” is a form of ontological hollowing. We risk becoming the “standing reserve” (Heidegger’s Bestand) of our own creations — resource material for a system that has no center because we have abdicated ours.
Conclusion: Reclaiming the human center
Even in a world where everything has standing, someone still needs to take a stand. If we let the center shift before it should, AGI’s biggest impact might not be new machine intelligence, but a quiet change in what it means to be human. Our anticipation can create a new reality, sometimes before anything actually changes.
In this world shaped by “As-If” logic, we must ensure that anticipation does not replace genuine responsibility. We are the ones building the systems; we are the ones projecting the futures.
AGI is not yet an independent moral agent, and we must stop behaving as if it is. In the tension between becoming and being, the human must remain the decisive center. Our “As-If” frameworks must remain tools for our progress, not cages for our agency. In a world shaped by anticipation, mindfulness and active engagement are the only forms of leadership that can preserve the essence of the human being.
Ethical concerns discussed in this article:
- What guidelines address the anthropomorphization of AGI and its effects on perceptions of agency and moral standing?
- Should AGI systems be excluded from legal personhood, maintaining ultimate responsibility with natural persons?
- How can society ensure that the widespread adoption of AGI-facilitated ‘work and meaning’ supports rather than diminishes individual purpose, dignity, and psychological fulfillment?
Get sharper analysis on AGI ethics
Original essays, expert commentary, and curated analysis on the human stakes of AGI.
Trained in theology, anthropology, and the significance of myth, Charles is an ordained minister, former missionary, and college professor. He holds the advanced Master of Theology (MTh or ThM) from the University of Wales, Bangor, a Royal Charter institution. While studying depth psychology, he researched how stories influence perceptions of what it means to be a Self—Human Being. He then applied his graduate work, teaching, and leadership experience in both public and private education, along with expertise in trauma, complex trauma, addiction, and recovery, to develop curricula and resources focused on AI and ethics. He is passionate about AI, ethics, morality, and how humans interact with and create technology guided by these principles. He is working toward multiple certifications in cybersecurity and project management. He regularly edits, writes, reflects, and continues to write.