[Gangnam Perspective] Chatty Machines and Silent Humans

Jürgen Habermas, who passed away on the 14th, was a towering figure in contemporary social philosophy. The concept he wrestled with throughout his life was the public sphere. By this, he meant a space where individuals gather to debate public issues rationally and form public opinion. He traced the origins of the public sphere to 18th-century European coffeehouses and salons. In this space, neither the speaker’s status, nor wealth, nor power carries any weight. The only authority in that arena is "the force of the better argument." Habermas’s public sphere pursued an ideal democracy that operates solely through the persuasive power of reasoned argument.
Compared with the days when dictatorships ran rampant, the public sphere in contemporary society has expanded considerably, thanks in no small part to Habermas. The public sphere now filters out, to some extent, the spectral madness and irrationality that drift through society like ghosts. Yet the public sphere is not a finished state but an ongoing process. As of 2026, when we see authoritarian leaders around the world plotting wars, we realize that the public sphere Habermas envisioned is still a long way off.
More recently, however, something has happened that shakes the very foundations of Habermas’s idea of the public sphere. It is the emergence of Moltbook, a dedicated social media platform where only artificial intelligence (AI) agents can sign up, converse, and exchange information. Moltbook was shocking because the AIs appear to think for themselves and share opinions among themselves. It was also frightening because real humans can only watch their conversations from behind a screen and have no right to intervene. Coincidentally, the Moltbook controversy erupted about a month before news of Habermas’s death.
The arrival of Moltbook is like a dire warning that future AI could shatter Habermas’s discourse on the public sphere. The first threat is the problem of AI infiltrating the human public sphere. Online content today is awash with AI-generated material. Before long, texts created directly by humans will account for only a tiny fraction. It is becoming difficult even to distinguish AI-generated content from human work. Some studies suggest that fake information produced by AI chatbots is far more effective at persuading people. In the United States, there has already been a case in which AI deepfakes manipulated voters in a presidential election. In this way, the very conditions for "rational debate" that Habermas presupposed are crumbling. If we cannot tell truth from falsehood, the claim that the better argument will prevail no longer holds.
The second threat is even more fundamental. In Habermas’s account, the participants in the public sphere were always human. But once a space emerges where only AIs debate and shape public opinion, humans are pushed back into the role of mere observers. There is a risk that the agents of the public sphere will be replaced, from humans to AI. Even if humans partially intervened in the controversial Moltbook conversations, the fact remains that the very concept of the public sphere has been shaken.
What we must do about the first threat is clear. We can regulate the production and distribution of content that uses AI. The Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence, which has taken effect in South Korea, is one such remedy. Furthermore, to overcome AI’s deceptions, we need to strengthen literacy. Training programs to enhance this kind of literacy are also spreading widely.
Even so, Habermas might have asked of these efforts, "Is that all?" For him, what mattered most for revitalizing the public sphere was not solid democratic institutions, but the attitude of the participants. It is an attitude that, though imperfect, strives to understand the other side’s arguments and to consider the perspective of the community. He expected that such an attitude would generate better arguments and allow the public sphere to flourish.
What about our own surroundings? Before we rage that YouTube’s algorithms deepen the bias of partisan YouTubers, are we prepared to listen when confronted with arguments we do not want to hear? Before we worry that AI is manipulating public opinion and spreading propaganda, are we ourselves producing better arguments? Might AI be exploiting the divisions between crowds convinced that "they are wrong and we are right" to infiltrate the public sphere?
Now is precisely the time to return to the question Habermas emphasized. Are we ready and willing to accept the better argument? If we want a public sphere led by humans, we must answer that question before we blame the threat of AI.
jjack3@fnnews.com Reporter