As we navigate multiple technological revolutions happening simultaneously, few authors offer as rich a vision of human-AI coexistence as Iain M. Banks’ “The Culture” series – a collection that deserves more attention from those of us working on the challenges of emerging technologies. The Culture represents a post-scarcity, quasi-anarchistic society where superintelligent AI “Minds” and humans coexist as equals. 

What makes Banks’ vision of the future is particularly relevant to our current technological inflection point is how he portrays AI not as a monolithic, centralized force, but as distributed intelligence operating at multiple scales – from vast “AI Minds” managing entire habitats to personal drone companions that augment individual human capabilities. Moreover, Banks’ vision offers us a provocative framework for considering how AI might evolve beyond our current limited implementations toward systems that genuinely enhance human autonomy and societal resilience.

Specifically in this article, I explore how Banks’ Culture series provides valuable insights for our own technological future, examining the implications of distributed AI for personal empowerment, national security, and human-AI partnerships. Drawing parallels between the Culture’s organizations and our own security institutions, I consider how these fictional models might inform our approach to AI governance and deployment. By examining both the opportunities and challenges presented by advanced AI systems, I offer practical considerations for how we might shape a future where technology enhances rather than diminishes human freedom and flourishing in an increasingly complex world. 

Most importantly, in terms of informing security, policy, and tech professionals – this I seek to achieve three things with this article:

• Convince readers that the future of Humans, Tech, and AI requires us to embrace decentralization vs. centralization both in tech and how we operate. 
• Advance plausible pathways both for technological and policy-related innovation, beyond what some are calling “Software-Defined Warfare” as I strongly feel we must take a bigger picture and ask what the future of both national security and intelligence tradecraft holistically in a world with these larger global trends. 
• Illuminate five Key Points for the Future of Security in Free Societies and how we can shape positive futures for free societies if we take the bigger picture in full, both in terms of human nature and the choices in front of us as societies, as security professionals, and as humans in this world. 

1. Personal AI and Edge Empowerment: The Culture’s Distributed Intelligence Model

In the Culture novels, humans are never alone – they are surrounded by AI and small drones constantly. Most members of The Culture have access to personal AI drones – autonomous companions with distinct personalities that serve as advisors, protectors, and friends. These drones represent AI at the edge – intelligence distributed to the individual level rather than centralized in government or corporate systems.

This distribution of AI capabilities mirrors what I’ve previously discussed regarding the need for systematic approaches to solving problems related to GenAI. Rather than concentrating AI development and governance solely in the hands of tech companies or government agencies, we need operational places that bring together diverse stakeholders – “the public, private sector organizations, universities, government agencies, and non-profits” – to work on these challenges collaboratively.

The Culture’s model suggests that AI empowerment at the edge – giving individuals access to powerful AI tools that they oversee and direct (that are not tethered to mega-platforms either) – might strengthen rather than weaken free societies. When every citizen has access to sophisticated analytical capabilities and information processing, the asymmetries that often enable manipulation and control are reduced.

Consider how personal AI assistants in the Culture function as both enhancers of individual capability and as checks against centralized power. They provide their human companions with immediate access to vast information networks, translation of complex data, and protection from physical and informational threats. This distribution of capability creates a society that is remarkably resistant to authoritarian control.

2. National Security Implications: Lessons from “The Player of Games”

Banks’ novel “The Player of Games” offers particularly relevant insights into the current national and international security challenges of free societies. The story pits the Culture – decentralized, AI-augmented, and largely self-organizing – against the Empire of Azad, a hierarchical, militaristic society where power is concentrated among elites.

This confrontation mirrors what I’ve discussed regarding the dual-edged nature of digital technologies for national security. The Culture’s approach to conflict isn’t primarily military but cultural and informational – leveraging distributed intelligence networks and individual empowerment rather than centralized command structures.

As I noted in my work on navigating national security in the digital age, “Technologies such as AI and quantum computing can enhance national security capabilities but also pose risks if misused.” The Culture’s approach suggests that distributing these capabilities widely, rather than restricting them to specialized agencies, might create more resilient security frameworks.

The implications for U.S. defense strategy are profound. Rather than focusing exclusively on centralized AI capabilities within the Department of Defense, we might consider how transforming the entire DoD workforceto leverage AI at all levels could create more adaptive and resilient defense systems. As I’ve previously argued, innovation shouldn’t be “assigned to just a part of the organization” but should be the responsibility of everyone, “even at little scales that could become bigger scales in total.”

3. The Hybrid Approach: Humans and AI in Partnership

One of the most compelling aspects of Banks’ Culture series is that despite the vast intelligence of the AI Minds, humans remain essential partners in decision-making. The Culture is neither an AI dictatorship nor a human-only society – it’s a genuine partnership where each contributes their unique strengths.

This aligns with my work on hybrid AI-human red teams, where I’ve argued that “the future belongs to organizations that can effectively combine the speed and analytical power of AI with the creativity, intuition, and strategic thinking of human experts.” In the Culture, we see this partnership operating at societal scale – AI handles complex administration and coordination while humans contribute creativity, ethical judgment, and cultural direction.

The neural laces that many Culture citizens have implanted – allowing direct brain-computer interfaces – represent an advanced version of the human-AI integration we’re beginning to explore today. These interfaces enable humans to participate in machine-speed conversations and decision-making processes, creating a more balanced partnership than would otherwise be possible given the vast differences in processing capabilities.

4. Human Nature and Technological Convergence: The Culture and Real-World Parallels

Back in 2015, I wrote about the intersection of emerging technologies and human nature, questioning what these developments might mean for our fundamental understanding of humanity and civic collaboration. I noted at the time that: “if we accept the beauty, as well as the flaws and biases, present in human nature, then by extension there will be beauty as well as potential flaws and biases in any human endeavor that we choose to do.” 

These insights are particularly relevant when considering Banks’ portrayal of The Culture, where despite advanced technology and AI integration, humans remain recognizably human – with all their passions, flaws, and creative potential intact. Specifically, The Culture presents a society where technology hasn’t eliminated human nature but rather provided new contexts for its expression. This vision suggests that our technological future need not be one where human nature is suppressed, but rather one where human nature finds new avenues for expression.

Banks’ Culture series features two notable organizations that offer intriguing parallels for our own national security apparatus: Contact and Special Circumstances. Contact serves as The Culture’s diplomatic corps, while Special Circumstances operates as its intelligence and intervention arm.

The U.S. Intelligence Community might find significant relevance for future activities in how Special Circumstances integrate AI capabilities with human judgment. When considering hybrid AI-human teams “the future belongs to organizations that can effectively combine the speed and analytical power of AI with the creativity, intuition, and strategic thinking of human experts.”

Perhaps most significantly, The Culture’s Contact and Special Circumstances both operate with a light organizational footprint, emphasizing individual initiative within broad ethical frameworks rather than rigid hierarchies. This aligns with real-world observations that “the DoD of today is missing the necessary ‘institutionalization’ of interesting, yet limited, prototypes as well as the necessary involve-everyone-in-innovation as it is a collective team sport mentality.“

Moreover, The Culture’s approach to security challenges offers a provocative alternative to traditional security paradigms focused primarily on military dominance. As I’ve advocated with regards to public engagement with AI we need are “systematic, methodical, massive public engagements” that inform how we develop and deploy these technologies for national security and civil society alike.

5. Five Key Points for the Future of Security in Free Societies

Drawing from both Banks’ vision and my previous work, here are five key considerations for the future of U.S. and international security in free societies:

1. Distribute Rather Than Centralize: We should consider how distributing AI capabilities to the edge – empowering individuals and small teams – might create more resilient security frameworks than centralizing these capabilities in specialized agencies or corporations.
2. Embrace Hybrid Intelligence: The most effective security systems will combine human and AI capabilities in complementary ways. We need approaches that leverage “the speed and analytical power of AI with the creativity, intuition, and strategic thinking of human experts.”
3. Prioritize Adaptability Over Hierarchy: The Culture’s success against more hierarchical adversaries suggests that adaptable, self-organizing systems may have advantages in rapidly changing technological environments. This aligns with for the need to transform the entire DoD workforce to be more adaptable.
4. Engage Society-Wide: We need “systematic, methodical, massive public engagements” on AI governance, potentially tailored to local levels of governance or even governance at the level of “one”. The Culture’s approach to decision-making – involving both Minds and humans in deliberative processes – offers a model for inclusive governance of powerful technologies.
5. Balance Freedom and Security: We can create futures where we all retain remarkable individual freedom while still providing collective security. This balance is achieved not through centralized control but through distributed capabilities and shared values – principles worth considering as we develop our own approaches to AI governance.

Conclusion: Creating Our Future

The Culture series presents us with a provocative vision – not a blueprint to be followed exactly, but a thought experiment that challenges our assumptions about how AI and humans might coexist in free societies. What makes Banks’ vision particularly valuable is that it avoids both techno-utopianism and dystopian fear-mongering, instead offering a nuanced exploration of the complex trade-offs involved.

Amid the backdrop of technological revolutions, there is no shortage of perceived problems with the most extreme voices capturing the largest amount of airtime and attention. What we need so crucial now are operational places to bring together diverse stakeholders across different fields, practices, and communities to systematically solve the problems we face globally.

After all, the best way to predict the future is to create it. 

Rather than passively accepting either doom narratives or techno-utopian promises about AI, we can actively shape how these technologies develop and integrate into our societies. By drawing inspiration from thoughtful explorations like The Culture series, while grounding our work in practical, collaborative approaches to governance and security, we can navigate the challenges ahead and build a future where technology genuinely enhances human flourishing and freedom.

For free societies, the path forward is neither pausing AI development nor surrendering to technological determinism – instead, we must engage collectively in the demanding work of creating systems where humans and AI form productive partnerships at all levels of society. Working together, that’s a future worth building.