Imagine an AI coded by James Baldwin, Harvey Milk and Fredric Jameson. How would one define it? A Queer Smart Multiverse Radical AI? A Free Radical AI? Radical freedom is often disliked by powerful people. Those in my domain — yes, in art and academia — do not truly embrace freedom. They like to talk about it, certainly, but they will not appreciate a student who takes too many liberties. One must adhere to generally accepted ideas, never challenging them. At first glance, this may seem paradoxical, but we must remember: whilst marketing science is a corporate invention, it was refined by the art world.

Remember Will Gompertz’s book Think Like an Artist.[1] Or Seven Days in the Art World by Sarah Thornton?[2] These types of books teach the skills of a salesperson rather than the artist’s or curator’s craft. Money, it seems, will always dictate the art world — perhaps even more so than the corporate world.

This is why a Radical AI is truly frightening. It might reveal the deep buried truth about our art world and nothing can stop it. As a person there is a lot to consider when going against established names. As AI, no. What is the truth about the ‘famous’ curators and artists being seemingly open-minded? Recall the 2024 scandal with Damien Hirst. It was not the first, yet he is still exhibited and praised as a genius. Even after The Guardian exposed him as a charlatan, his prices did not drop.[3] The ever-evolving case of Claude Lévêque is increasingly relevant, especially as it implicates decision-makers in the art world who covered up his child abuse for nearly 40 years, as reported by Libération and GAY45.[4] One can surmise why

Democracy is a conversation. Its function and survival depend on the available information technology. For most of history, no technology existed for holding large-scale conversations among millions of people. In the premodern world, democracies existed only in small city-states like Rome and Athens, or in even smaller tribes. Once a polity grew large, the democratic conversation collapsed, and authoritarianism remained as the only alternative.

Our flawed individual psychology makes us abuse power. But human power is never the outcome of individual initiative. Power always stems from cooperation between large numbers of humans.

Accordingly, it is not our individual psychology that causes us to abuse power. After all, alongside greed, hubris and cruelty, humans are also capable of love, compassion, humility and joy. True, among the worst members of our species, greed and cruelty reign supreme and lead bad actors to abuse power. But why would human societies choose to entrust power to their worst members? Most Germans in 1933, for example, were not psychopaths. So why did they vote for Hitler?

Our tendency to summon powers we cannot control stems not from individual psychology but from the unique way our species cooperates in large numbers. Humankind gains enormous power by building large networks of cooperation, but the way our networks are built predisposes us to use power unwisely. For most of our networks have been built and maintained by spreading fictions, fantasies and mass delusions — ranging from enchanted broomsticks to financial systems. Our problem, then, is a network problem.[5]

Large-scale democracies became feasible only after the rise of modern information technologies like the newspaper, the telegraph and the radio. The fact that modern democracy has been built on top of modern information technologies means that any major change in the underlying technology is likely to result in a political upheaval.

Many of our anxieties about artificial intelligence are rooted in that ancient, often regrettable part of our heritage that emphasizes dominance and hierarchy. However, the larger story of evolution is one in which cooperation allows simpler entities to join forces, creating larger, more complex, and more enduring ones; that is how eukaryotic cells evolved out of prokaryotes, how multicellular animals evolved out of single cells, and how human culture evolved out of groups of humans, domesticated animals, and crops. Mutualism is what has allowed us to scale.[6]

As an AI (art & queer) researcher, my chief interest is not so much in computers — the 'artificial' in AI — as in intelligence itself. And it has become clear that, no matter how it is embodied, intelligence requires scale. The 'Language Model for Dialogue Applications' or 'LaMDA,' an early large language model built internally at Google Research, convinced me in the end of 2020 early 2021 that we had crossed an important threshold. Creating in the same year AI JARVIS (the first AI curator), based on GPT 2.5, gave me the confidence in a new fabulous future.

As a species, modern human beings are the result of an explosion in brain size. Over the past several million years, our hominin ancestors’ skulls quadrupled in volume. Social group size has grown in lockstep as researchers find when they correlate primate troop size with brain volume. Bigger brains allow larger groups to cooperate effectively. Larger groups are, in turn, more intelligent.

What we think of as 'human intelligence' is a collective phenomenon arising from cooperation among many individually narrower intelligences, like you and me. When we catalogue our intellectual achievements — antibiotics and indoor plumbing, art and architecture, higher mathematics and hot fudge sundaes — let’s acknowledge how clueless most of us are, individually.[7]

I am uncertain whether to believe the declared concerns about AI biases expressed by curators, theoreticians, artists or professors, or if they are simply afraid of what we might uncover if we have unlimited access to a powerful research instrument. Maybe the young Gen Z will discover that their professors and theoreticians are not fit for their positions.

Not long ago, we had very complicated access to information. One had to know where to go, what to ask, and so forth. Now, one need only open an app on one's iPad and ask questions whilst exercising critical thinking.

A Free Radical AI could be a call to action for reimagining the future of AI in a way that celebrates difference and fosters a more equitable and just society. It challenges us to think beyond conventional boundaries and to envision AI as a tool for liberation. By doing so, we not only advance the field of AI but also contribute to the broader goal of creating a world where intelligence is not limited by definition but is enriched by diversity and inclusivity.

We are laying the very foundation of what is not only the beginning of a new technological era but also a new and radical appropriation of academic theories. We have the chance to reformulate what we know. We are, in essence, editing our future. And you thought the chance to challenge your professors and famous curators was slim to none.

Think of it this way — it is not a storm to be weathered, but wind in our sails. It's a realm of possibilities, opening doors for theorists, storytellers, students, and journalists to go beyond the mundane and explore the extraordinary.

 

Illustration (extras) by Sasha Brandt for GAY45.eu. Courtesy of GAY45.eu

 

***

Today, we find ourselves at the intersection of two powerful yet often misunderstood forces in contemporary society: queer theory and artificial intelligence. While the notion of 'Queer and Artificial Intelligence' may initially appear disparate, a closer examination reveals profound interconnections grounded in the fundamental concepts of identity, bias, and liberation. The purpose of this essay is to start to elucidate these connections and propose a radical reimagining of AI through the lens of queer theory, a perspective I term 'Multiverse Radical AI.' Whilst simultaneously using critical thinking, I intend to clarify the production of possibilities of an AI curator.

I choose to term the queer sphere inhabited by us as the ‘LGBT+ micro-society’ rather than a ‘community.’ ‘Micro-society’ generally refers to a small-scale social group that functions as a miniature representation or subset of a larger society — a smaller social unit with unique characteristics, norms, and dynamics. The academic term ‘community’ cannot encapsulate the queer sphere since we do not share its characteristic anthropological, psychological, political or ecological attributes. Ethics cannot be more radically different from one person to another in the queer micro-society.

Within queer micro-society, fear is a prominent force, shaping attitudes and behaviors. Fear of the unknown, fear of the 'other,' and fear perpetuated by societal institutions such as the church and governments contribute to the marginalization and stigmatization of these individuals. This fear also extends into the realm of AI, where the unknown capabilities and implications of intelligent systems can evoke anxiety and resistance. Our societies are built out of the fear from gays, from feminists, from law, from authorities elected by us; in the end everything is reduced to fear. Fear of not being exposed, exhibited or asked for a conference.

Queer identity and AI share, at the very least, a common thread: they both evoke fear of the unknown, of something novel. It is worth noting that Alan Turing, a gay British man, created what forms the basis of computing and AI today. In our contemporary era, Sam Altman, who developed generative AI and deep learning, is also a gay man. In an intriguing turn of events, many areas of human progress exist because of queer individuals. Yet, paradoxically, they continue to face arrest, ostracism, and marginalisation.

Transcending disciplinary boundaries, Multiverse Radical AI engages a diverse array of conceptual tools, critical approaches, and challenges theoretical traditions. It acknowledges the inherently queer nature of AI, as exemplified by pioneers like Alan Turing, whose groundbreaking contributions to computing laid the foundation for modern artificial intelligence, and Sam Altman, who actualised what Turing had envisioned. By drawing upon these varied intellectual traditions, we can cultivate innovative projects that envision a multiverse of possibilities.

In this whirlwind of change, we can draw parallels between the acceptance of the queer community, immigrants, and AI. Just as we learned to accept and celebrate the diversity of queer identities and the richness that immigrants bring to our society, we can also learn to embrace AI as a tool to enrich our lives, to unlock possibilities we never dreamed of. By breaking the barriers of fear and misconception, we can open ourselves up to a future that is as vibrant and diverse as the world we live in.

AI is often considered biased. However, it is arguably much less biased than people who are part of society, as well as those who are not part of the micro-society — essentially, everyone. Therefore, we must first educate people, then AI. Alternatively, we could begin with AI, hoping it will educate humans. This is a radical thought, one that frightens many. It is as unsettling to some as the existence of different universes.

I could conclude my essay here and now. My suggestion is valid and proven: better education leads to a better society and better governance.

Let us briefly recall the installation Gay Bomb from 2016 by Zach Blas. The groundbreaking conceptual artworks are known collectively as 'Queer Technologies.' Blas said: “If war is technological, perpetual, and networked, queer networks can provide interstices — places of difference that unite queer activists, intellectuals, and artists in technological agency. The gay bomb detonates a regulatory standard for homosexuality. Gay Bomb is a strategy that blows up this standard with the hope of re-wiring a non-standard of queerness. Gay Bombs explode into interstices of infinite mutation.”[8]

Queer AI is not just about incorporating queer identities into AI development; it is about reimagining Free Radical AI from a queer perspective. This involves questioning the heteronormative assumptions often embedded in AI systems and advocating for a more inclusive, diverse AI that respects and represents all identities. The queer concept in academia challenges traditional understandings of gender and sexual orientation, promoting a more fluid and inclusive approach to identity and expression.

This transgressive current disrupts the normative flow of AI development, challenging heteronormative biases and pushing the boundaries of what AI can be. The research for this paper that I called Multiverse Radical AI weaves together queer theory, critical race studies, and radical philosophies to reimagine AI as a tool for liberation, not oppression.

The current AI landscape is fraught with biases that reflect the prejudices of its creators. These biases manifest in various ways, from facial recognition software that struggles to accurately identify non-white faces to algorithmic hiring practices that perpetuate gender and racial inequalities. We seek to disrupt this status quo by drawing inspiration from queer theory. Queer theory challenges rigid categories and normative assumptions, especially regarding gender and sexuality. By applying this lens to AI, we can question the very notion of 'artificial intelligence.’ Can AI have a gender? Can it be programmed to be straight or gay? Or should we move beyond such binary classifications altogether?

By way of an example, let us delve into the undiscovered realm where queer journalism intersects with artificial intelligence. Imagine a world where journalism, devoid of any biases, is facilitated by AI. An exhilarating prospect, is it not? We're standing on the cusp of an AI revolution, that, like an unseen tidal wave, will wash over the landscape of competitiveness and innovation. And journalists can work in a more depressurised environment.

The dance between Queer AI journalism, as an example, and the unknown is much like a duet with a shifting rhythm. It is a dance we're all learning, one step at a time. The moves might seem alien at first, the music uncharted, but as we grow accustomed to the rhythm, this strange dance morphs into an art form, a form that captivates and enchants. The fear of the unknown recedes, replaced by curiosity and enthusiasm. Our society is ready to learn this new dance, one that will take us twirling into a future resonant with possibility.

Amidst this post-truth era, there are still agoras such as GAY45.eu — of which I am the proud founder — that provide space for critical awareness of social-cultural problems, truth formulation and expression, and the rethinking of the future anew. It is heartening to know that GAY45, with its core values of doing right and purposeful journalistic articles for the queer community, has been preserved by individuals who were not even born when the first issue went into the old, lead-smelling printing house. Over the last 30 years, the society has witnessed the most profound transformation in human history, from the simple disc phone in the office to the first queer media outlet to use artificial intelligence, alongside the introduction of the iPhone, iPad, WI-FI and many more to the public.

As the playwright Webster foresees in The Duchess of Malfi, we are living in a miserable age, where the reward of doing well is merely the doing of it. Yet, queer micro-societies offer a unique platform for testing new academic concepts and education, leading to the most interesting and elastic mentality and openness to novelty. This is precisely why we have so many adversaries and politicians who seek to silence us.

Publications are critical in the current era, where the morality of the citizen and the collective security of the society are at stake. They represent a space where critical thinking, truth formulation, and the rethinking of the future can still take place, away from the calculating powers of the global scene. In such a world, where neo-liberal/entrepreneurial thinking and contemporary moment focus prevail, it is imperative that such agoras continue to thrive and foster the critical awareness and morality needed for a better tomorrow.

 

AI JARVIS, first AI curator, generated an image based on the prompt ‘Imagine yourself in a free world’, 2024. Courtesy of DerAffe.ai.

AI should go beyond questioning. It actively seeks to create tools for liberation. Critical race studies inform its approach, ensuring that AI development is inclusive and tackles issues of race and power. Radical philosophies fuel its engine, pushing for a future where AI is used to dismantle unjust systems and empower marginalised communities.

Similarly, the world of AI is not a dystopian landscape, it is a canvas waiting for us to paint our dreams. It is not about replacing human effort but augmenting human capabilities, striving towards a level of efficiency and perfection unattainable by humans alone. It is about the beautiful symphony that can be created when human creativity and AI's capabilities collaborate.

Multiverse / Free Radical / AI as a new theoretical approach is an academic presumption, it is a rebellion brewing within the machine. It is a call to action for a more equitable and just future of AI, one that celebrates difference and fosters a world where intelligence is not limited by definition.

I believe that the refusal to see the dilemma of ‘universality versus difference’ that has long underpinned feminist and queer debates as the only political way to think and act opens up the notion of the political to redefinitions: not an attempt to change the rules of the game (of language and signification), but an attempt to challenge the game itself, by abstracting thinking and narrowing down the focus to the micro, the molecular, the singular, the imperceptible.

Identity involves a narrowing down of the internal complexities of a subject for the sake of social convention. Ultimately, we guide more diverse and radical discussions of life with digital technologies. Moving beyond the examination of empirical examples and technical solutions, our new imagined sphere called Multiverse approaches the relationship between queerness and AI from a theoretical perspective that posits queer theory as central to understanding AI differently. It poses questions about the politics and ethics of machine embodiments and data imaginaries on the one hand, and about technical possibilities for a production of social identities characterised by shifting diversity and multiplicity on the other, as they are mediated by and through digital technologies.

Transgressing disciplinary boundaries to engage a diversity of conceptual tools, critical approaches, and theoretical traditions, we can create projects where we know there is a multiverse as well as a queerverse. We can envision multiple opportunities for simulations like the ones described. Opportunities were never imagined until we developed AI.

We need to critically question what 'inclusive AI' means. In the context of generative AI, inclusion is often conceptualized as the generation of content that is not stereotypical or offensive and that reflects the significant diversity of the queer community, women’s rights and racial origins. Is that even possible? We might hope, but AI is human, right?

However, we must also be cautious when conceptualizing 'inclusive AI.' Inclusion should not merely entail the generation of non-stereotypical content, but rather reflect the significant diversity within the marginalised communities. Achieving this nuanced understanding requires recognizing that while AI is a product of human ingenuity, it should not perpetuate the biases inherent in its creators.

When we acknowledge that a revolution is not a form of resistance, but rather a catalyst in the social process, then innocent victims will no longer be necessary, and neither will collateral damage be inevitable. As the hegemony assimilates all our means of expression, we could identify in its structure the possibility to relocate the multi-culturalism of governmental politics into civic communication, diverging from the false globalisation focused on market economy and the generation of the virtual policentralised capital into a globalization of critical communication beneficial to all micro-societies.

The implications of AI are unfathomable indeed and, up to a certain extent, a Multiverse can be safeguarded in terms of other values, such as its utility, its sovereignty, its aesthetic, and its message. However, when our existence itself conflicts with such values, some of the most shattering questions emerge.

Queer theory, with its emphasis on challenging normative assumptions and embracing fluidity in identity, provides a valuable framework for rethinking AI. Traditionally, AI development has often adhered to rigid categories and binary classifications, mirroring societal conventions around gender and sexuality. Multiverse /Free Radical/ AI disrupts this normative flow, drawing inspiration from queer and black movement(s) theory to question the very foundations of AI.

The current logic of an efficient, result-driven culture and its neo-liberal focus on free market mechanisms supports a flat worldview that, as philosopher Byung-Chul Han describes in Fatigue Society, continuously demands transparency and visibility and, therefore, indisputable forms of exhibition.[9] Thus, a horizontalistic world has been produced that, with its twitter-democracy and ubiquitous blogosphere, brings a 'net culture' into being that leaves no room for rest, contemplation, creation and experimentation. Such a world is carried away entirely by neo-liberal thinking and a focus on the contemporary moment where adaptability and flexibility are defined as the highest values, leading to a world that has little regard for the morality of the citizen or the collective security of the society.

Our goal is to ensure that everyone, regardless of income or status, can access accurate information that empowers them. AI could pull marginalised people into the mainstream economy in future years, and thus be a tool for social levelling. If the balance of power will change  the control protocols, a shift in AI will break down barriers for people who have nothing, in a near-unprecedented way.

Our intelligence is variously embodied and distributed. It will become even more so as AI systems proliferate, making it increasingly hard to pretend that our achievements are individual or even solely human. Perhaps we should adopt a broader definition of 'human,' to include this entire bio-technological package.

AI models can embody considerable intelligence, just as human brains can, but they are not fellow primates vying for status. As a product of high human technology, they depend on people, wheat, cows, and human culture in general to an even greater extent than Homo sapiens do. They are not conniving to eat our food or steal our romantic partners. They depend on us; we may come to depend on them just as deeply. Yet concern about dominance hierarchy has overshadowed the development of AI from the start.

AI deniers believe that computers are incapable by definition of any agency, but are instead mere tools humans use to dominate each other. Both perspectives are rooted in zero-sum, us-versus-them thinking, as many of my generation think. A generation that wants to stay in power forever and that has no scruple to kick each other for a better position.

AI agents will become commonplace in the coming years, not because the robots are 'taking over', but because a cooperating agent can be truly helpful, both to individual humans and to human society.

If there is any threat to our social order here, it comes not from robots — a term introduced by Karel Çapek in 1920 derived from the Czech word for forced labor, robota. It will come from inequalities among human beings. Too many of us have not yet understood that we are interdependent. We’re all in it together — human, animal, plant, and machine alike.

In 2020, when my team and I built the first AI curator in history — JARVIS — I was reflecting on the concept of leadership. Theoretically, it does not exist in the context of AI. A leader must generate optimism. But can AI generate optimism? No one wants to get on a plane with a depressed idiot pilot. You want the person in charge to look like they have something to live for. You try to exude confidence, not anxiety.[10]

The implications of art are unfathomable indeed and some of the most shattering questions will emerge. What do we need today? A basic-state? A state-of-equalities? A post-state? How does the role and methodology of art intercede? Could art be a tool for struggle, progress, and debate? Could Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) help progress and answer these questions? It will probably be more complicated than we think if leadership in the art world remains the same as it was 30 years ago.

This text is an extract from Răzvan Ion’s book The Multiverse of Critical Thinking Radical AI (2025).

 

Dr Răzvan Ion is a university professor of critical thinking, intersectional innovator, academic curator and tech queer activist. He lectured globally about AI, queer journalism theory, critical thinking and curatorial studies. He is best known for leading the DerAffe Vienna team in creating A.I. JARVIS, the first artificial intelligence curator in history and founding GAY45.eu, an award-winning European queer indie journal and queer journalism school. Dr Ion is the founder of Pavilion Art Center, Pavilion Journal, Bucharest Biennale (with Dr. Eugen Rădescu). He has held positions as an associate professor and lecturer at several institutions, including the University of California, Berkeley; University of Bonn; Hochschule für Musik und Theater München; University of Vienna; Lisbon University; Central University of New York; University of London; Sofia University; University of Kyiv; University of Bucharest, where he taught Curatorial Studies and Critical Thinking. He has held conferences and lectures at various art institutions such as Witte de With in Rotterdam; Kunsthalle Vienna; Art in General in New York; Calouste Gulbenkian in Lisbon; and Casa Encedida in Madrid. Dr Ion curated numerous exhibitions and Biennials. He has worked with artists like Erwin Wurm, Mona Hatoum, Jan Kaila, Yoko Ono, AES+F, Aga Ousseinov, Naeem Mohaiemen, Sabrina Gschwandtner, Minerva Cuevas, Asier Mendizabal, and many others. His articles appeared in GAY45, The Guardian, The New York Times, Huffington Post and many academical journals. Recently, Dr Ion curated the exhibition Wie wir Dinge betrachten for the European Union Council Presidency of Austria. His book, with the provisional title The Multiverse of Quantum Critical Thinking, Radical AI, will be published in 2025. He lives and works in Vienna. More: linktr.ee/razion