Notes on The AIMarxED Framework

Introduction: AI as the General Condition of Cognition

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) signals a paradigmatic transformation in the architecture of human cognition. No longer confined to discrete applications, AI has become a general condition of thought itself – reshaping how knowledge is produced, decisions are made, and reason is exercised. As digital infrastructures increasingly mediate learning, perception and judgment, AI constitutes not merely a tool or agent but an epistemic environment: the new a priori of cognitive life.

This development builds upon and extends the logic of the extended mind hypothesis proposed by Clark and Chalmers, who argued that cognitive processes are not bounded by the skull but can incorporate external artifacts like notebooks, calculators, or search engines. Today, generative AI models such as GPT-4 and its successors function not simply as tools of augmentation but as co-participants in reasoning. They generate hypotheses, refine arguments, simulate dialogue and extract patterns from data at a scale and speed beyond human capacity. In doing so, they help shape the contours of inquiry itself.

The integration of AI into the very fabric of cognition represents what Floridi terms the ‘Fourth Revolution’: a historical moment in which the infosphere – the totality of information systems – transforms the human self-understanding as autonomous agents. Where earlier revolutions displaced the Earth (Copernicus), the body (Darwin) and the mind (Freud), this latest shift decentralises human cognition, redistributing it across machinic networks. As a result, cognition becomes increasingly ambient, distributed and hybrid – no longer solely the province of biological neurons but also of algorithmic systems.

This transformation is not neutral. As Zuboff powerfully argues, the infrastructures of cognition are now largely owned and governed by corporate platforms operating under the logics of surveillance capitalism. In this context, AI not only enables new forms of thought but also enforces new regimes of behavioural prediction and control. The conditions under which cognition unfolds are themselves shaped by political economies of data extraction and algorithmic governance.

Nevertheless, there are emancipatory potentials in this new configuration. Peters, Besley, Jandrić and Zhu introduce the concept of knowledge socialism to capture the rise of peer-to-peer collaboration and collective intelligence facilitated by AI systems. In their view, AI offers not just a threat of cognitive capture but a possibility for reimagining the social conditions of knowledge production – making it more open, collegial and cooperative. Here, AI becomes a platform for distributed epistemic labour, capable of amplifying democratic reasoning if governed accordingly.

To understand AI as the general condition of cognition, then, is to recognise that it functions as a structuring medium of the cognitive lifeworld – an ambient system of affordances that reshape what it means to think, to know and to learn. The stakes are profound: Will AI entrench regimes of algorithmic domination, or will it inaugurate a new age of collective intellectual emancipation? The answer hinges on how we theorise and govern this evolving condition of mind.

These notes on the AIMarxED Framework grow out of a series of engagements with Marxism over the years but mostly immediately as a third entry on MarxAI as an experiment, an imagined LLM trained on the Marxist archive in the widest sense, but also focused on ‘“Fragment on the Machines: Redux”: A Commentary by AI Marx’ and ‘AIMarx as Neo-Autonomist Research Programme: Hypothesis, Model, Forecast.’ It is an experimental project aiming to clarify through analysis the educational and developmental stakes of AI. In this sense, I am grateful for any comments and criticisms.

The AIMarxED Framework

The ‘AIMarxED Framework’ comprises five interconnected core elements, forming a cohesive analytical system for understanding AI’s transformative impact on education under capitalism and advancing an emancipatory alternative:

1. The Foundational Premise: AI as the General Condition of Cognition

Core idea: AI/AGI is becoming the fundamental ‘material infrastructure’ for knowledge production, access and thinking – analogous to electricity in industrial capitalism.

Implication: AI is not merely a tool in education; it is the environment and productive force reshaping the very nature of learning, teaching and intellectual labour. Cognition itself is increasingly mediated and shaped by AI systems.

Analytical focus: Forces of cognitive production (FCP) – how AI transforms the means of knowing (data, algorithms, interfaces, computational power).

The foundational premise implies a radical epistemological shift. It positions AI not as a tool but as the infrastructural bedrock of cognition (paralleling electricity in industrial capitalism). This reframes education: learning is no longer a human-centric process but a hybrid human-AI collaboration. In terms of theoretical grounding, it extends Clark & Chalmers’ ‘extended mind’ thesis and Floridi’s ‘Fourth Revolution’ to argue that AI reshapes the conditions of thought itself. Cognition becomes ambient, distributed and algorithmically mediated. It challenges techno-optimist narratives by highlighting how corporate-controlled AI (per Zuboff) risks commodifying cognition, turning education into a site of behavioural surveillance and data extraction.

2. The Analytical Core: AI Educational Mode of Development (AIEMD)

Core idea: Education must be analysed as part of a systemic mode of development shaped by the interaction of AI (a new productive force) within global capitalist relations.

• forces of cognitive production (FCP): the technological/material basis (AI tools, data, infrastructure, computational power) enabling and transforming cognitive processes.
• relations of cognitive production (RCP): the social ‘power relations’ governing education under AI capitalism (ownership, control, labour exploitation, access inequalities, pedagogical authority).

Analytical focus: Examining the ‘dialectical relationship’ between FCP and RCP – how new AI capabilities drive changes in power structures and how existing power structures shape AI’s development and deployment. Identifying inherent ‘contradictions’ (e.g., the promise of democratisation vs the reality of privatisation; efficiency gains vs cognitive alienation).

As a form of systemic materialism framework, AIMarxED applies Marxist historical materialism to education, treating AI as a new productive force that reconfigures forces of cognitive production (FCP), including data, algorithms and compute power as ‘means of cognitive production’; relations of cognitive production (RCP) consisting in power dynamics (ownership, labour, access) under AI capitalism and it exhibits dialectical tensions:

• democratisation vs privatisation: AI’s potential for equitable access clashes with corporate enclosure.
• efficiency vs alienation: automated teaching may erode pedagogical agency and deepen cognitive deskilling.

The framework’s strength lies in that it exposes education as a terrain of struggle where technological change is inseparable from political economy.

3. The Critical Lens: Synthesis of Critical AI Studies in Education & AI Knowledge Socialism

Core idea: Critical AI Studies in Education: Rigorously analyses the embedded power dynamics, biases (racial, gender, class), surveillance, data exploitation, labour alienation and ideological control within AIEd systems. Exposes how AI reproduces and amplifies existing inequalities under capitalism.

AI knowledge socialism: Proposes a concrete, emancipatory alternative based on principles of

• openness & commons: democratising access to AI tools, models, data and knowledge (open source, public digital commons).
• participatory governance: involving educators, learners and communities in the design, implementation and oversight of AIEd.
• collaborative production: fostering peer production and South-South/North-South solidarity in AIEd R&D.
• knowledge sovereignty: protecting and valorising diverse epistemologies, especially from the Global South.

Analytical focus: Using critique to diagnose problems and using knowledge socialism to envision and build alternatives. This synthesis is the framework’s normative and action-oriented heart.

As both a diagnosis and prescription, it uniquely bridges the following:

• critical AI studies: diagnoses power asymmetries (bias, surveillance, epistemic injustice).
• AI knowledge socialism: proposes an emancipatory alternative (commons, participation, Southern epistemologies).
• a praxis orientation: moves beyond critique by advocating concrete principles:
• the open commons: democratises AI tools/data (countering proprietary EdTech).
• knowledge sovereignty: centres Global South epistemologies against algorithmic imperialism.

While offering these bridges, it rejects ‘reformist’ solutions, demanding structural transformation of knowledge production.

4. The Imperative Focus: AI Education R&D in the Global South (AIE&RD-GS)

Core idea: The Global South is not a passive recipient but the *critical testing ground* and *primary site of struggle* for the framework. AI’s impact and alternatives must be understood through the specific challenges and opportunities of GS contexts.

Key concerns:

• neocolonial dynamics: risks of dependency, data extraction, imposition of irrelevant epistemologies and digital divides.
• sovereignty & self-determination: building local capacity, infrastructure and contextually relevant solutions.
• epistemic justice: challenging algorithmic epistemicide and centring Southern knowledge systems.
• leapfrogging potential: harnessing open, collaborative models for equitable development.

Analytical focus: Applying all other elements (Premise, AIEMD, Critique/Alternative) through a ‘decolonial lens’ specific to GS realities. Prioritising GS agency and solutions.

Through a ‘decolonial imperative,’ it treats the Global South not as a ‘beneficiary’ but as the central site of resistance and innovation while also noting the risks of neocolonial data extraction, algorithmic epistemicide and dependency. At the same time, it offers the possibilities of leapfrogging via open-source models, South-South solidarity and context-driven solutions. The GS focus is non-negotiable – it tests the framework’s commitment to epistemic justice. Without it, AIEMD analysis remains Eurocentric.

5. The Pathway to Emancipation: Critical AI Literacy and Praxis

Core idea: Understanding the system (via the framework) is necessary but insufficient. Transforming education requires praxis as informed action.

Key components:

• critical AI literacy: developing the capacity (for all stakeholders) to understand, analyse, critique and shape AI systems – encompassing technical, social, ethical and political dimensions, grounded in local contexts.
• building the commons: actively creating and sustaining open AIEd resources, platforms, datasets and research.
• participatory design & governance: implementing democratic processes for AIEd development and oversight.
• solidarity & struggle: forming alliances to challenge extractive IP regimes, unfair contracts and corporate dominance; advocating for policies supporting public goods and sovereignty.

Analytical focus: translating framework insights into concrete tools, actions and movements for democratic, equitable and decolonial AI in education.

The theory-to-action bridge translates analysis into tangible tools:

• critical AI literacy: equips stakeholders to decode AI’s political economy (beyond technical skills).
• commons building: creates counter-infrastructures (e.g., open datasets, participatory platforms).
• solidarity/struggle: mobilises collective action against extractive IP regimes.

The transformative goal is to position education as a battleground for cognitive sovereignty – where literacy is a radical act.

Interconnection: These elements are not standalone.

The premise (AI as cognitive infrastructure) necessitates analysing the systemic AIEMD (FCP/RCP). This analysis is guided by the ‘Critical Lens’ (diagnosing problems via Critical AI Studies, envisioning solutions via Knowledge Socialism), with a non-negotiable focus on the ‘Global South imperative.’ This understanding fuels the essential praxis of literacy and action to achieve emancipation. AIMarxED is thus a dynamic framework for both comprehending and transforming education in the AI era.

The dialectical unity emphasises that the elements are interdependent:

The Premise (element 1) necessitates AIEMD analysis (element 2), which is guided by the Critical Lens (element 3), centred on the Global South (element 4) and operationalised through Praxis (element 5).

Anti-colonial Marxism integrates Marxist political economy with decolonial theory, exposing how AI capitalism reproduces colonial hierarchies in education. Reclaiming cognitive labour, it demands democratic governance of AI’s ‘cognitive infrastructure’ – positioning educators/learners as co-owners, not data subjects. Finally, focusing on Global South agency, it rejects deficit narratives, framing GS actors as essential innovators in the fight for knowledge socialism.

Conclusion

The AIMarxED Framework offers a transformative lens for understanding AI’s revolutionary impact on education. By positioning AI as the ‘general condition of cognition’ – a foundational infrastructure reshaping how knowledge is produced, accessed and internalised – it reveals that education is no longer merely a human endeavour but a hybrid human-AI ecosystem. This shift demands we analyse education through the ‘AI Educational Mode of Development (AIEMD),’ where capitalist relations exploit AI’s potential for surveillance, data extraction and cognitive alienation while deepening global inequities.

Critically, AIMarxED transcends diagnosis by synthesising critical AI studies and AI knowledge socialism into a praxis-oriented alternative. It centres the Global South not as a periphery but as the vital frontline for resistance and innovation, where threats of algorithmic colonialism collide with opportunities for epistemic justice, sovereignty and collaborative leapfrogging. This focus is non-negotiable: without centring the South’s agency, any vision of equitable AI in education remains incomplete.

Ultimately, the framework is a call for emancipatory action. Through critical AI literacy and commons-based praxis – participatory design, open knowledge infrastructures and solidarity struggles – educators and learners can reclaim cognition from corporate and neocolonial control. AIMarxED affirms that the future of education hinges on democratising AI’s cognitive infrastructure, transforming it from a tool of capital into a collective resource for human flourishing. The struggle for knowledge socialism is not optional; it is the essential path to cognitive justice in the 21st century.

Share this article on Social Media