The idea of human equality, so deeply entrenched in modern religious and liberal ideals, is widely rejected by the tech elite. Some tech-oriented thinkers, such as Curtis Yarvin, embrace an essentially autocratic political system, including the idea of monarchy and rule by educated Übermenschen. Call it neo-feudalism or techno-feudalism; it amounts to much the same thing. Futurists such as Yuval Noah Harari envisage a future in which ‘a small and privileged elite of upgraded humans’ gain control of society and use genetic engineering to cement their offspring’s superior status.

The efforts to redesign humans and replace their labour with machines are intrinsically ‘dehumanising’, noted the late British chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks. The engineer’s mindset operates mechanically, he argued, through detachment and analysis, breaking wholes down into their constituent parts. What we once called society is left in tatters.

The widespread opposition to data centres, not only in deep-blue California but across the country, including among Republicans, demonstrates a grassroots rebellion against the oligarchs’ imperatives. As energy analyst Robert Bryce points out, rejections of data-centre proposals have risen from nine in 2024 to 48 last year and 70 in the first quarter of this year.

The recent attacks on Sam Altman’s San Francisco mansion revealed a similar anti-corporate sentiment that increasingly shapes our political culture. The vast majority of Americans see billionaires and tech executives as the people who wield the most power in society – far more than political elites, Hollywood, the military or law enforcement.

The radical alternative – Bernie Sanders’s statist proposal that the US government take a 50 per cent stake in AI firms – is unlikely to see the light of day. But some regulation is no doubt needed, for example, to manage the costs of data centres. Measures are also needed to keep competition alive and prevent AI’s already left-leaning bias from becoming further entrenched.

Perhaps the best solution, suggests AI pioneer Alvovitz, lies in introducing regulations that require AI systems to be tested for safety and security. As one of the pioneers of robotic surgery, he has worked with federal regulators on safety- and health-related issues. He favours regulation by a neutral, legally accountable body rather than by self-appointed experts or privately hired tech specialists. (Many of the latter, he argues, appear to be on the autism spectrum and are often socially awkward men who struggle to relate to the opposite sex.)

Right now, we stand on the cusp of an ‘inversion’ in which, rather than shaping technology, we are shaped by it. Instead of a society shaped by parents and neighbours, we could surrender our historical memory, our ability to raise our offspring and even our ability to earn a decent living, all to serve a small technocratic elite – one that most Americans fear and that they rightly believe the government may be unwilling to constrain.

As is often the case, California points towards a particularly feudal future. Once a bastion of upward mobility, my home state has become increasingly unequal, according to a recent report by Joint Venture Silicon Valley. The top 0.001 per cent of Valley residents have 12 times the wealth of the bottom 50 per cent. Overall, AI is making America, and California in particular, ever richer, as recent economic trends demonstrate. Yet wealth and power are already distributed highly unequally, and that inequality is likely to worsen considerably, as California already shows.

Arguably, the biggest danger lies in the ability of tech firms, empowered by AI, to addict an entire generation to technological fixes. After all, this is a generation that uses AI to manage personal relationships and navigate social interactions. Almost two in five dating break-ups involve the use of AI, making it ‘the third wheel’ in these relationships. According to a Rasmussen survey, some 40 per cent of young people even want to hand control of the government over to AI.

The priority is not to destroy the machines, which are often useful, but to avoid nurturing a geek aristocracy. Humans need to demand not only adequate regulation but also the dismantling of the already excessively powerful tech oligopolies. The alternative is neo-feudalism on steroids, with most people reduced to little more than digital serfs.

Joel Kotkin is a spiked columnist, the presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University and executive director of the Urban Reform Institute. He is the author of The Coming of Neo-Feudalism, published by Encounter Books.