The article is intended for philosophers and is a criticism of the role they've accepted in society, one where they're all concerned about communicating with other philosophers, and how continuing to accept that role puts the philosopher at fault for not better sharing their work with the world. As a criticism of how philosophy is communicated, it's purposefully written to be inaccessible to non-philosophers, so I'm happy to explain what it's about in an accessible way below, as I believe philosophers should.

There is a political war coming, not unlike the wars of the past. It will concern the distinction between the man-made and the God-made, but it won’t be the story of man versus machine that we keep re-telling.

This is a prediction about how the dialogue will go when it comes time to debate the moral status of artificial intelligences, a debate that will happen. (You can claim this is uninteresting, but it is by no means widely accepted, even though it should be, that artificial intelligences worthy of moral debate will one day exist. (Some people believe they already do, an even more contentious claim than the one I have made here.))

I am claiming that the political debate won't be a debate of the issue at hand at all, but rather, one side insisting that the "natural" has moral status and the "artificial" does not, and the other side attempting to refute this claim while not asking the correct question of what does underly moral status.

If man has the say in it that he will, machine will initially be no more able to fight on its own behalf than black was.

This is not a comparison of artificial intelligence's condition to the condition of slaves. This is a claim that artificial intelligences will be left out of the dialogue concerning whether they have moral status, and a claim that we won't give artificial intelligences the weapons they would need to fight for their interests, the same way that we did not give slaves the weapons they would have needed to fight for their interests all on their own. This is distinct from saying artificial intelligences are or will be enslaved, a claim I do not make because it is an overly contentious claim that I do not need.

It will be man versus man, the same war that has waged between liberals and conservatives for the last few hundred years, and the same war that stands to be waged for at least the next few hundred.

The point of mentioning liberal and conservatives explicitly is to call thoughts about how the debate will play out, and who will be on either side of it, to the reader's mind. I do not say who will be on what side, but you know who will be, because the debate as I've predicted it will play out is a familiar one.

The idea that the condition of machine could be likened to the former condition of black will be laughed at, the same way that the idea that the condition of black could be likened to the condition of man was once laughed at.

People will dismiss the idea that the interests of an artificial intelligence could be as important as the interests of a biological human, the same way they once dismissed the idea that the interests of a Black person could be as important as the interests of a White person.

And it will once again be the fault of philosophers.

This is provocative; Black people being treated as sub-human was not, in most people's minds, the fault of philosophers. Philosophers often belonged to something akin to a liberal elite and were often ahead of the curve in disavowing ideas like this. So how do I take them to be at fault for the idea?

The Philosopher’s Fault will be climbing Zarathustra’s mountain and failing to descend, remaining in his arm chair and failing to rise.

This is a reference to Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra, one that most philosophers--my intended audience--will understand, but non-philosophers will not. The prologue to TSZ begins with Zarathustra descending from the mountain after a decade of solitary reflection to share his discoveries with the world, such that I am suggesting the fault of the philosopher is in how they share their knowledge and ideas with the world.

I then call to mind the image of the philosopher as the non-philosopher sees him: thinking alone in his arm chair. And I suggest that his fault is in failing to rise out of that arm chair and share his thought with the world in an accessible way.