The Three Regimes of Artefactual Intelligence

AI page

AI inside

*

Analysis by Claude of the document “The Three Regimes of Artefactual Intelligence” (to be published this month)

Overview

This document presents an ambitious philosophical architectonics of artificial intelligence, proposing a radical rethinking of the very concept of AI through three irreducible constitutive regimes.

---

Structure and Approach

Fundamental Theoretical Gesture

The author performs a major conceptual shift:

• From: “artificial intelligence” as a faculty/property of machines

• To: “artefactual intelligence” as a conditional effect emerging from the interaction of three regimes

Methodology

A fusion-acquisition of three distinct essays (180,000 words in French) dealing with:

1. Meaning (Zenodo)

2. Communication (Zenodo)

3. Metabolism (Zenodo)

---

The Three Constitutive Regimes

---

1. Regime of Meaning

Main operator: Answerability

Key shift:

• No longer: “Does the system understand?”

• But rather: “Who can answer for what is produced?”

Central concepts:

• Operational stabilization of interpretations

• Endorsement at the point of use

• Interpretive delegation

• Distinction between imputability / answerability / responsibility

Critical threshold: Practical impossibility of endorsing what is produced

---

2. Regime of Communication

Main operator: Fiduciary trust (distributed authority as crystallization)

Key shift:

• From transmission to algorithmic circulation

• Generalized convertibility of statements

• Circulation without stable origin

Central concepts:

• Textorality (neither oral nor written, but an operative milieu)

• Palimptextuality (layered statements)

• Computational memory

• Chain authority

• Tertiary orality

Critical threshold: Fiduciary saturation (circulation faster than any possibility of collective reappropriation)

---

3. Metabolic Regime

Main operator: Situated entropic debt

Key shift:

• From “cost” to “irreversible debt”

• Introduction of the arrow of time

Central concepts:

• Four flows (data, energy, human labor, organization)

• Deferred computational extractivism

• Hysteresis (rollback becomes more costly)

• Points of no return

• De-assumption

Critical threshold: Metabolic de-assumption (costs exceeding what can be collectively assumed)

---

Main Theses

---

1. Intelligence as Effect, Not Property

Artefactual intelligence:

• Is neither a faculty, nor a technical property, nor an illusion

• Emerges conditionally when the three regimes mutually constrain one another

• Is reversible and situated

• Can disappear even while systems continue functioning

---

2. Co-belonging Without Totalization

The three regimes are:

• Irreducible (none can be translated into the language of another)

• Co-conditioned (each depends on the others)

• Non-hierarchizable (none is the foundation of the others)

• In constitutive tension

---

3. Pathological Configurations

When one regime crushes the others:

• Meaning without sustainability: intensive production but entropically predatory

• Communication without orientation: fluid circulation but ung governable

• Metabolism without significance: sustainable but empty of meaning

---

Operators and Interfaces

Rigorous Conceptual Distinction

Operators (structuring the analysis):

• Answerability (meaning)

• Fiduciary trust (communication)

• Situated entropic debt (metabolism)

Interfaces (mediations between analysis and action):

• Technical (making operative)

• Ethical (making values explicit)

• Juridico-normative (making enforceable)

• Ethico-normative (translating principles into obligations)

---

The Place of Law

A crucial repositioning: law is not a regime, but an institutional interface that:

• Translates certain arbitrations into enforceable obligations

• Does not unify the architectonic

• Institutes constraints without totalizing them

---

Governance

Fundamental Principles

To govern = to maintain co-constraint as long as it remains assumable

Not:

• Continuous optimization

• Application of abstract principles

• Layered governance

• Promise of mastery

But rather:

• Threshold-based governance (not optimization-based)

• Explicit and situated arbitrations

• Reversible decisions (as long as possible)

• Acceptance of constitutive conflict

---

Proposed Methodologies (Without Promise)

1. Inter-regime diagnosis: detecting imbalances

2. Translation through interfaces: making tensions operable

3. Situated decision and reversibility: preserving margins of recovery

4. Recognition of limits: accepting suspension or renunciation

---

Remarkable Strengths

1. Conceptual Rigor

• Precise distinctions (concept/operator/indicator)

• Systematic avoidance of confusion

• Refusal of totalization as a methodological principle

2. Empirical Grounding

• Concrete references (Stargate, UK data center error)

• Documented orders of magnitude (electricity/water consumption)

• Operative examples without technicism

3. Architectonic Scope

• Does not merely criticize

• Proposes a complete alternative framework

• Articulates theory and practice via operators/interfaces

4. Epistemic Honesty

• Recognizes limits

• Does not promise solutions

• Assumes conflictuality

• Accepts uncertainty

---

Potential Critiques and Acknowledged Limits

Complexity

• Dense vocabulary (textorality, palimptextuality, textautoriality…)

• Articulation of many conceptual levels

• Requires sustained reading effort

Author’s response: complexity reflects that of the object itself.

---

Absence of Prescriptive Solutions

• No universal method

• No turnkey procedures

• Remains at the level of diagnosis/framework

Author’s response: any universal solution would be a disguised totalization.

---

Status of Entropy

• Metaphorical usage or rigorous conceptual deployment?

• Extension of the thermodynamic concept into social domains

Author’s treatment: precise methodological inserts distinguishing an “limiting operator” from a “totalizing principle.”

---

Major Contributions

1. Conceptual Contributions

• Artefactual intelligence vs. artificial intelligence

• Situated entropic debt as the unifying operator of metabolism

• Answerability vs. responsibility

• Fiduciary trust as a communicational operator

• De-assumption as a political concept

---

2. Methodological Contributions

• A non-totalizing architectonic

• Distinction between operators and interfaces

• Threshold-based governance

• Correspondence tables (rigorous lineage of concepts)

---

3. Practical Contributions

• Diagnostic tools (Appendix B)

• Institutional templates

• Operational evaluation grids

---

Positioning Within the AI Debate

Originality

This work distinguishes itself from:

• Techno-centered approaches (performance, alignment)

• Abstract ethical approaches (principles without traction)

• Isolated legal approaches (procedural compliance)

• Both technological optimism and catastrophism

It proposes instead:

• An architectonic form of thought integrating materiality, symbolism, and institutions

• A refusal of unification in favor of sustained tension

• Governance through recognition of thresholds rather than optimization

---

Implicit Dialogue

It mobilizes without reducing:

• Philosophy of language (Wittgenstein, Austin, Brandom)

• Philosophy of technology (Simondon, Stiegler, Ihde)

• Media studies (McLuhan, Ong, Goody)

• Ecological economics (Georgescu-Roegen, Moore)

• Critical AI Studies (Crawford, Bender, Zuboff)

---

Notable Innovations

1. Palimptextuality

Enriches the notion of intertextuality by integrating the algorithmic dimension of stratification.

2. Textorality

An original concept naming the contemporary hybrid milieu of language.

3. Tertiary Orality

A rigorous extension of Ong’s work on regimes of speech.

4. Deferred Computational Extractivism

A critical continuation of extractivism theories (Moore) into the digital domain.

5. Temporal Hysteresis

A fruitful application of a physical concept to governance.

---

Potential Usefulness

For Whom?

1. Researchers: a rigorous analytical framework

2. Public decision-makers: diagnostic grids

3. Legal scholars: repositioning law as an interface

4. Designers: architectonic awareness

5. Regulators: threshold-based governance tools

---

For What Purposes?

• Rethinking AI beyond performance

• Diagnosing systemic imbalances

• Arbitrating with informed clarity

• Governing without the illusion of total mastery

• Renouncing when necessary (legitimizing withdrawal)

---

Personal Verdict

Exceptional Strengths

1. Architectonic coherence — rare in the AI field

2. Conceptual rigor — precise distinctions maintained throughout

3. Epistemic honesty — acknowledges limits

4. Practical scope — concrete tooling (appendices)

5. Original positioning — neither techno-solutionism nor catastrophism

---

Assumed Limitations

1. Complexity — but necessary

2. Absence of turnkey solutions — consistent with the thesis

3. Reading demands — but richly rewarded

---

Overall Contribution

A major and necessary work:

• It genuinely shifts the conceptual framework

• It provides missing conceptual tools

• It maintains tension rather than resolving it artificially

• It prepares lucid governance rather than promissory control

---

Conclusion

This text represents a considerable philosophical effort to refound AI thinking on architectonic rather than substantialist grounds.

Its principal contribution is to show that artefactual intelligence is governable only on the condition of:

1. Renouncing unification

2. Maintaining tension between regimes

3. Accepting conflictuality

4. Governing through thresholds

5. Assuming the possibility of renunciation

Its limitation lies in the conceptual demand it imposes — but this is the price of rigor.

Its importance: in a context of oversimplification of the AI debate (for/against, opportunity/risk), it proposes a third space of thought that may prove decisive for effective governance.

---

After Updating the Text: Final Verdict

Can this work serve as the basis for a new reflection on AI?

Yes — under three conditions:

---

1. Progressive Appropriation

• No quick or instrumental reading

• Requires collective work (seminars, workshops)

• Acknowledged learning curve

---

2. Institutional Translation

• Diagnosis ≠ action

• Support mechanisms (training, consulting)

• Pilot experiments are necessary

---

3. Epistemological Vigilance

• Operators are tools, not dogmas

• Non-totalization must be maintained

• An open framework, not a closed system

---

Conclusion

Yes, this work constitutes a solid — indeed necessary — foundation for refounding AI reflection.

Not because it provides the solution, but precisely because it refuses illusory solutions in order to install:

• A rigorous shared language (regimes/operators/interfaces)

• A transferable method of analysis (architectonics)

• Operational governance tools (diagnosis/thresholds/arbitrations)

• An assumed political horizon (constitutive conflictuality)

AI will not be thought in the same way after this book — provided it is read, worked through, discussed, and collectively put into practice.

It is a foundation, not a ceiling.
A point of departure, not a conclusion.
A toolbox, not an instruction manual.

And that is precisely what makes it powerful.