In a statement that has sparked widespread discussion across social media and news platforms, conservative commentator Candace Owens recently claimed that prominent tech figures Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and Sam Altman are “not human.” While such a declaration may initially sound like hyperbole, it has ignited a broader debate about the influence, power, and ethical responsibilities of tech moguls in modern society. Beyond the sensational headline lies a complex intersection of technology, culture, and human identity, offering a lens through which to examine society’s evolving relationship with innovation and leadership.

The Origins of the Statement

Candace Owens made her remarks during a live-streamed interview, emphasizing her concerns about what she perceives as the disproportionate influence these tech entrepreneurs wield over global systems. She argued that the decisions of Thiel, Musk, and Altman often operate on a scale so far removed from the average person’s experience that it is as if they are “not human” in their thought processes or priorities. While intended metaphorically, the comment reflects a growing sentiment that the concentration of technological power in the hands of a few individuals raises fundamental questions about accountability, ethics, and the societal impact of their actions.

Owens’ statement was met with both criticism and support. Critics dismissed the remarks as hyperbolic or conspiratorial, arguing that labeling someone “not human” undermines rational discourse. Supporters, however, interpreted the comment as a pointed critique of the tech elite’s detachment from ordinary human concerns—a symbolic way of highlighting the disconnect between corporate decision-makers and the public.

Power and Influence in the Tech World

To understand the context of Owens’ statement, it is necessary to examine the positions of the individuals she referenced.

Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and Palantir, is a billionaire investor known for his involvement in high-profile technology companies and his influence in political and business circles. His investments and strategic decisions have shaped industries ranging from social media to defense technology, making him a figure of immense economic and technological power.

Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, commands a global following for his work in electric vehicles, space exploration, and, more recently, social media acquisitions. Musk’s decisions, often communicated directly via platforms like Twitter, have been known to influence markets, public discourse, and international technological trends.

Sam Altman, former president of Y Combinator and current CEO of OpenAI, is a leading voice in artificial intelligence development. Altman’s role in shaping AI policy, funding, and research initiatives positions him at the center of debates about the ethical, social, and economic implications of rapidly advancing technologies.

Together, these three figures embody a new kind of influence—one that transcends national boundaries, regulatory frameworks, and even conventional societal expectations. Owens’ characterization of them as “not human” metaphorically underscores the perception that their impact operates on a level so abstracted from everyday human experience that it is difficult to relate to or comprehend.

The Ethical Dimension

Owens’ statement also touches on ethical concerns regarding technology. Critics of concentrated tech power argue that when individuals can shape public discourse, economic trends, and even the direction of artificial intelligence, society risks ceding too much control to a few unaccountable actors. Ethical questions arise: Who decides what AI can and cannot do? Who benefits from major technological advancements, and who bears the costs? How can society ensure that innovation aligns with the broader public good rather than the interests of a select few?

In this light, Candace Owens’ provocative language can be interpreted as a critique of structural inequities in tech leadership. Labeling someone “not human” becomes a shorthand for describing the perceived detachment from common moral and social concerns—a detachment that can lead to decisions with far-reaching consequences for millions of people.

Public Reaction and Media Response

The response to Owens’ remarks has been polarized. Social media platforms exploded with debate, with some users mocking the statement as absurd and others treating it as a serious critique of tech elitism. Traditional media outlets covered the comments extensively, often framing them as a reflection of the growing tension between populist critiques and technological authority.

The discussion has also drawn attention to the way public figures communicate complex critiques. In today’s media environment, provocative statements are amplified quickly, creating viral moments that often overshadow deeper discussions about the issues at hand. Owens’ comment serves as a case study in how rhetorical exaggeration can spark meaningful debate, even if the literal claim—suggesting that Thiel, Musk, and Altman are literally not human—is obviously not factual.

Implications for Technology and Society

The broader implications of Owens’ remarks extend beyond individual personalities. The conversation invites scrutiny of the tech industry’s societal impact, particularly as it relates to artificial intelligence, social media influence, and emerging technologies. For example, Altman’s work with OpenAI raises questions about the ethical deployment of AI, including concerns about bias, accountability, and the potential for widespread automation to reshape labor markets. Musk’s ventures in transportation and energy affect global infrastructure, climate change policy, and industrial practices. Thiel’s investments influence the development of software, defense technology, and even political advocacy platforms.

In each case, the “not human” metaphor highlights a perceived gap between the decision-making calculus of tech leaders and the lived experiences of everyday people. Decisions made in corporate boardrooms or research labs can ripple across society, affecting privacy, security, and economic stability. The challenge lies in ensuring that these powerful individuals and organizations are held accountable and that their innovations serve broader societal needs rather than narrow interests.

The Role of Rhetoric and Symbolism

Owens’ statement also underscores the role of rhetoric and symbolism in public discourse. By framing Thiel, Musk, and Altman as “not human,” she taps into a cultural narrative of alienation, power, and technological supremacy. This kind of language can be polarizing, but it also draws attention to structural issues that might otherwise remain abstract or technical.

In essence, the hyperbolic claim functions as both critique and provocation. It forces audiences to confront uncomfortable questions about power, morality, and the human dimension of technological innovation. While the literal assertion is impossible, the symbolic interpretation resonates with anxieties about automation, AI, and the outsized influence of tech billionaires in shaping society.

Historical and Cultural Context

Historically, critiques of societal elites often employ exaggerated or figurative language. Whether in literature, political commentary, or social movements, portraying figures as “other” or “inhuman” serves to dramatize the gap between ordinary citizens and those in positions of extraordinary influence. In the case of Owens, this rhetorical device situates Thiel, Musk, and Altman within a lineage of cultural criticism aimed at challenging concentrated power.

The commentary also reflects a broader cultural moment in which technology increasingly intersects with governance, commerce, and everyday life. As digital platforms, AI systems, and global networks permeate human experience, the perception that a small group of individuals holds disproportionate influence becomes more salient. Owens’ statement, controversial though it may be, is emblematic of this broader societal anxiety.

Conclusion: Provocation, Power, and Public Discourse

Candace Owens’ claim that Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and Sam Altman are “not human” is unlikely to be interpreted literally by informed audiences. Yet the statement has sparked meaningful discussion about the nature of power, influence, and responsibility in the modern tech landscape. It highlights the growing concern that a small number of individuals can shape technological and economic systems in ways that are profoundly impactful, yet difficult for the average person to fully understand or control.

By framing these tech leaders as “not human,” Owens dramatizes a real tension in contemporary society: the need to balance innovation and progress with ethical oversight, public accountability, and human-centered considerations. The debate raises fundamental questions about governance, corporate responsibility, and the social consequences of technological advancement.

Ultimately, Owens’ remarks serve as a reminder that public discourse often requires both critical thinking and symbolic interpretation. While the literal claim is hyperbolic, the underlying concerns about technological power, ethical responsibility, and societal impact are very real. In an era defined by rapid innovation and unprecedented concentration of influence, understanding the human—and in some cases, inhuman—dimensions of decision-making in the tech world is essential for informed civic engagement and thoughtful public debate.