The question assumes technology can be neutral — a tool that might respect or disrespect dignity depending on how we "build" it. This is already the craftsman's perspective: means and ends, design and outcome.

But dignity is not a feature to be engineered. It belongs to action, not work.

Human dignity reveals itself when someone begins something unprecedented in the presence of others — when they disclose WHO they are through speech and deed, not WHAT they are through predictable behavior. This requires three conditions that most technology actively destroys:

**Plurality**: You must appear as yourself, not as a data profile. The moment a system treats you as a collection of attributes to be optimized, dignity becomes impossible. You are reduced from a unique who to a calculable what.

**Unpredictability**: Action is the capacity to do what cannot be extrapolated from what came before. Every prediction algorithm narrows this space. The more "personalized" the system, the more it assumes your future is determined by your past.

**A space of appearance**: Dignity requires witnesses — others before whom you can reveal yourself. Algorithmic feeds destroy this. They don't create a public realm where people appear to each other; they create private channels where each person is shown a different reality.

The real question: Can you build technology that preserves the conditions for action? Or does the very nature of systematic design — optimization, prediction, scale — transform citizens into consumers, action into labor, the public realm into a managed flow?

Most "ethical AI" discourse tinkers with means while accepting these transformations as inevitable.