# The Metaphysics We Train: A Heideggerian Reading of Machine Learning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.19028 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.19028/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 7 of its 35 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Nov 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.00567/) (2015)
- [Bayesian Deep Learning and a Probabilistic Perspective of Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.08791/) (2020)
- [Attention is Not All You Need: Pure Attention Loses Rank Doubly Exponentially with Depth](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03404/) (2021)
- [Which Tasks Should Be Learned Together in Multi-task Learning?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.07553/) (2019)
- [Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1712.03586/) (2017)
- [An analytic theory of creativity in convolutional diffusion models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.20292/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This paper offers a phenomenological reading of contemporary machine learning through Heideggerian concepts, aimed at enriching practitioners' reflexive understanding of their own practice. We argue that this philosophical lens reveals three insights invisible to purely technical analysis. First, the algorithmic Entwurf (projection) is distinctive in being automated, opaque, and emergent--a metaphysics that operates without explicit articulation or debate, crystallizing implicitly through gradient descent rather than theoretical argument. Second, even sophisticated technical advances remain within the regime of Gestell (Enframing), improving calculation without questioning the primacy of calculation itself. Third, AI's lack of existential structure, specifically the absence of Care (Sorge), is genuinely explanatory: it illuminates why AI systems have no internal resources for questioning their own optimization imperatives, and why they optimize without the anxiety (Angst) that signals, in human agents, the friction between calculative absorption and authentic existence. We conclude by exploring the pedagogical value of this perspective, arguing that data science education should cultivate not only technical competence but ontological literacy--the capacity to recognize what worldviews our tools enact and when calculation itself may be the wrong mode of engagement.