The progressive introduction of AI into all technologies, encroaching on the priority of “natural” human thinking, again makes the question relevant: “What does it mean to think?”. To clarify the relationship of AI to the human, an analysis is made of 1) the vulnerability of AI, which reveals its secondary nature – Model Autophagy Disorder (MAD – R. Baranyuk); 2) the experience of training natural and artificial systems by G. Bateson, who discovered a number of levels in training, the highest of which brings the system into contradiction or Double-bind (Db); 3) the Zagorsk experiment. The article demonstrates that it defined the conditions for productive and destructive Db scenarios. A productive way out of the contradiction is conditional on the inclusion of the learner (the weaker side of communication) in universal sociability, which recognizes and protects his subjectivity. Db becomes an instrument for breaking the natural egoism of the living and implanting non-egoistic needs as conditions for survival. That’s how a learner becomes a thinker. The destructive outcome is determined by the monopolization of power by the stronger side of communication at the expense of the weaker one. Human intelligence is thus justified as unnatural, AI – as its truncated projection. But it highlights the issue that remained unsolved in the Zagorsk experiment: determining the conditions that effectively block the monopolization of social power, the tool of which, like any machine, can also be AI.

Through the prism of philosophical anthropology, the article updates the concepts of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), Hybrid (Bio-hybrid) Intelligence, human nature, as well as long-term disputes around them. The issue of denaturalization of the bodily and mental in a person is revealed. The specifics of modern research on natural and artificial intelligence in the mirror of neuroscience are being comprehended. It is noted that a distinctive feature of the main directions for studying human consciousness and brain when trying to create AGI, Hybrid (Bio-hybrid) Intelligence is a Body-oriented approach using neurointerfaces. The “Brain-Computer” and “Brain-to-Brain” Interfaces are presented as fundamentally new communication and control channels that can ensure the integration of the human brain with information devices when creating hybrid and Bio-hybrid Intelligent Systems. As one of the promising directions in the development of philosophical and anthropological research, it is proposed to comprehend the prospects and risks of the development of hybrid intelligence. At the same time, it is noted that the development of modern areas of Hybrid Intelligence research is significantly influenced by neuroscience. The joint and complementary nature of the interaction of natural and AGI is emphasized, pointing to the potential for synergy when these two forms of intelligence are effectively combined, without forgetting the ethical consequences and ensuring that a person is prepared for the transformational changes.

The article studies three questions of having free will in relation to artificial intelligence (AI). Two of them are whether AI can have free will and whether AI can somehow influence the degree to which people have free will. In order to discuss and, where possible, solve these questions are considered different approaches that are presented in contemporary analytic philosophy of consciousness to what should be understood by having free will. The third question addresses some of the main concerns related to the idea of AI having free will.

The article analyzes codes of ethics and other non–legal documents designed to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) systems at all stages of life cycle, from idea and development to implementation and use. The analysis is based on four documents that ought to regulate AI within large territories; three of the four documents are international. The professional codes of ethics of AI developers’ organizations were taken as auxiliary ones.
The author concludes that the following values are protected in all documents: human rights; the benefit of humanity (all people), i.e. humanity as a whole should be the beneficiary of the AI implementation; cultural diversity, non-discrimination. The article shows that reality strongly contradicts the rhetoric of the considered codes of ethics and documents, and, as a result, serious concerns arise during following the codes. In particular, the documents ignore or bypass the issue of military conflicts and the use of AI on the warfare whereas such use has long been a reality. The rhetoric of the codes is based on certain narratives and does not take into account popular concepts in social philosophy. Within the framework of the Marxist approach, the postulated values in the modern world cannot be respected. Humanity cannot be the beneficiary of the AI introduction while capitalism is widespread.

The work analyzes Bryusov’s ideas about machine intelligence and the possible future social role of technology in the context of his doctrine on the fate of culture. The article substantiates the idea that for an outstanding symbolist the interest in the issue of machine intelligence, reflected in his two unfinished texts, was not a random episode that did not have much connection with the main streams of his thoughts. If the first of them refers to the uprise of the machines, prepared by the increasing dependence of people on technical products, which are widely used in everyday life, then the second reflects the situation of the outbreak of First World War, in which Germany relied on technical superiority over the enemies. Bryusov’s reflections are interesting and relevant by comparing human intelligence with the machine one, their difference it emphasizes, but also with some similarity. Since Bryusov connects the possibility of an uprising of the machines with the previous history of mankind, his philosophy of culture includes a number of topics unusual for the scientific mind of his epoch. They are important for the contemporary reader in that they encourage him to think about freedom, responsibility, the meaning of existence.

In the Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel describes the act of the God-incarnation as an ontic possibility for God and an ontological possibility for man. A perfect but unimaginable God comes to fallen humanity in the form of Jesus Christ, a man who embodied the perfection of God. Catherine Malabou calls such a meeting plastic. Plasticity is not the elasticity of rubber, which knows its shape and strives to return to it. Plasticity is not the ability of plastic to fill a steel billet and solidify in it. Plasticity is the property of clay to take the form of a vase in the hands of a potter, remaining clay. Using the concept of “plasticity”, we will try to describe such a meeting of man with AI, in which man changes places with God and appears face to face as the creator in front of his creation, the ideal form of human intelligence – AI. We will show why the expectation of such a meeting is accompanied by both anticipation and anxiety of mankind. AI is looking for the perfect shape, and man is not yet ready to recognize it.

This article considers how Roland Barthes’ concept of “Death of the Author” interacts with contemporary artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, focusing on how those technologies transform Barthes’s proposed notions of authorship. Barthes’ semiotic conception asserts that the interpretation of a text is not limited by the author’s intentions or biographical context. With the rise of AI in content creation, it is proposed to consider that technological mechanism in relation to the concepts proposed by Barthes, namely to demonstrate the applicability of the notion of “author” as “scriptor” and to reflect the form of AI influence in positive and critical literature. As well as reveal the applicability of the concept to visual forms of creative work and give examples of interaction between the “author-scripter” and AI. The interplay between Barth’s theory and the introduction of AI into the work process calls for a reassessment of authorship and textual meaning in relation to traditional literary theories, as well as legal frameworks governing copyright in contemporary society. The article argues that AI, acting as a new “discursive agent”, blurs the boundaries between creator and creation, leading to a heightened state of uncertainty, heterogeneity, and elusiveness.

The German media theorist Dietmar Kamper conflated the approaches of Lacan and Leibniz, criticizing the simulacrum and violence of imagery. For him, digital simulation implies the exhaustion of imagination and of the assumption of the Other, so that reality will only be able to present itself and thereby compel ever new pictures of the world. But Kamper’s thought does not imply indistinguishability in the digital world: there are possible techniques of looking that cannot be depleted as ready-made imagery. With that in mind, we can refine the specific nature of images created by AI. The images are not so much combinations, but rather present a specific gaze technique within the communication that has already begun. If we understand the development of such images as a dialog, then the images will not only be appropriate, but also inspired.

Through the fusion of modern art and technology, digital sculpture is gradually becoming an important area of historical research of modern art. As a new form of artistic expression, digital sculpture is in a period of conceptualization and separation from traditional sculpture The article analyzes the influence of constructivism on the formation of digital sculpture forms; for example, the works of digital artists Jama Dzhurabaev and Xu Zhelong reflect the application of constructivist principles in digital sculpture.
Through the use of digital technology, their work deconstructs and reorganizes the form and space of traditional sculpture, creating digital sculptures with a sense of dynamism and interactivity. The works not only demonstrate the precision and flexibility of digital technology, but also reflect a constructivist conception of the social construction of knowledge and art forms. In the context of the digital age, digital sculpture is a complex art form that combines temporality and dynamism, which not only challenges the creation and perception of traditional sculpture, but also provides artists with unlimited creative possibilities and experimental space With the continuous progress of digital technology, digital sculpture will continue to explore new artistic expressions and concepts , bringing new changes and development to contemporary art.

The article introduces the concept of musical world in the phenomenological sense. Any world has a direct relation to the subject, as well as the subject to the world. There can be a physical world, but also a world of people, a mental world, and a musical world. At the same time the subject both lives in its world and carries its world within itself. The act of any understanding, including musical understanding, is realized through the world and by means of the world. The structure of any world includes the given, the non-given and the values. An analysis of the structures of the musical world is offered. They are not musical pieces, but musical ideas, musical meanings. The unit of musical meaning is the museme. Examples of museme are harmony, motif, melody, rhythm. The values of the musical world are specifically musical, such as preferred harmonies, intervals. Two types of musical worlds are described: the seconds-dominated and the tercets/quarts-dominated, resulting in very different kinds of music. In addition, an important characteristic of the musical world is conflict and dynamism. They are juxtaposed with the nature of Western thinking. The question is raised how the subject’s musical world can influence the worlds of his relationships, thinking, etc.