As artificial intelligence becomes deeply involved in knowledge production, decision support, and public governance, the Community with a Shared Future for Humanity confronts a new question: when AI becomes a new variable within the community, is the community still a community "of humans only"? Existing governance research approaches AI mainly through risk prevention and algorithmic ethics, and rarely answers the philosophical question of AI's position in the structure of civilization. This paper argues that AI is the functional extension of human rational capacity upon an inorganic carrier, which can be characterized as "machine functional rationality": neither a replica of human nature, nor a mere tool. On the basis of a critique of three limitations of the value-alignment paradigm, the paper uses "quasi-subject" to define AI's functional role, demonstrates the irreplaceability of humans as experiential subjects, sources of value, and bearers of responsibility for direction, proposes the "organic experience-machine functional rationality symbiosis model," takes the five principles of public-good-oriented rational AI and the three layers of bottom lines for global AI governance (survival, dignity, autonomy) as directional constraints, and introduces the dimension of technological power to examine the community's new power structure. The paper's theoretical contribution is to advance AI governance from "risk prevention" to "reconstruction of community form": the human-machine symbiotic community is the formal extension of the Community with a Shared Future for Humanity in the intelligent age.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guoping Hua (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: