Ghost in the Machine (2026)

Review & Commentary

One of the more remarkable features of Valerie Veatch’s Sundance film Ghost in the Machine is the fantastic diversity of voices detailing the eugenic and techno-fascist underpinnings of the AI industry.

These include cognitive scientists, historians, philosophers, critical theorists, researchers, sociologists, linguists, journalists, and yes, computer scientists of different genders and ethnicities—all providing expertise and perspective that is often ignored in tech circles.

Contrast that against the tech leaders who are ushering in this new age, and the difference couldn't be more stark.

Bryan Snyder, REUTERS

It has always bothered me how insulated tech people seem to be from other professional fields. Whether willfully or not, they exhibit an aversion and apathy (and sometimes antagonism) toward anything outside of their beloved technology.

For example, the film's focus on the history of eugenics and its link to Silicon Valley is not subtle or far-fetched. But in tech circles it is often sidestepped or ignored.

It's frighteningly obvious how Charles Spearman's theory of intelligence, and the so called "g factor" (general intelligence) are relevant in today's conversations about AGI (Artificial General Intelligence).

Is it any wonder why tech oligarchs are so obsessed with IQ measurements (not excluding the orange leader), a test which is also directly linked with eugenicist ideas?

What these mostly white, rich men want is a world that mimics their view of intelligence. A superior race.

They've latched on to fantasies that suit their ego-centric personalities.

The film highlights this 1965 quote by Isaac Asimov which illustrates this obsession quite plainly:

We may have a society in which robots will drift away from total metal toward the organic, and human beings will drift away from the total organic and toward the metal and plastic, and that somewhere in the middle, they may eventually meet. Will we then have formed a kind of mixed culture... which perhaps might be higher, or more efficient? Better?

Higher.

More efficient.

Better.

When I read AI marketing copy, it sounds very much like that. More productive. Faster. Automated. Higher. More efficient. Better.

Our tech history includes individuals like William Shockley, the man who brought silicon to Silicon Valley, a known racist and eugenicist.

It also includes John McCarthy, who thought the human mind could be modeled in mathematical terms and coined the term "artificial intelligence" as a ploy to get funding. He also wrote:

The very highest level of potential in science and mathematics, which only one in a million men can attain, the fraction of women who can attain it may be biologically smaller... At present there are social movements and people with institutional power who regard there being fewer women than men at some level of some occupation as an injustice that must be corrected by quotas. This is a mistake and will not succeed because of differences in ability and motivations between males and females. [Emphasis mine]

McCarthy, a full on techno-optimist thought that men were biologically more prone to success in science and mathematics? He thought that "social movements" that promoted equality were a mistake?

You don't say.

This subtle, but sinister ideology congealed into the same techno-optimist culture we see today.

In this mindset, climate activism, civil rights movements, feminism, and women's rights are all seen as enemies of progress.

So who else exists in this lineage of extremely (not) smart white men?

Oh yes, Nick Bostrom, who is known for a book with the title Anthropic Bias (where have I heard that term again?) and Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies.

He's the one that sent an email on listserv saying "Blacks are more stupid than whites" as well as invoking the n-word.

He later apologized for using the racial slur, but not for his central argument regarding race and intelligence.

What else?

Remember that research paper Microsoft released in 2023 titled Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4?

In order to assess whether GPT-4 was demonstrating intelligence, they referenced the work of Linda Gottfredson—also a eugenicist and white supremacist.

It's no wonder that the cabal of tech oligarchs currently dictating the direction of "AI" happens to look blandly villainous—not unlike the output of their beloved chatbots.

While the history is troubling enough, the doc also highlights the well kept secret of exploitation and abuse of vulnerable communities.

These data workers and trainers are specifically sought out in their desperation, offering wages of less than a dollar an hour, to do unspeakable work.

These include mothers with no support system, refugees, members of a lower caste or social class, and other disenfranchised individuals.

Tech companies entice these workers with a way out of their impoverished state, promising to empower them to gain financial security and autonomy.

Leo Lau & Digit / Wheel of Progress / Licenced by CC-BY 4.0

This is the same imperialist language that has been used in the past to suppress and exploit the very same people.

While this is playing out on the global stage, the current US administration is working hand in hand with the tech oligarchs to ensure the underlying technology is aligned to its fascist interests.

During a recent executive order signed by Trump, the administration stated their ideological direction.

In their words, the order ensures that "AI models are ideologically neutral, that they don't embrace wokeism and critical race theory and all of these terrible theories that have done so much damage to our country."

As an aside, a few months ago, the Python Software Foundation (PSF) turned down a grant from the US government because the terms for the grant included a requirement not to "operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws."

What do you think AI-pushers (tech companies) might say to a similar ultimatum?

Don't hold your breath.

One of the last points made by the film alludes to the eventual end-game of fascist movements.

The language of oligarchs exists outside of democracy, not necessarily because democracy doesn't work, but rather, because democracy doesn't matter.

Hanna Barakat & Archival Images of AI + AIxDESIGN / Frontier Models 1 / Licenced by CC-BY 4.0

And if the industry itself is not propped up by consumers and private equity, fascism eventually leads to militarization.

This headline alone from the Department of Defense (aka Department of War) is chilling in and of itself: War Department Launches AI Acceleration Strategy to Secure American Military AI Dominance.

So no, you don't have to look far into how "AI" fits like a glove in this world of technofascism.

Closing Thoughts

Unfortunately, there are segments in the documentary of what appears to be AI-generated videos. While they serve to illustrate the uncanniness of the technology, they're not altogether necessary.

On another front, it is clear that the film begins with a certain disparaging narrative stretching back to the end of the 19th century, and it refuses to adopt a "both-sides" perspective.

I could see that some may pose arguments that the "technology" is useful in certain applications, in spite of these very unsavory origins. If that's the case, I would love to see a counter-argument that includes a diverse set of experts from different fields trying to rationalize that argument—but that imperative is not for this film to interrogate.

It is never making a statement about the technology itself.

from Ghost in the Machine (2026)

Instead, it's an examination of our recent history. It's an attempt to look us in the eye and ask if we're willing to continue in the trajectory that was dictated long before any of us even looked at a terminal screen. After all, eugenics is over a century old.

At some point through this shameful history, we were fooled into thinking that intelligence could be modeled by machines—by mathematics and logic. This idea was cultivated based on the degenerate musings of imperialists and egomaniacal white men.

We now somehow exist in a world where, based on that faulty premise, we can now supposedly create "intelligent" systems that may be on par or better than human intelligence.

Higher.

More efficient.

Better.

We seem to believe that our humanity, our culture, our brilliance can be contained in some form of linear regressions.

The doc doesn't spend a lot of time musing on what comes next. It only takes a few minutes to emphasize that resistance is not futile.

And that's okay too. We need to decide what future we want for ourselves.