In the handelsblatt, a somewhat serious German newspaper, dealing specifically with economic issues, we read in the e-mail-service dedicated to AI-issues
Concern is growing within the German Government that, by adopting this technology, Europe could inevitably end up adopting the rules and values of the US and China as well. For Merz and his colleagues, however, people – not technology – should be at the heart of the current ‘epoch-making transformation’.
Bomke, Luisa, 5.11.2026: Handelsblatt KI-Briefing (e-mail service)
It is a somewhat paradoxical: striving for technological competitiveness is actually exactly the opposite of what Merz and the German federal government claim: they concentrate on technology, not on the human being.
At first glance, this could be ignored from the perspective of Human Rights. However, it is increasingly important to engage a bit further with this issue, beginning with the often repeated mention that artificial intelligence is not about intelligence. One may take different perspectives and focus on different details, a useful summary is given by the term
Probability Based Statements & Systems
It is well known from sociology and economics that individual life’s, social groups’ and societies’ “behaviour” is somewhat predictable; but this is only one part of the story; the other, and more important, part is that deviations, irregularities, are responsible for change: retardation or progress. It is about trying new moves, looking for new ways of defining progress and making it happen. Of course, such searches are emerging as answer on real developments, in short: the development of the productive forces.
So, instead of being more competitive in the development of technical means, trying to utilise them in order to achieve a human-centred approach, the more appropriate way is to begin by elaborating a human-centred approach, looking in a second step at the instruments that can be used to foster this.
Interesting examples are in fact Denmark (and probably other countries too, mentioning Denmark reflects the author’s limited personal knowledge.) and China.
Denmark learned over the years the problems going hand in hand with a one-sided orientation on (the use of) technology, employing at a very early stage in the education computers and digital instruments. Since some time we find a turn, namely the orientation on learning first “basic skills”, critical thinking, hermeneutics, before entering a stage on which using digital instruments is learned — mind: it is about learning the use of and not simply using these instruments；and indeed, we can now speak of the use of digital instruments, tools, not being understood as advanced “intelligent systems”.
In China we find a far reaching “reform” of the educational system — reform in inverted commas, as we must speak of a fundamental restructuration. Indeed, we are dealing with a relational approach, as the restructuration of the educational system is an answer on the restructuration of the socio-economic conditions and vice versa, also reflecting fundamental changes in the geo-political constellation. It is this dimension of mutual influences, without a specific start and end, although start and beginning can clearly be defined. Here we can actually learn – or better to say witness – a process that goes hand in hand with developments of knowledge in science, in particular the area of quantum theory/quantum physics. Breaking away from the mechanical world view allows to develop the productive forces in a very different way, overcoming in some respect the limitations are given by space and time.
The other aspect is of a specific interest in the context of the development of global relationships here we find, in fact, the necessity (not just possibility) to think the geo-political order in new dimensions, cooperation replacing the old patterns of confrontation. It is about building a common future of and for human kind, understood by actually going beyond the anthropocentric ideology. Multipolarity can be taken in this understanding as guideline for a future: starting from the Great Unity’ (大同世界, Dàtóng Shìjiè), we must move upwards, arriving at the end at the lowest level, the instruments. To avoid misunderstandings: this is not an idealist approach, putting things upside-down; speaking of the lowest level means does not confuse the instruments as basis. It is the other way round, the basis is the production and reproduction of daily life, and that is the reality of humankind as part of the universe.
Coming back to the beginning, Merz is idealist by way of prioritising technological advancement, competing with others and neglecting in fact the real foundation of life, namely the socio-economic (re-)production of daily life.