Thanks for the article and for sparking this discussion. I've just started a small series of articles on Medium.com from a similar perspective. (https://medium.com/@cs_33924)

Currently, however, my thoughts are moving toward the conclusion that we are on the verge of losing our personal coherence (thinking = feeling = acting) in the algorithms, or rather, the purely technical (and uncritical) application of systems, since we now almost exclusively "apply" and reflect and model (build or create) too little.

But that's probably just a very individual perspective in the diversity of life....

Hello and a quick addendum,

Your question still had some "aftermath" in my own thinking. I think the following article on Medium.com summarizes the possible situation from a computer science perspective quite well. It could be that we are on the verge of losing our ability to abstract due to the uncritical evaluation of algorithms or technology in general.

https://medium.com/@cs_33924/state-less-in-the-interface-how-computer-science-is-unlearning-how-to-think-a2c69cc70f7b

As is often the case, this is an individual opinion, but if you're interested, feel free to read it, and feedback is always welcome.

Best regards

Adrian, your reflection on algorithms as “symbolic agents” points to a deeper transformation already unfolding in global politics. Algorithms are no longer neutral infrastructures of communication — they function as hidden actors that silently redistribute visibility, legitimacy, and exclusion.

One striking example is China, which recognized early the political weight of algorithms. Through its large-scale commercial and social applications, it has not only harvested massive amounts of data but also developed tools to detect individual and collective preferences, inclinations, and sentiments. This demonstrates that algorithms are not simply economic tools, but infrastructures of governance and social engineering.

This shift reflects the emergence of what can be described as the Third Generation of International Relations (IR3):

• G¹ (post-1945): Power centered on treaties, sovereignty, and institutions like the UN and NATO.
• G² (1990–2010): Expanded through globalization, liberal institutions, and digital interconnectedness.
• G²⁺ (2010–2016): A transitional phase marked by the rise of populism (Trump, Bolsonaro, Orbán) and the erosion of liberal consensus, where symbolic performance began to rival institutional authority.
• G³ (2016–present): A structural rupture where diplomacy and politics are no longer mediated primarily by states or institutions, but by protocols, predictive architectures, and algorithmic presence.

In this G³ paradigm, code itself becomes a medium of power. Political resonance, public discourse, and even social cohesion are increasingly shaped by algorithmic infrastructures. The central challenge, therefore, is not only about “ethical design” but about institutionalizing accountability for algorithmic actors as symbolic powers.

If IR3 signals the future of global politics, governance must evolve to embed ethical AI, digital justice, and design thinking into its very architecture. Only then can symbolic presence and human-centered meaning be reclaimed in the algorithmic age.

Related reading: The End of Negotiation? Trump and the Algorithmic Future of Global Politics

https://www.academia.edu/144026746/The_End_of_Negotiation_Trump_and_the_Algorithmic_Future_of_Global_Politics

the framing of algorithms as symbolic presences by you, is compelling. It shows how their influence goes beyond mere computation and begins to shape our cultural horizons. If visibility is inherently political, the key question becomes not whether algorithms shape attention, but how we might design them to do so responsibly.

Thanks for the comment. In my opinion, we need to be very careful not to get lost in "Pluto's cave," paying only attention to screens, patterns, and absolute numbers, but rather start thinking independently again. In my life, after 35 years of "pragmatically applied computer science," this is a (self-)realization that is difficult to bear.

Dear Christian Schmidt

Thank you for your generous reply and for sharing your reflections — I’ve read your Medium articles with great interest. Your concern about the erosion of personal coherence — the unity of thinking, feeling, and acting — is not only timely, but profoundly lucid.

Your framing of abstraction as a faculty at risk, due to the uncritical application of algorithmic systems, resonates deeply with my own observations. The idea that we are increasingly “applying” rather than “creating” or “modeling” touches a symbolic nerve in the current technocultural landscape. It’s not just a personal perspective — it’s a signal worth amplifying.

I particularly appreciated your formulation in “State-less in the Interface” — the notion that computer science may be unlearning how to think. That’s a powerful and necessary provocation. In a time when interfaces dominate cognition, your voice brings clarity and depth.

We may be navigating different paths, but I believe we’re part of the same symbolic orbit. Thank you for sparking this dialogue — it’s rare and valuable.

Warm regards,

⚛️ Adrian Leonard Mociulschi

Dear Osama S Qatrani

Thank you for your insightful reply. Your framing of algorithms as symbolic agents — not just technical infrastructures — resonates deeply with my own reflections. I believe we are witnessing a profound shift: not only in how power is exercised, but in how meaning itself is distributed.

From my perspective as a cultural theorist and technocultural ambassador, this transformation invites us to rethink the very architecture of culture. In the age of algorithms, culture becomes the new form of power — not as ornament or heritage, but as a dynamic field of symbolic negotiation, resonance, and presence.

We are entering what I call the era of algorithmic culture: a space where visibility, legitimacy, and even intimacy are mediated by code. In this space, the challenge is not only ethical design, but symbolic literacy — the ability to read, shape, and inhabit the algorithmic with meaning.

Your reflections contribute powerfully to this dialogue. I see in your work a shared commitment to reclaiming coherence, abstraction, and symbolic agency in a world increasingly shaped by invisible architectures.

Warm regards,

⚛️ Adrian Leonard Mociulschi

ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9328-8518

Dear Mehrbano Khattak

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I truly appreciate the way you captured the symbolic dimension of algorithms — not just as computational tools, but as cultural presences shaping our horizons of meaning.

You're absolutely right: if visibility is inherently political, then the design of algorithmic attention becomes a cultural responsibility. From my perspective, this is precisely where culture itself becomes the new form of power in the algorithmic age — not through institutional authority, but through symbolic resonance, ethical design, and the capacity to shape presence.

We are entering a phase I often refer to as algorithmic culture: a space where meaning is mediated by code, and where the challenge is not only to regulate, but to cultivate. In this sense, the future belongs not just to algorithms, but to those who understand their symbolic architecture.

Thank you again for your generous reflection — it feels like we are speaking the same language.

Warm regards,

⚛️ Adrian Leonard Mociulschi

ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9328-8518

Dear Adrian,

Thank you for your generous and thought-provoking response. I agree with you that what we are facing is not only a European issue but a transformation of humanity itself. Technology was originally designed as a tool to serve human needs, yet when released without ethical boundaries, it becomes a form of symbolic disruption. The suspension of the Dolly sheep cloning project is a striking example: the aim was never to stop science, but to impose ethical limits that protect human beings.

In this sense, unlimited technological freedom opens doors whose consequences may be more destructive than constructive. This is why, in my paper Digital Identity Rewired: Three Generations in the Grip of Algorithmic Power DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35546.81608)

Preprint DIGITAL IDENTITY REWIRED: THREE GENERATIONS IN THE GRIP OF A...

, I argue that algorithmic infrastructures require not only technical regulation but also symbolic governance. Without such a framework, the promise of technology risks collapsing into its own contradictions, transforming human identity into an object of manipulation rather than empowerment.

Your notion of algorithmic culture resonates strongly with my own concern for reclaiming symbolic literacy and coherence in the age of code. Together, these perspectives point toward an urgent intellectual task: to articulate the ethical, cultural, and symbolic limits that can safeguard humanity in an era increasingly defined by invisible architectures of power.

Warm regards, Osama S. Qatrani

Dear Adrian, dear fellow discussants,

Big thanks for kickin’ off this conversation — it’s proof I’m not the only one wrestlin’ with these thoughts, even if we’re tacklin’ the topic from different angles: hands-on computer science versus the sharp wit of philosophy, which, let’s be real, comes in handy every day when dealin’ with folks.

A special shout-out for readin’ my first articles. I’m just gettin’ started with my writin’ gig on Medium.com. The kids are slowly movin’ out, so it’s time for a new hobby. These early pieces are me tryin’ to find my own voice, usin’ AI to turn the gritty lingo of my Ruhrgebiet(*1) roots into English — not just translatin’, but shapin’ it into somethin’ fresh. Whether I’m pullin’ it off or not, well, time’ll tell.

Not that I haven’t churned out plenty of (techy) documents in my career — you know, the kind where page 187 says, “If you’ve read this far and actually got it, coffee’s on me.” Spoiler: I always drank my coffee alone. But writin’ without the pressure of makin’ a buck? That’s shapin’ up to be a sweet deal for my later years.

Here’s to wishin’ everyone a good time, and maybe we’ll cross paths in another discussion down the road.

Christian

https://medium.com/@cs_33924

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christian-Schmidt-108

(*1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhr

@ Christian Schmidt

Dear Christian,

Thank you for your warm and thoughtful message. I truly appreciate the spirit in which you write — it’s rare to encounter someone who approaches research and writing with such authenticity and joy.

Let me say this clearly: I hold deep respect for those who write and research out of genuine passion. In today’s world, I often feel that academic and scientific work has drifted away from its original mission — that of serving humanity.

That’s why it’s a real joy to meet people like you, who write not for metrics or prestige, but for meaning. I say this with conviction: in a world where everything tends to be transactional, those who preserve the direction of pure sense — even in solitude — are, in my view, the true promoters of science.

I believe it’s vital that those of us who share a social ideal contribute to a more humane, less self-interested, and more dialogical world. Not a world of monologues, but one of meaningful exchange.

Looking forward to crossing paths again — and thank you once more for your openness.

Warm regards, Adrian

Dear Osama S Qatrani ,

Thank you for your deeply insightful reply. I truly appreciate the way you frame the ethical dimension as a form of symbolic governance—a concept that resonates strongly with my own reflections on algorithmic culture.

Your reference to the Dolly case is particularly relevant: it reminds us that the question is not about halting progress, but about ensuring that innovation remains anchored in human responsibility.

I also find your emphasis on symbolic literacy essential. In an age where invisible architectures of power shape identity and agency, reclaiming this literacy becomes not only an intellectual task but a cultural imperative.

Your paper, Digital Identity Rewired, offers a compelling perspective on this challenge, and I look forward to engaging further with your arguments.

Perhaps the next step is to explore how these ethical and symbolic frameworks can be translated into actionable strategies—bridging theory and governance in a way that safeguards both human dignity and technological creativity.

Warm regards,

Adrian Mociulschi