This article rethinks AI foundations through Chinese philosophy, demonstrating implications for culturally responsive intelligences.
This article rethinks the foundations of artificial intelligence (AI) by challenging both the logocentric assumptions of “good old-fashioned AI” and the ungrounded empiricism of contemporary large language models. Instead of treating language as an abstract, universal code, it reconstructs a plural genealogy of empirical semantics that runs through Wittgenstein and Margaret Masterman into Yuen Ren Chao’s continuity-based Chinese linguistics and the cybernetic reconfiguration of language as signal and information. Chao’s analyses of tone, vernacular writing, and script reform reveal a Chinese-inflected empiricism in which categories are graded, usage-based, and technologically mediated. The paper then turns to contemporary Chinese thought—translingual practice and cosmotechnics, figure–landscape semiotics and classifier-driven ontology, verb-centred models of existence and tianxia politics—to show how different linguistic and cosmotechnical traditions carve up continua of experience in non-identical ways. On this basis, it proposes plural intelligence as an alternative horizon for AI: not a single, disembodied AGI, but an ecology of situated, culturally responsive intelligences whose operations are continuous, figural, and relational rather than anchored in a universal logos.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zheng Wang (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: