From the Human "We" to the Algorithmic "We": Toward a Philosophy of Transparency

EDITORIAL TEAM | CULTURAL MEDIA

The debate over AI's alignment with "human values" seems to be on fragile ground : that of a category that has never been universal, but always negotiated, restricted, and exploited. History shows that values ​​proclaimed as absolute—freedom, equality, dignity— have often been subordinated to interests of survival, power, and profit . Today, with the advent of digital capitalism, this dynamic is becoming more radical: the unit of measurement is no longer the human being, but data.

The metamorphosis of "us"

The traditional "we" was built on tangible belongings: blood, language, territory. The digital "we," on the other hand, is a flow: anyone who generates data, even involuntarily, is included. But this inclusion is apparent: true belonging is decided elsewhere, in the computing centers and infrastructures that transform data into value. This results in a paradoxical situation: we are all part of the productive "we , but very few are part of the decision-making "we ." Humanity dissolves into a network of invisible contributions, while power is concentrated in opaque nodes .

Transparency as a new value

If human values ​​have always been negotiated, the real problem is not their definition, but their visibility . In the digital world, transparency becomes the primary philosophical value: not a moral principle, but a condition of possibility. Transparency of criteria : knowing how and why an algorithm decides. Transparency of boundaries : understanding who is included in the "us" and who is excluded. Transparency of negotiations : making the interference between political and economic power visible. Transparency does not guarantee justice, but it makes injustice contestable. It is the minimum condition for transforming values ​​from rhetoric to practice.

Philosophy of Contestability

True universality lies not in imposing a set of values, but in ensuring that every value embedded in a system can be contested. Contestability means:

• Plurality : no value is definitive, every decision must be reviewable.

• Accessibility : the criteria must be understandable even to non-experts.

• Accountability : those who make decisions must be identifiable, not hidden behind technical neutrality.

In this sense, AI becomes a testing ground for a new political philosophy: no longer based on the illusion of universal values, but on the construction of transparent and contestable processes.

The decentralized man

Putting " man at the center " is a paradox: man has never been unitary , and today he is dissolved into the given. The challenge is not to restore a lost center , but to accept decentralization as a condition. The human subject is no longer the foundation, but a node among other nodes . Dignity is not measured by being at the center, but by the possibility of intervening in the flow that passes through us .

The future of values ​​lies not in their universality, but in their contestability . The philosophy we need is not one that proclaims eternal principles , but one that builds spaces of transparency where values ​​can be discussed, redefined, and questioned . In a world where the "we" is algorithmic and power is opaque, true ethics is making visible what decides for us.

IN OTHER WORDS

Simple story

You know when you're playing with other kids and you say, "We're the blue team, they're the red team"? Well, throughout human history, it's always been that way: there's always an "us" and a "them."

• We are those who are within the group: the family, the tribe, the nation, the friends.

• They are the ones who are outside: the foreigners, the different ones, those who don't belong to the group.

Values—that is, the rules that dictate what's right and what's wrong—have never been the same for everyone. They often serve to protect "us" and exclude "them."

Today with computers

With the internet and phones, we all leave traces: clicks, photos, words, movements. These traces are called data . It's as if every child leaves colorful footprints on the floor. Everyone leaves footprints, so it seems like we're all part of the "we."

But beware: not everyone can decide what to do with those fingerprints. Only a few large "gatekeepers" (companies and governments) have the keys to using them. So:

• Everyone participates (because everyone leaves footprints).

• Few decide (because only they have the keys).

The problem

If values ​​were already difficult to understand in history, today they become even more complicated: we don't decide them with words, but algorithms do . Algorithms are like secret rules that say: " You can play this game, you can't play this. You can see this friend, we'll hide this one ."

The solution

We can't pretend there's a single, perfect value for everyone. What we can ask for is transparency : that is, that the rules be visible, like when a teacher writes the rules on a poster at school. That way, if we don't like a rule, we can discuss it and change it.

In a nutshell

• Before, the "we" was made of blood, language and territory.

• Today, "we" is made of data.

• Everyone produces data, but only a few decide how to use it.

• There's no need to invent eternal values: the rules need to be clear and open to challenge.

Narratives that broaden the discussion and need to be explored further

1. Shared Intelligence – Luiss University Press

Texts that reflect on AI not as a simple technology, but as a mirror of our cultural contradictions. They explore how intelligent systems embody fears, desires, and negotiated values, and how their diffusion requires a redefinition of the concept of "human."

2. Digital Human – Mauro Bellini and Maria Teresa Della Mura

An essay that addresses the relationship between humans and machines from an ethical and pedagogical perspective. It questions the transformation of human identity in the digital age and offers a reflection on educating people about transparency and algorithmic responsibility.

3. The Revolution of Hope – Erich Fromm

Although not recent, it is cited in many contemporary collections as a philosophical reference. Fromm warns: " The danger of the future is that men will become robots ." A warning that resonates today, when AI risks reducing the human to a technical parameter.