Between “Non” and “Super”: The Limits of the Human in a Situation of Total Generation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7868/S2782289326040036Keywords:
humanity, non-human, superhuman, artificial intelligence (AI), capitalist realism, dark forest, posthumanism, philosophical anthropologyAbstract
This article is devoted to a philosophical and anthropological analysis of the challenges posed by generative artificial intelligence (AI) to traditional notions of “humanity”. The starting point is a marketing case demonstrating a willingness to delegate creative intentions to an algorithm. The authors emphasize the actualization and transformation of stable binary oppositions:“natural — artificial”, “creative — technical”, “human — non-human”. The article examines the well-known metaphor of the black box, analyzing the opacity of neural networks and the desire for “understandable” and “transparent” AI as a response to a deep-seated mistrust and loss of control over technology. Nietzsche's concept of the “all-too-human” is used to critique contemporary culture, where the desire for comfort, the urge to avoid the “torments” of creativity, and the need for utilitarian rewards find their ultimate expression in trust in convenient and opaque algorithms. “Capitalist realism”and “dark forest” are presented as conceptual frameworks for understanding the socio-cultural context. Generative AI is presented as a new form of “realism”, exacerbating cultural stagnation and the paradox of “depressive hedonism”, while the internet is presented as a “dark forest”, where humans simultaneously hide behind the mask of generativity and exaggerate their basic social instincts. In the final section, the authors place the discussion within a broader philosophical context, polemicizing with critics of postmodernism and posthumanism. The authors argue that posthumanism is not a homogeneous ideology of the “abolition” of humanity, but has the potential to serve as a moral maxim that guides a rethinking of humanity's place in the integral ecosystem. They propose a controversial hypothesis: the contemporary crisis of the “human” is caused not by external technological threats, but by the internal choice of humans, who prefer the delegation of responsibility to the effort of genuine creativity.



