Artificial Intelligence as an Anthropological Project. From Reduction to Becoming (Part 2)

Scholars actively debate what artificial intelligence is for humans — a cultural tool, a means of digital externalization, a digital significant Other, or a future alternative, replacement for the human. Far less frequently discussed is who the human is for technologies and their designers. The paper shows that AI technologies — understood not as a single engineering solution but as a system of heterogeneous approaches — not only rest on fundamentally different conceptions of the human, but also transmit these images through their architectures, thereby facilitating corresponding practices and shaping culture, new worlds and a new forms of being. The architectures of most types of AI both, implemented in practice and only discussed in the literature (generative, human-centered, trustworthy, explainable, interpretable, embodied, situated, enactive, social, as well as designs developed within sociotechnical and actor-network frameworks) rely on reduced, incomplete images of the human being. Among the principal risks associated with broad deployment of such systems is the risk of dehumanization — the elimination from human practices of those features that make them genuinely human: contextual understanding, meaning-making, moral and ethical responsibility, deep interpersonal bonds, co action, variability, autonomy and self-determination. In these architectures the human too often appears only as a performer of a social role (user, client, worker, patient, student, etc.). Overcoming the reduction of the human in AI architectures is possible through redesign of those architectures. Corresponding technologies must move beyond simplified anthropologies and be built on complex images of the human being. Such technologies can not only facilitate human development and the realization of human potential, but also contribute to the formation of a truly human-centered culture — a culture of dignity (A. G. Asmolov). Practical tenets intended to underlie the design of non-reductionist architectures are formulated

1. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ‘21). Association for Computing Machinery, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922

2. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim Code. Polity Press.

3. Bickmore, T. W., & Picard, R. W. (2005). Establishing and maintaining longterm human-computer relationships. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 12(2), 293–327. https://doi.org/10.1145/1067860.1067867

4. Bommasani, R., et al. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07258

5. Brooks, R. A. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47(1–3), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004–3702(91)90053-M

6. Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149–7189(79)90048-X

7. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7

8. Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.

9. Dang, J., & Liu, L. (2025). Dehumanization risks associated with artificial intelligence use. American Psychologist. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001329

10. Eltahawy, L., et al. (2024). Can robots do therapy?: Examining the efficacy of a CBT bot in comparison with other behavioral intervention technologies in alleviating mental health symptoms. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2, Article 100035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100035

11. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.

12. Floridi, L. (2013). The ethics of information. Oxford University Press.

13. Foran, H. M., et al. (2024). An automated conversational agent self-help program: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26, Article e53829. https://doi.org/10.2196/53829

14. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.

15. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.

16. Gunning, D., & Aha, D. (2019). DARPA’s explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) program. AI Magazine, 40(2), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v40i2.2850

17. Iglesias, M., Sinha, С., Vempati, R., Grace, S. E., Roy, M., Chapman, W. C., & Rinaldiet, M. L. (2023). Evaluating a digital mental health intervention (Wysa) for workers’ compensation claimants: Pilot feasibility study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 65(2), e93–e99. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002762

18. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Indiana University Press.

19. Kohlberg, L. (1982). Moral development. In J. M. Broughton & D. J. FreemanMoir (Eds.), The cognitive developmental psychology of James Mark Baldwin: Current theory and research in genetic epistemology (pp. 277–325). Ablex Publishing Corp.

20. Lam, K., Lange, B., Blili-Hamelin, B., Davidovic, J., Brown, S., & Hasan, A. (2024). A framework for assurance audits of algorithmic systems. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. arXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.14908

21. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-networktheory. Oxford University Press.

22. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5, 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01059830

23. Miller, T. (2019). Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence, 267, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007

24. Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities. Harvard University Press.Pfeifer, R., & Bongard, J. C. (2006). How the body shapes the way we think: A new view of intelligence. MIT Press.

25. Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing. MIT Press.

26. Russell, S. (2019). Human compatible: Artificial intelligence and the problem of control. Viking.

27. Schultz, M. D., Clegg, M., Hofstetter, R., & Seele, P. (2024). Algorithms and dehumanization: A definition and avoidance model. SSRN Electronic Journal, 40, 2191–2211. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5013103

28. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

29. Strathern, M. (1997). ‘Improving ratings’: Audit in the British University system. European Review, 5(3), 305–321.

30. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of humanmachine communication. Cambridge University Press.

31. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.

32. Verbeek, P.-P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. University of Chicago Press.

33. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469–7610.1976.tb00381.x

34. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.