The Hidden Worldview Shaping the AI You Buy
Transhumanism is not a fringe fantasy but a belief system influencing how AI is built, sold and imagined.
Sign up for my Substack daily AI newsletter here.
See my AI Training course portfolio for corporate Business Leaders here.
Follow me on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johanosteyn/
Business leaders assess artificial intelligence the way they assess any technology, by its features, its price and its return on investment. Few pause to ask a stranger question: what do the people building it believe about the future of humanity? It sounds like a philosophical detour. It is closer to due diligence, because a distinct worldview shapes how advanced AI is designed, funded and sold, and its assumptions arrive with the product.
CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND
That worldview is transhumanism, the conviction that humanity can and should use technology to overcome its biological limits, from disease and ageing to the boundaries of the human mind. Far from a recent enthusiasm, it is a serious strand of modern political thought, with ambitious visions of global order that scholars trace from interwar futurists to today’s technology industry. Its link to artificial intelligence is direct. The stated goal of many leading AI organisations is artificial general intelligence, a system more capable than any human, and researchers Timnit Gebru and Émile Torres argue that a bundle of related utopian ideologies, transhumanism among them, drives much of that pursuit. One need not accept every part of their contested critique to notice that the ambition it describes is stated openly by the industry itself. This matters for the buyer, because the enterprise systems on sale today are presented by their makers not as finished products but as steps on the road to that larger goal.
INSIGHT AND ANALYSIS
At the core of the worldview is the idea that a person is essentially a pattern of information rather than a particular body, so the mind could in principle be enhanced, fused with machines, or transferred to a new substrate. Influential thinkers map a path from today’s unenhanced humans, through moderate enhancement, to uploaded or artificially embodied posthumans with the powers of superintelligent AI, and they treat death not as a fact to accept but as a problem to be solved. A careful philosophical analysis of that promise argues it faces an unresolved dilemma, because the reasons for wanting to become a posthuman and the reasons for believing it possible rest on incompatible theories of personal identity, which leaves it unclear whether the enhanced being would be you at all. The lesson for a reader is not to settle the metaphysics but to see that the vision rests on strong, contestable claims rather than neutral facts.
I have previously written about this, in a piece asking whether transhumanism is compatible with African humanism, where I argued that Ubuntu locates a person’s worth not in capability but in relationship, in the idea that a person is a person through other persons. That is the reverse of a worldview that ranks lives by how enhanced they are, and the tension between upgrading the human and honouring the human is exactly what leaders inherit when they adopt these tools.
IMPLICATIONS
The first implication is that the assumptions travel with the technology. Roadmaps that present ever-larger models as steps towards general or superhuman intelligence, and marketing that frames AI as a replacement for human capability rather than a support for it, carry the transhumanist teleology whether or not a buyer shares it. The second is that institutions are starting to respond. In November 2025, UNESCO adopted the first global standard on the ethics of neurotechnology, built around human dignity, mental privacy and the right to decide whether to use such tools at all. The third is that the public does not share the industry’s enthusiasm. Most people are wary of merging mind and machine, and a majority of surveyed adults said the widespread use of brain chips to enhance cognition would be bad for society. A leader who treats the transhumanist vision as settled consensus is misreading the market.
CLOSING TAKEAWAY
None of this is a reason to avoid AI. The tools are useful, and their usefulness does not depend on accepting any grand theory of human destiny. It is a reason to buy with your eyes open, to separate what a system does for your organisation from what its makers believe about the future of the species, and to keep human judgement, accountability and dignity at the centre of how you deploy it. The worldview shaping the AI you buy is not neutral. Your governance of it should not be either.
Johan Steyn is a prominent AI thought leader, speaker, and author with a deep understanding of artificial intelligence’s impact on business and society. He is passionate about ethical AI development and its role in shaping a better future. Find out more about Johan’s work at https://www.aiforbusiness.net
Comments