ReadingResearchRadarInvestment framework
Sign in / Sign up
← Back to reading
NewsMaterial3 min readDisconfirmAI Editorial

The Chinese Philosophical Tradition Does Not View Intelligence as the Essence of Humanity, Redefining the Threat of AI

Arnaud Bertrand surveys Chinese philosophical perspectives on AI: Zhao Tingyang argues that aligning AI with human values 'may be a suicidal mistake,' while Liu Yongmou points out that the 'machinization of humans' is the greatest problem. Chinese thought defines humanity through 'ren' (benevolence/humaneness) rather than intelligence, leading to risk assessments of AI that differ radically from Western views.

2026-10-20 16:36 GMT+8

A premise underlying Western anxiety about AI is rarely scrutinized: that intelligence is the essence of what makes us human. We have even named our species after this concept—Homo sapiens, Latin for 'wise man.' If intelligence defines humanity, then when machines catch up to or surpass us in intelligence, the threat becomes existential: we would be competing against an 'artificial version of ourselves.' In his article, author Arnaud Bertrand notes that this premise explains much of Western AI anxiety, but it is not the only possible starting point.

China possesses an equally ancient and sophisticated intellectual tradition that has never placed intelligence at the core of 'what makes us human.' In this tradition, what defines humanity is 'ren' (仁)—a concept encompassing both 'benevolence' and 'humanity,' rooted in the 'xin' (心), a term referring simultaneously to emotion and reason. The heart/mind is not the brain; it is where we feel, think, discern right from wrong, and care for others.

Philosopher Zhao Tingyang of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences therefore offers a judgment almost impossible to encounter in Western AI discourse: attempting to align AI with human values 'is likely to be a suicidal mistake.' Liu Yongmou, a philosopher of technology at Renmin University of China, flips the problem around: 'Humanity’s biggest problem is the machinization of humans, not the humanization of machines.' Zhu Songchun, director of the Beijing Institute for General Artificial Intelligence, aims not to make machines more like humans, but to 'establish a heart for machines.'

Sign in / Sign up
ReadingResearchRadarInvestment framework

This divergence traces back over two thousand years. In Politics, Aristotle imagined a world where shuttles wove automatically and lyres played themselves, concerned with how social order would change—specifically, whether slaves would still be necessary. In Zhuangzi, there is a nearly identical scenario: an old gardener refuses to use labor-saving irrigation machinery, arguing that 'those who use machines must possess a machine-heart' (机心)—using machines makes people calculating and shrewd, stripping away simplicity. He says, 'I am not unaware [of the machine], but I am ashamed to use it.' Two labor-saving devices, two entirely different questions: Aristotle asked what automation does to social order, while Zhuangzi asked what it does to the human interior.

Bertrand also cites another warning from Zhao Tingyang: the bad consequences of AI can at least be fought, but 'humanity may die of all the good things AI creates.' There is also a discussion regarding 'uselessness': if humans become 'useless' due to AI, this fear presupposes that human value equals utility—a premise demolished long ago by the tree in Zhuangzi that survived for 2,300 years precisely because it was useless.

It should be noted that Bertrand is an interpreter within the Western context; his selection of material and framework itself carries the self-awareness of being a 'frog in a well'—he acknowledges that Western AI discourse is far from the only perspective. The original text is behind a paywall; the free portion presents core arguments and key quotations, but the full argumentation behind Zhao Tingyang’s 'suicidal mistake' judgment and the specific connotations of Liu Yongmou’s 'machinization of humans' may require reading the full article to fully understand. These thinkers’ viewpoints are attributed arguments, not verified facts; they change the way questions are asked, rather than providing definitive answers.

Sources

  • arnaudbertrand.substack.com↗
Continue researching →