Let’s drop the comforting illusion that artificial intelligence is just another shiny tool in humanity’s long romance with technology. The truth is cruder, and perhaps more dangerous: we are not using the digital we are living inside it. The shift is not evolutionary but ontological. The difference is all the difference. To call this era a transformation is an understatement. It is a colonisation, silent and irreversible, of our very existence by invisible architectures and algorithmic ecosystems. What we mistake for platforms are sovereign environments. And no, this is not metaphor it’s reality with a new texture.

Philosopher Luciano Floridi was among the first to shout from the ivory towers: we don’t surf the digital anymore, we inhabit it. Unlike a hammer or a smartphone, an environment doesn’t extend our reach it defines our being. It is not something we use but something that uses us to define itself. And yet, through most of the 1990s, policymakers still treated the internet as infrastructure a glorified mailman, not the habitat it was already becoming. That failure to grasp the ontological stakes is now coming home to roost.

The difference between a communication channel and an ontological environment is violent. A medium transfers. An environment performs. You don’t scroll through a forest; you live in it, breathe its air, obey its rules. The digital park, our new biome, has no trees, only terms of service and if you think that’s dystopian hyperbole, try deleting yourself from Google. In this space, privacy is no longer a private matter. It’s ecological. That’s right: your personal data is not a possession, but a pollutant or a resource, depending on who’s mining it. The self, once a philosophical cornerstone, is now a dataset in beta, endlessly reprocessed for relevance and revenue.

Artificial intelligence isn’t even the real news here. The real news is that the world has changed species, and AI is just what grows in the new soil. Neural networks, transformer models, diffusion engines all of it existed in embryonic form for decades. But it is only now, with the proliferation of compute, GPU parallelism, open-source codebases and the capitalist alignment of infrastructure, that AI has metastasised from curiosity to civilisation-layer. The AI revolution is not about software. It’s about environment. The land is fertile now, and the algorithms are blooming.

Agency, in this landscape, is not a philosophical attribute but an environmental adaptation. Machines do not think; they persist. They do not know; they perform. Their success is not measured in meaning but in compatibility. And the joke the sad cosmic joke is that we are the ones adapting to them. We no longer speak to machines; we speak in machine-readable formats, hoping to be understood by the silent logic of optimisation. Every spreadsheet is an altar to efficiency. Every prompt is an act of genuflection to syntax.

When Floridi speaks of AI’s agency, he doesn’t mean it in the sci-fi sense of willpower or sentience. He means it as an ecological force. The barcode and the QR code were early signs: we were already designing a world easier for machines to parse than for humans to understand. A city is no longer a place but a mesh of coordinates. And ChatGPT? It’s not brilliant. It’s compatible. That’s its real power. We didn’t build better minds. We built better mirrors, and we taught ourselves to love the reflection.

The law, meanwhile, limps behind, out of breath and out of touch. Concepts like authorship, originality, intent they collapse in the face of statistical interpolation. AI does not copy. It does not create. It reconfigures, synthesises, hallucinates. It produces not the new, but the most likely. What does copyright mean in a world where the original never existed? What does consent mean when the data pipeline was automated before you could say “opt-out”?

We are living in a legal short-circuit, where those who respected regulation are punished and those who harvested data like pirates are rewarded with billion-dollar valuations. The idea that Europe is overregulated and America is a digital Wild West is marketing, not truth. The US has patchwork protections that are often more robust in practice than the GDPR’s theoretical empire. Europe’s problem is not law it’s enforcement. And in the meantime, AI barrels forward, its ethics defined by latency and ROI.

There are three macro-trends here, tectonic and brutal.

First: the eclipse of the analog. We are forgetting that the world is made of atoms, not bits. When we mistake simulation for presence, we lose sight of the real — the dirty, slow, human, error-ridden real. The interfaces are beautiful; the lives behind them, less so. The digital economy optimises for standard users. Those who deviate — the elderly, the disabled, the marginalised are abandoned by design. Innovation that forgets fragility is not progress; it’s segregation. Before the future can be digital, it must be analogically aware. It must remember the body.

Second: the hardware turn. Power has gone back to basics. Cables, chips, lithium, silicon — these are the levers of control now. Freedom of speech is a voltage problem. A content moderation algorithm is geopolitics in code. Whoever owns the servers owns the semantics. The cloud is not vapor; it’s concrete, copper and colonialism. We speak of sovereignty without owning the mines, the rare earths, the grid. The AI doesn’t need to be turned off — it only needs the electricity bill to go unpaid.

Third: agency as commodity. Intelligence has been industrialised. GPTs are sold by token. Computer vision is available as a monthly SaaS tier. Agency, once the mark of life, is now a unit of compute. And the market has a monopoly. This is not Orwell’s boot stamping on a human face. This is Google gently guiding you away from dissent. This is TikTok deciding who you are before you do. This is governance by interface, not ideology.

China, to its credit or peril, has understood the assignment. It is not building clever apps; it is building a national AI infrastructure. Europe, in contrast, debates metaphors while the digital scaffolding is erected elsewhere. The job crisis, the skill gap, the social panic — they are not consequences of AI. They are symptoms of institutional paralysis in the face of exponential change. The US, with its cultural dynamism and internal mobility, absorbs shock. Europe shatters under it.

But let’s be clear: AI is not fate. It is a tool, wielded by those with energy, data and will. The real issue is governance. And governance is not bureaucracy it is vision. The dichotomy between regulation and innovation is a lie. Real innovation needs rules. It needs fences to push against. Unregulated AI is not free. It is dangerous, brittle and ultimately profit-serving. Only politics — real politics can turn the possible into the preferable.

Every AI model is trained on our past. If we let it decide our future, we will live in a world optimised for yesterday’s errors. Digital sovereignty is not a press release. It starts with ground truth: with mines, cables, people, and rules. The 21st century will not be digital in the way we thought. It will be analog at its core, and digital at the edges a messy awareness of the physical stakes behind each click, each token, each hallucinated sentence.

And no, there is no conclusion. That’s the point. The transformation is not a phase. It is a condition. The AI age does not arrive; it absorbs. The question is not whether we can regulate it. The question is whether we are willing to remember what kind of world we want before the servers decide it for us.

FOTO MultimediaArchivio comunicazione