Artificial Intelligence, Transhumanism and Biopolitics

Theoretical Frameworks in the Past Two Decades

Keywords: artificial intelligence (AI), transhumanism, biopolitics, anthropology of artificial intelligence, anthropological studies of technology

Abstract


Artificial Intelligence, Transhumanism and Biopolitics: Theoretical Frameworks in the Past Two Decades

The subject of artificial intelligence has its roots in the 1920s, in the context of philosophy, literature, film, science and its popularization, and gained importance during the Second World War and is linked to the personality of the famous Alan Turing, his thoughts on smart machines, on the one hand, and the beginnings of the use of artificial intelligence for war purposes, on the other. AI has long been the subject of research in anthropology and other social sciences, as it permeates all spheres of social life and concerns philosophical and ethical issues, issues of political power structures and governance. The development of artificial intelligence has opened up space for eternal consideration of the construction of the future of humanity and the role of man and machines in it. The issue of AI development has long occupied science fiction writers and filmmakers, and with the growing popularity of this genre and the increasing reliance of ordinary people on digital technologies in everyday life, the interest for this issue has also expanded to the population around the world. Researchers from the sphere of social sciences can, by their active engagement, try to interpret this phenomenon in an effort to provide a multitude of possible visions of the future of humanity, to point out the advantages, disadvantages and dangers related to access to modern technology, which is increasingly based on artificial intelligence, to show how humanity lives with it and how it affects the formation of new value systems and transforms human personality. In a way, AI can be considered, especially from the point of view of the wider population and certain scientists, among them anthropologists, as an opportunity to realize the utopian dream of objectivity of results and methods in a broader sense, devoid of the influence of politics, ideology and power structures. AI can serve as a tool to break free from the control of political and economic power centers. Also, according to some scientists, AI can ensure privacy and gradually lead to the transformation of existing models of political and economic order.

On the other hand, some authors put transhumanism and the ideas it advocates under scrutiny precisely because it opens up the possibility of using AI as a means of biopolitics. For some, AI can become a means of global control or represents the realization of the fear that autonomous technology will one day deal with humanity. We see such apprehension as a motif in literature and film. Also, religious people and those with a somewhat more traditional value system believe that the development of technology and man's increasing attachment to it, and inadequate attitude towards it, lead to alienation, changes in relations between people and the collapse of value systems, which in a long historical period were considered "desirable" and on which the survival of human society as we know it is based. Therefore, fear of the unknown dominates among these people and the anxiety that if too much freedom is allowed in the process of constantly overcoming previously set civilizational and technological boundaries, the existence and role of man in the modern world may become meaningless.

The development of AI certainly leads to transformations of human society and the individual in it. They can be fast, undesirable, and sometimes society cannot keep pace with such transformations. On the other hand, they can contribute to progress in the sphere of science, health, education, economic and infrastructural development, help in solving population crises, enable the extension and facilitation of human life, etc. Given the multitude of possible scenarios when it comes to the question of directions in which the development of AI can lead humanity, only time will tell to which destination this development will take us.

Author Biographies

Miroslav M. Popović, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy

Библиотека Одељења за историју

Nina Kulenović, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade

Department of Ethnology and Anthropology, Associate Professor

 

References

1. Guo T. Artificial intelligence as human self-knowledge. Anthropology today. 2015; 31 (6): 3-7.
2. Marx L, Merritt Roe S. Introduction. In: Smith, M. and Marx, L., editors. Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press; 1994. p. IX-XV.
3. Weiss DM. Human nature and the digital culture: the case for philosophical anthropology. The Paideia Archive: Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy. 1998; (16): 142-150.
4. Waltorp K, Lanzeni D, Pink S, Smith RC. Introduction: an anthropology of futures and technologies. In: Waltorp K, Lanzeni D, Pink S, Smith RC, editors. An anthropology of futures and technologies. London and New York: Routledge; 2023. p. 1-17.
5. Heidegger M. The Question Concerning Technology and other essays. Translated and with an introduction by W. Lovitt. New York, London: Garland publishing INC. 1977.
6. Carneiro RI, Brown BJ. Foreword. In: White LA. The evolution of culture: the development of civilization to the fall of Rome. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. 2007. p. IX-XVIII.
7. Hojer Bruun M, Wahlberg A. The anthropology of technology: the formation of a field – introduction. In: Hojer Bruun M. et al, editors. The Palgrave handbook of the anthropology of technology. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan; 2022. p. 1-33.
8. Lošonc A. Biopoliitka i/ili biomoć. [Biopolitics and/or biopower]. Filozofija i društvo. 2008; 35 (1): 153-189.
9. Lazzarato M. From Biopower to Biopolitics. Pli. 2002; (13): 99-113.
10. Fuko, M. Rađanje biopolitike: predavanja na Kolež de Fransu 1978-1979. [The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978—1979]. Svetovi: Novi Sad. 2005.
11. Кољевић Griffith БН. Биополитика XXI века и политички реализам = Twenty-first century biopolitics and political realism. Sociološki pregled. 2022; 56 (4): 1229-1250.
12. Forsythe DE. Studying those who study us: an anthropologist in the world of artificial intelligence. Hess DJ, editor. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. 2002.
13. Greisman, H. C. Disenchantment of the World: Romanticism, Aestetics and Sociological Theory. British Journal of Sociology. 1976; 27 (4): 495-507.
14. Owen D, Strong TB. Introduction: Max Weber’s calling to knowledge and action. In: Weber M. The Vocation lectures: “Science as a vocation”, “Politics as a vocation”. Owen D, Strong TB, editors. Translation by Rodney Livingstone. Indianapolis, Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company. 2004. p. I-LXII.
15. Weber M. Science as a vocation. In: Weber M. The Vocation lectures: “Science as a vocation”, “Politics as a vocation”. Owen D, Strong TB, editors. Translation by Rodney Livingstone. Indianapolis, Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company. 2004. p. 1-31.
16. Campolo A, Crawford K. Enchanted determinism: power responsibility in artificial intelligence. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society. 2020; (6): 1-19, DOI:10.17351/ests2020.277
17. Marchenko OV, Kretov PV. Philosophy of information and transhumanism: explications of philosophical anthropology. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research. 2019; (16): 102-115, https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i16.188847
18. Boyd R, Holton RJ. Technology, innovation, employment and power: Does robotics and artificial itelligence really mean social transformation. Journal of Sociology. 2018; 54 (3): 331-345, https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783317726591
19. Wagener, A. Governance of Things: AI & DAOs in Politics - Utopia or Dystopia?
Conference Paper: The Royal Anthropological Institute, London: RAI2022: Anthropology, AI and the Future of Human Society. Panel: P28b: Blockchain Imaginaries: Techno-utopianism, dystopias, and the future-imagining of Web 3.0. 2022: 1-10, https://doi.org/10.57944/1051-129
20. Harkin, ME. Anthropology at the end of the world. Reviews in Anthropology. 2012; (41): 96-108, DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2012.680400
21. Richardson K. An anthropology of robots and AI: annihiliation anxiety and machines. New York and London: Routledge. 2015.
22. Mateas M. Expressive AI: a hybrid art and science practice. Leonardo. 2001; 34 (2): 147-153.
23. Hofkirchner W, Kreowski HJ. Preface. In: Hofkirchner W, Kreowski HJ, editors. Transhumanism: the proper guide to a posthuman condition or a dangerous idea? Cham: Springer. 2021. p. V-VI.
24. Coenen C. Transcending Natural Limitation: The Military-Industrial Complex and the Transhumanist Temptation. In: Hofkirchner W, Kreowski HJ, editors. Transhumanism: the proper guide to a posthuman condition or a dangerous idea? Cham: Springer. 2021. p. 97-110.
25. Ranisch, R. When CRISPR Meets Fantasy: Transhumanism and the Military in the Age of Gene Editing. In: Hofkirchner W, Kreowski HJ, editors. Transhumanism: the proper guide to a posthuman condition or a dangerous idea? Cham: Springer. 2021. p. 111-120.
26. Reymann A, Benedikter R. War in Times of ‘Beyond Man’: Reflections on a “Grand” Contemporary Topic. In: Hofkirchner W, Kreowski HJ, editors. Transhumanism: the proper guide to a posthuman condition or a dangerous idea? Cham: Springer. 2021. p. 121-130.
27. Braga A, Logan RK. The Singularity Hoax: Why Computers Will Never Be More Intelligent than Humans. In: Hofkirchner W, Kreowski HJ, editors. Transhumanism: the proper guide to a posthuman condition or a dangerous idea? Cham: Springer. 2021. p. 133-140.
28. Krzanowski RM, Trombik K. Ethical Machine Safety Test. In: Hofkirchner W, Kreowski HJ, editors. Transhumanism: the proper guide to a posthuman condition or a dangerous idea? Cham: Springer. 2021. p. 141-154.
29. Mustafa Ali S. Transhumanism and/as Whiteness. In: Hofkirchner W, Kreowski HJ, editors. Transhumanism: the proper guide to a posthuman condition or a dangerous idea? Cham: Springer. 2021. p. 169-183.
30. Tratnik P. Bios-Techne. The Biotechnological Politics of the Body and the Politics of Life. Antropologija. 2012; 12 (2): 17-30.
31. Greguric I. Era kiborga – stvaranje „djelimičnih ili potpuno umjetnih bića“. [Cyborg era – the creation of "artificial" being]. Antropologija. 2012; 12 (2): 31-41.
32. Mitrović V. Liberalna eugenika: ideologija poboljšanja? [Liberal eugenics: ideology of "enhancement"]. Antropologija. 2012; 12 (2): 63-79.
33. Ivanović, Zorica. O postsekularnoj paradigmi i pitanju uticaja religije u polju novih medicinskih biotehnologija – nekoliko uvodnih napomena. [On Postsecular Paradigm and Influence of Religion in the Field of New Medical Biotechnologies – Some Introductory Remarks]. Etnoantropološki problemi. 2018; 13 (3): 841-870.
34. Lyon SM, Fischer M. Anthropology and displacement: culture, communication and computers applied to a real world problem. Anthropology in Action. 2006; 13 (3): 40-53.
35. Author. Koncept kulture između individualizma i holizma: pogled iz prosvetiteljsko-kontraprosvetiteljskog spora. [The concept of culture between individualism and holism: a view from the Enlightenment–Counter-Enlightenment dispute]. Beograd: Univerzitet, Filozofski fakultet, Odeljenje za etnologiju i antropologiju: Dosije studio. 2021.
Published
2024/12/12
Section
Članci