Aldo Pisano - Does the AI need a genealogy? - The ‘PAIA’ model and the question concerning technology for AI regulation

Aug 28, 2026

Uploaded by Maeve

Explores AI’s role through philosophical anthropology, focusing on how intelligent technologies reshape cultural spaces, values, and human self-understanding. Technology is treated as integral to human evolution, functioning as “second nature,” while Illich’s critical threshold highlights risks when limits are exceeded. To avoid alarmism, AI is analyzed as part of technological development, using the PAIA model (Pervasiveness, Autonomy, Invisibility, Adaptivity) to assess risks, protect human agency, and discuss a non-catastrophic co-living culture in the generative AI era.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages15

Reading Time38 min

AccessFree to download

The ‘PAIA’ model and the question concerning technology for AI regulation

Main Frame: The AI Ethics Tree

Genealogy and its philosophical use

Applying a genealogical approach to artificial intelligence

Risk framing through the PAIA model

Aldo Pisano Does theAI need a genealogy? The ‘PAIA’ model and the question concerning technology for the AI regulation Abstract: This paper explores AI’s role through the lens of philosophical anthropology, examining its impact on cultural spaces and values. Technology, as Arnold Gehlen argues, is integral to human evolution, shaping culture as a ‘second nature’. Ivan Illich’s concept of the critical threshold warns that beyond certain limits, technology distorts rather than supports human and cultural systems. To avoid alarmism, AI should be understood within this continuum of technological development, familiarizing society with its potential without overlooking risks. The PAIA model (Pervasiveness, Autonomy, Invisibility, Adaptivity) provides a framework to assess these risks, ensuring AI does not replace human agency but enhances cultural resilience. The paper will try to provide an example on how intelligent technologies could generate a culture of Distrust in Generative AI Era. Nevertheless, the main objective of this paper remains to showa possible non-catastrophic perspective of a co-living culture between humans and AI. 1. Main Frame: The AI Ethics Tree As many of the technologies which have been developed during the last centuries – especially from the industrial revolution onwards1 – AI is turning more pervasive, deeply changing human life, and social spaces. If this means to change human condition tout court, then we assume that technical life is a “second nature” for human species. In order to avoid false alert, this paper will move from Gehlen’s perspective2 on anthropological philosophy to normalize the impact of AI and from Ivan Illich3 theory of critical threshold to understand the limits of AI application4. 1 About the impact technology in Ethics, an interesting perspective can be found in Bioethics. For more details see: M. Mori, Manuale di Bioetica. Verso una civiltà biomedica secolarizzata, Le Lettere, Firenze 2010. 2 Cfr. A. Gehlen, Der Mensch. Seine Natur und seine Stellung in der Welt, Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Athenaion, Frankfurt a. M. 1978; [eng. tr. by Clare McMillan and Karl Pillemer](eng. tr. by Clare McMillan and Karl Pillemer), Man, His Nature and Place in the World, Columbia University Press, 1988; A. Gehlen, Anthropologische Forschung, Rowohlt, Reinbek 1961; [tr. it. di](tr. it. di) S. Cremaschi, Prospettive antropologiche. Perl’incontro con se stesso e la scoperta di sé daparte dell’uomo, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1987. 3 Cfr. I. Illich, Tools of Conviviality, Harper&Row, New Yok, NY, 1973. The author wants to thank his colleague, Enrico Orsenigo, who helped him to discover Illich’s theory. 4 For obvious reasons we cannot propose the whole arguments of Gehlen and Illich’s works, but we will use three specific concepts: ‘relieving function’ of technology, that can be Mechane, n. 9, 2025 • Mimesis Edizioni, [Milano-Udine Web: mimesisjournals.com/ojs/index.php/mechane](Milano-Udine Web: mimesisjournals.com/ojs/index.php/mechane)[ ](Milano-Udine Web: mimesisjournals.com/ojs/index.php/mechane)• ISBN: 9791222323237 • ISSN: 2784-9961 • DOI: 10.7413/2784mchn0015 © 2025 – MIM EDIZIONI SRL. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY-4 .0) . The wide concept “culture”, will be used here in a double meaning: (a) culture as artificial nature and technology, as shown in Gehlen’s argument; (b) as attitude of human species in building new form of co-living strategies and principles, according to technological changes and revolution. Another clarification is about the use of “genealogy”5. In the philosophical sense, it is developed by Nietzsche6 and later expanded by Foucault7, as a method of inquiry that rather than searching for an absolute or essential origin, exploreshow these cultural constructions emerge from specific historical contexts, power relations, and contingencies. Applying a genealogical approach to Ar

FAQs

What does the paper mean by asking whether AI needs a genealogy?

It applies a genealogical method to artificial intelligence from an anthropological perspective. The goal is to examine how cultural constructions, power relations, and historical contexts shape AI rather than treating AI as neutral or inevitable progress.

How do Gehlen’s and Illich’s ideas structure the paper’s argument?

Gehlen’s view frames technology as “second nature” that supports human evolution and cultural development. Illich’s “critical threshold” is used to warn that beyond certain limits, technology can distort human and cultural systems.

What is the PAIA model, and how is it used for AI regulation?

The PAIA model evaluates risks through four dimensions: Pervasiveness, Autonomy, Invisibility, and Adaptivity. It helps distinguish factual states from normative levels to ensure AI does not replace human agency while enhancing cultural resilience.

Aug 28, 2026

Uploaded by Maeve