Jianwei Xun: Fake philosopher
« previous post |
Jianwei Xun, the supposed philosopher behind the hypnocracy theory, does not exist and is a product of artificial intelligence
A collaboration between an essayist and two AI platforms produced a book that reflects on new forms of manipulation
Raúl Limón, EL PAÍS (4/7/25)
The entire proposition behind this scheme is so preposterous and diabolical that I am rendered virtually speechless.
The French city of Cannes hosted a roundtable discussion on February 14 called “The Metamorphosis of Democracy – How Artificial Intelligence is Disrupting Digital Governance and Redefining Our Policy.”
The debate was covered in an article by EL PAÍS after Gianluca Misuraca, Vice President of Technology Diplomacy at Inspiring Futures, introduced the concept of “hypnocracy” — a new form of manipulation outlined in a book by Jianwei Xun called Hypnocracy: Trump, Musk, and the New Architecture of Reality. However, this Hong Kong philosopher does not exist, as revealed by Sabina Minardi, editor-in-chief of the Italian magazine L’Espresso.
There is a real book out there. It has sold thousands of copies. It has occasioned vigorous debate. It is having consequences. Yet, although the idea behind it was created by an Italian publisher and bookstore owner named Andrea Colamedici (b. 1987), it was authored by two AI platforms, i.e., non-humans.
The French city of Cannes hosted a roundtable discussion on February 14 called “The Metamorphosis of Democracy – How Artificial Intelligence is Disrupting Digital Governance and Redefining Our Policy.”
The debate was covered in an article by EL PAÍS after Gianluca Misuraca, Vice President of Technology Diplomacy at Inspiring Futures, introduced the concept of “hypnocracy” — a new form of manipulation outlined in a book by Jianwei Xun called Hypnocracy: Trump, Musk, and the New Architecture of Reality. However, this Hong Kong philosopher does not exist, as revealed by Sabina Minardi, editor-in-chief of the Italian magazine L’Espresso.
In this case, "Jianwei Xun", which is a surrogate for two non-human agents and one human idea man, is different from a pseudonym, because it is the composite representation of a semi-human, semi-machine entity. Who / what is responsible for the book and what it entails?
The theory was created by essayist and editor Andrea Colamedici, who, although listed as a translator, is actually the co-author of the book, along with two AI platforms. This fact was never disclosed, violating EU law on AI. In response, EL PAÍS decided to remove the article published on March 26, which referenced content from the book attributed to the non-existent Hong Kong philosopher.
How was the machination exposed?
Journalist Sabina Minardi, after multiple attempts to interview the supposed author, uncovered that it was a pseudonym for a work created and edited by Colamedici in collaboration with two AI tools, part of a project to reveal AI’s influence in producing coherent and convincing discourse. As a result, researcher [Cecelia] Danesi referred to this new form of manipulation as a “digital dictatorship.”
If you take a look around the internet for the keywords "hypnocracy", "Jianwei Xun", etc., you will see that they have proliferated and are having an impact. But who is morally and legally responsible for their consequences? Has authorship been falsely attributed? If so, is it subject to criminal prosecution? Have someone's moral rights been abrogated or trespassed? Has anyone been defamed? Has fraud been committed?
The EL PAÍS article closes with a defense of Hypnocracy as a worthwhile "experiment" in discussing a complex of thorny issues facing society and a more nuanced approach to the phenomenon than the one with which I began this post. The human author / actor pleads that he did not intend to deceive anyone, only wished to raise critical arguments. Yet, Jianwei Xun has a website, and his / its legacy lives on….
Selected reading
- "Trespassed update" (10/15/24) — with relevant bibliography
- "Hypnocracy" — YouTube video (8:42) in which the human author calls himself part of a "collective"
[h.t. Bryan Van Norden]