Technosubject and Anthroposocial Challenges of Human–Artificial Intelligence Interaction: Synergy, Demarcation, New Rationality, and Risks

The contemporary digital reality is inconceivable without artificial intelligence (AI), which has become disseminated across all cultural practices, from scientific and artistic endeavors to everyday activities. AI increasingly functions as an agent of communication and decision-making, gradually surpassing human capabilities across nearly all competencies. The information flows of this new reality can only be navigated through hybrid systems based on post-critical rationality, which inherently introduces an irreducible element of uncertainty and risk in human-machine environments. The article proposes examining the techno-subject through the lens of activity theory and the multiple types of rationality it generates. This framework facilitates the analysis of sociocultural and anthropological implications arising from AI’s integration with human domains, while addressing the existential challenges inherent in constructing a harmonious hybrid society. Beyond V.S. Stepin’s types of scientific rationality, the author builds upon previously introduced forms of rationality: post-critical, object-oriented, instrumental, subjective, results-oriented, creative, and autopoietic. This theoretical framework facilitates a substantive discussion of various manifestations of AI subjectivity, including its generalized embodiment and creative specificity. The demarcation of dominance domains between natural intelligence and AI in the intellectual sphere is proposed to be resolved on the basis of their heuristic potentials. The author maintains that natural intelligence invariably possesses superior capacity in this regard. The article examines approaches to risk assessment in AI implementation strategies, focusing on criteria for preserving anthropological and sociocultural profiles in the development of hybrid society. Advancing the concept of friendly AI is substantiated as essential, with consideration given not only to technological but also to anthropological aspects of human–machine interaction. The author advocates for the development of social examination institutions as regulatory mechanisms for natural–artificial intelligence interaction and anthropological–technological subject interfaces.

1. Bakhtin M.M. (1986) The Problem of Text in Linguistics, Philology, and Other Humanities. An Experience of Philosophical Analysis. In: Bakhtin M.M. Literary Critical Articles (pp. 473–500). Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura (in Russian).

2. Beghetto R.A. (2023) A New Horizon for Possibility Thinking: A Conceptual Case Study of Human×AI Collaboration. Possibility Studies & Society. Vol. 1. No. 3, pp. 324–341.

3. Budanov V.G. (2012) Post-Non-Classical Practices and Quantum-Synergetic Anthropology. In: Arshinov V.I. & Astafyev O.N. (Eds.) Post-Non-Classical Practices: Experience of Conceptualization (pp. 37–63). Saint Petersburg: Mir (in Russian).

4. Budanov V.G. (2016) The New Digital Technological Lifestyle: Prospects and Risks of Anthroposphere Transformations. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences = Filosofskie nauki. No. 6, pp. 47–55 (in Russian).

5. Budanov V.G. (2022) Generalized Scientific Rationality: Origins, Structure, Prospects in the Digital Age. In: Budanov V.G. (Ed.) Anthropomeasureness as a Challenge and Response to Modernity (pp. 44–63). Kursk: Universitetskaya kniga (in Russian).

6. Budanov V.G. (2023a) Anthroposocial Challenges of Artificial Intelligence Expansion. Proceedings of the Institute of Psychology of Russian Academy of Sciences. Vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 23–31 (in Russian).

7. Budanov V.G. (2023b) Post-Critical Rationality as the Reverse Side of Digitalization. In: Trufanova E.O. (Ed.) Constructivism, Realism, Human. On the 90th Anniversary of V.A. Lektorsky (pp. 214–227). Moscow; Saint Petersburg: Tsentr gumanitarnykh initsiativ; Universitetskaya kniga (in Russian).

8. Budanov V.G. (2023c) Philosophy of Science in the Digital Age: On the Prospects of Post-Non-Classics. In: Lektorsky V.A. & Budanov V.G. (Eds.) Third Stepin Readings. Prospects of Philosophy of Science in the Modern Era: Proceedings of the International Conference (pp. 41–52). Kursk: Universitetskaya kniga (in Russian).

9. Budanov V.G. (2023d) Metaphysics, Ontologies and Scenarios of the Great Anthropological Transition. In: V.G. Budanov & L.P. Kiyashchenko (Eds.) Science and the Human Phenomenon in the Era of Civilizational Macroshift (pp. 76–128). Moscow: Institut obshchegumanitarnykh issledovaniy (in Russian).

10. Danaher J. (2019) The Philosophical Case for Robot Friendship. Journal of Posthuman Studies. Vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 5–24.

11. Davydov A.P. (2021) Methodological “Middle-for” from the Perspective of V. Lektorsky’s Non-Classics, A. Akhiezer’s Mediation, and R. Grinberg / A. Rubinstein’s Principle of Complementarity. Voprosy filosofii. No. 4, pp. 191–202 (in Russian).

12. Davydov A.P. (2024) Mediation and Convergent Sociality. Toward a Theory of Social Dialogue. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences = Filosofskie nauki. Vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 135–159 (in Russian).

13. Jain R., Garg N., & Khera S.N. (2023) Effective Human–AI Work Design for Collaborative Decision-Making. Kybernetes. Vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 5017–5040.

14. Latour B. (2014) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory (I. Polonskaya, Trans.). Moscow: HSE Publishing House (Russian translation).

15. Lektorsky V.A. (2021) On the Philosophical Issues of Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Studies. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences = Filosofskie nauki. Vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 7–12 (in Russian).

16. Lektorsky V.A. (2022) Artificial Intelligence in Human Study, Human in the World Created by Artificial Intelligence. In: V.A. Lektorsky (Ed.) Human and Artificial Intelligence Systems (pp. 10–29). Saint Petersburg: Yuridicheskiy Tsentr (in Russian).

17. Lysenko V.G. (2024) Dialogue on Artificial Intelligence’s Self-Awareness Between the Cognitive Science Expert and Large Language Model Claude 3 Opus: A Buddhist Scholar’s Perspective. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences = Filosofskie nauki. Vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 75–98 (in Russian).

18. Nyholm S. & Smids J. (2020) Can a Robot Be a Good Colleague? Science and Engineering Ethics. Vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 2169–2188.

19. Peeters M.M.M., van Diggelen J., Van Den Bosch K., Bronkhorst A., Neerincx M.A., Schraagen J.M., & Raaijmakers S. (2020) Hybrid Collective Intelligence in a Human–AI Society. AI and Society. Vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 217–238.

20. Perls F.S. (2010) Gestalt Seminars. Moscow: Institut obshchegumanitarnykh issledovaniy (Russian translation).

21. Polanyi M. (1985) Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy (V.A. Lektorsky & V.A. Arshinov, Eds.; M.B. Gnedovsky, N.M. Smirnova, & B.A. Starostin, Trans.). Moscow: Progress (Russian translation).

22. Pruzhinin B.I. (1986) Rationality and Historical Unity of Scientific Knowledge (Epistemological Aspect). Moscow: Nauka (in Russian).

23. Schütz A. (2003) The Meaningful Structure of the Social World: Essays on Phenomenological Sociology (A.Ya. Alkhasov & N.Ya. Mazlumyanova, Trans.). Moscow: Institute of the Foundation “Obshchestvennoe mnenie” (Russian translation).

24. Sokolova M.E. (2024) ChatGPT and Prompt Engineering: On the Prospects of Implementing Generative Neural Networks in Science. Science Studies = Naukovedcheskie issledovaniya. No. 1, pp. 92–109 (in Russian).

25. Stepin V.S. (2011) Historical Types of Rationality in Their Relation to the Problem of Complexity. In: Arshinov V.I. (Ed.) Synergetic Paradigm: Synergetics of Innovative Complexity (pp. 37–47). Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya (in Russian).