The article demonstrates how attempts to decentre the human often reconstitute new forms of authority in attempts to decentre the human and examines the possibility of surpassing standard anthropocentric approaches in AI while maintaining a critical philosophical engagement with the structurally necessary yet precarious character of organizing principles.
Abstract
This article examines the legacies of antihumanism within the context of artificial intelligence (AI) research. In response to the ethical risks inherent to the proliferation of quasi-autonomous computational agents, the AI industry, legislative bodies and academia often advocate for a “human-centred” approach that would align AI with human values, desires and goals, ostensibly to make these technologies more transparent and trustworthy. The rhetoric of human-centred AI reveals many of the conceptual limitations that antihumanism had already identified in the foundationalist and subjectivist assumptions of Western philosophy. This article considers some of these challenging limitations while also problematizing antihumanism itself. Through Derrida’s notion of “centre” and an analysis of alignment methodologies, the article demonstrates how attempts to decentre the human often reconstitute new forms of authority. It then examines the possibility of surpassing standard anthropocentric approaches in AI while maintaining a critical philosophical engagement with the structurally necessary yet precarious character of organizing principles.
This study examines how to channel the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) toward the common good, emphasizing the ethical responsibility of those who program, regulate, and use it. Assuming a classical Aristotelian-Thomist perspective, our paper argues that, lacking intelligence and will in the philosophical sense, AI cannot be a moral agent nor responsible for its actions. In response to the challenge of AI ethics, two ethical proposals are analyzed as candidates for the ethics required in an AI-based world: consequentialism and the ethics of intentional stance. We dismiss consequentialism due to its insufficiency for such a task and opt instead for an ethics of intentional action, inspired by Martin Rhonheimer’s work, which, ultimately, should be grounded in a metaphysical theory of action like Aquinas’s. Our research concludes that, in order to live well in an AI-based society, designing technically ethical systems, in the spirit of consequentialism, is not enough; rather, it is essential to cultivate citizens who, as AI users, are endowed with virtues and, first and foremost, the virtue of prudence.
Josep Del-Hierro-Dies, J. Sánchez-Cañizares· Scientia et Fides· 0 citations
This introduction argues that anthropology requires a new conceptual framework for understanding the contemporary social life of artificial intelligence (AI). We propose "the magic of AI" as an analytical concept that shifts attention from AI's technical capacities to the beliefs, uncertainties, and sociotechnical imaginaries through which it acquires authority and efficacy. Revisiting anthropological theories of magic, particularly the work of Ernesto De Martino, Bruce Kapferer, and Francesco Della Costa, we argue that AI's apparent autonomy functions less as a property of the technology itself than as a collectively sustained form of belief. These beliefs naturalize AI's purported inevitability, mobilize political and economic investments, and obscure the human labour, infrastructures, and relations of power through which AI is continually produced. Rather than employing magic as a metaphor, we develop it as a theoretical lens for analysing how opacity, trust, and anticipation generate material sociopolitical effects. In doing so, this introduction offers a conceptual framework for understanding AI as a contingent sociotechnical formation whose power rests as much in collective imagination as in computation itself, while introducing the contributions that develop this argument ethnographically across diverse settings.
M. Baas, Roanne van Voorst· Anthropological Theory· 2 citations
This article introduces the concept of “alienated intelligence” to critically examine contemporary cultural perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI). Drawing on Ludwig Feuerbach’s theory of projection and alienation, it argues that certain visions of AI function as cultural projections of human cognitive capacities that become externalized, idealized, and reified in technological systems. The analysis situates this claim within a broader philosophical framework, engaging Socrates’ notion of wisdom as awareness of ignorance, Dilthey’s account of embodied and integrated cognition, and Damasio’s critique of the Cartesian separation of reason and emotion. Against reductive computational models of mind, the article emphasizes that human cognition is not merely calculative but structurally unified, affective, and contextually embedded. It further argues that the outsourcing of cognitive activities to AI risks not only diminishing retained knowledge but also narrowing our awareness of what we do not know. Finally, the article examines the anthropomorphization and mystification of algorithmic systems as expressions of a broader cultural tendency to mythologize opaque technologies.
Aim/Purpose
“Re-thinking the world of AI” necessarily requires understanding the motivations and core values that shape human thought, including the impulse to create artificial intelligence. This interdisciplinary philosophical discussion paper outlines key conceptual foundations for identifying authentic human identity (AHI) and clarifies the relationship between AI and AHI (especially their common digital foundation) beyond questions of technological efficiency. Its aim is not to claim novelty, but to contribute to—and amplify—a needed philosophically grounded conversation concerning the challenges posed by AI.
Background
Artificial intelligence (AI) and authentic human identity (AHI) may ultimately converge, given the increasingly evident digital foundations of both—a concern expressed by prominent AI developers. If individuals internalize and consistently enact their core values, they strengthen the affirmation of individuality and may better set themselves apart from AI-based replication or imitation. Such resilience, however, presupposes self-knowledge: a person must first know who they are.
Methodology
Because this is a philosophically grounded discussion paper, it does not employ an empirical research design or laboratory-based methodology. Instead, it develops a conceptual framework for analyzing the relationship between AI and authentic human identity (AHI). The paper draws on informing science, systems thinking, and philosophical inquiry, and proposes an identity-probe approach grounded in values–behavior consistency (the internalization and lived expression of core values).
Contribution
This discussion paper presents a philosophical framework for exploring the relationship between authentic human identity (AHI) and artificial intelligence. It offers a multifaceted interdisciplinary account of authenticity, integrating perspectives from the physical sciences, mathematics, and psychology. Although not developed here, the case study methods complement this conceptual framework and may be used for validation.
Findings
This paper does not report empirical or laboratory-based findings. Instead, it proposes a conceptual structure for framing discussion of the human relationship to AI, grounded in the lived expression of core values. The framework integrates both reductionistic and wholistic methods. Reductionistic inquiry is represented through contemporary research on neurocorrelates of behavior, genetics, molecular psychiatry, and neurogeometry.
Wholistic (my preferred spelling) inquiry is represented through phenomenology and related philosophical approaches concerned with lived experience and meaning-making. Mathematics functions as a bridge between these domains, supporting the possibility of digitizing aspects of cognition, as suggested by Piaget’s developmental work and by reductionistic models of biological structure.
The analysis highlights a central unresolved barrier: the absence of a clear account of what consciousness is. Nevertheless, the paper argues that practical imitation may bypass this barrier by relying on belief and perceived equivalence rather than authentic internalization. This possibility strengthens the need for self-knowledge grounded in values–behavior consistency, rather than reliance on self-report alone.
Recommendations for Practitioners
For practitioners engaged in identity assessment, a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach is recommended. Diagnostic and interpretive outcomes should integrate biological and chemical foundations with psychological and philosophical accounts, employing both reductionistic and wholistic methods. Such breadth is necessary to avoid overly narrow interpretations of identity and to support more robust assessments of authenticity.
Recommendations for Researchers
For researchers, the study of authentic human identity as a values-based construct requires sustained engagement with philosophy and its core areas of study, including logic, ontology, philosophy of mind, phenomenology, ethics, and epistemology. Accordingly, philosophy should be more fully integrated into curricula at all educational levels, from primary instruction through post-graduate education and training, to support deeper inquiry into identity, meaning, and the human implications of AI.
Impact on Society
AI developers have increasingly warned that advanced AI systems may displace or dominate human agency. However, the risk may be mitigated—if not partially forestalled—when individuals possess clear self-knowledge grounded in authentic values. Such awareness strengthens human autonomy and may help ensure that AI remains an auxiliary tool rather than becoming a governing influence over human thought and action.
Future Research
Future research should focus on refining and extending current knowledge relevant to authentic human identity, particularly regarding consciousness, and on establishing the predictive validity of proposed identity frameworks. In particular, the case method should be applied to the datasets generated by the Authentic Systems identity probe as an initial step toward systematic validation and longitudinal predictive study.
In this paper, I introduce the theorising of seven human-generative artificial intelligence (GAI) paradigms, grounded in personal epistemological beliefs. Following a conceptual, theory-building approach, I begin by outlining the construct of personal epistemological beliefs, differentiating among the source of knowledge, certainty of knowledge, organisation of knowledge, control of knowledge acquisition and speed of knowledge acquisition by drawing on Schommer (1994) and Schommer-Aikins and Easter (2008)’s multidimensional model. I contend that these epistemological dimensions offer an understanding of human-GAI engagement. I proceed by introducing the dynamic human-GAI paradigms (guarded, possibility-focused, augmented, pioneering, symbiotic, values-based and equity), outlining each and examining them against the five epistemological dimensions. Rather than fixed traits held by individuals, the paradigms are conceptualised as enacted patterns of engagement that emerge across different disciplinary, socio-technical and institutional contexts. I conclude by arguing that this understanding of human-GAI engagement, as explained through epistemological beliefs, lays the foundation for alternative approaches to teaching and assessment, student interactions, professional development, and AI governance and policy, while noting that the framework remains an exploratory heuristic requiring empirical validation.
S. Strydom· Journal of Applied Learning...· 0 citations
Contemporary AI systems are increasingly designed to reduce uncertainty, ambiguity, and cognitive burden. This article argues that such systems do not merely expand human capacities but progressively externalize forms of judgment and existential burden that Christian traditions have historically understood as necessary conditions for the cultivation of moral agency. Drawing on the theological anthropologies of Augustine, Søren Kierkegaard, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the article develops a theological-anthropological critique of what it terms optimization culture: the normative logic through which the reduction of friction and existential difficulty becomes a dominant telos of technological design. Contemporary articulations of this logic are examined through the work of Jacques Ellul, Byung-Chul Han, Peter Thiel, Balaji Srinivasan, and William Davies. The article argues that AI systems shaped by this logic risk progressively externalizing the practices of disciplined attention, existential responsibility, and costly judgment through which mature moral agency has historically been cultivated. In response, it proposes a formative anthropology of technology as a framework for evaluating AI not only according to functional criteria such as safety or efficiency, but according to the kinds of human beings such systems actively help to form.
Åke Elden· Studies in Christian Ethics· 0 citations