Abstract
Relevance of the research. In a war situation, the problem of developing artificial intelligence becomes extremely relevant. Drones controlled by artificial intelligence and controlled by humans create “kill zones”, artificial intelligence is also used to manipulate consciousness, which dehumanizes the human in a person. In peaceful life, there is a problem of abuse of chatbots, in particular in education and science. Therefore, it is important to study the prospects for the emergence of strong artificial intelligence, which in the future may equal or surpass human intelligence. The problem of humanizing strong artificial intelligence, which will prevent it from harming humans or destroying humanity, becomes an extremely relevant issue.
Problem statement. What is strong artificial intelligence? When we talk about it, we mostly understand cognitive abilities that are equal to or superior to human ones. These are the cognitive abilities that mean posing a problem and solving it independently – the presence of conceptual intelligence. However, what do such abilities mean, what accompanies them and what feeds them, that is, is their basis?
Analysis of recent research and publications. H. Novotny notes that due to the development of artificial intelligence, science is increasingly becoming interdisciplinary and networked, which changes human existence at the personal and social levels. L. Floridi suggests divorcing the concepts of “agency” and “intelligence”; according to the researcher, the carrier of artificial intelligence should be understood as a new form of agency, not intelligence. He believes that artificial intelligence is relevant in a pragmatic, not in a cognitive sense, that is, it acts only as a tool. M. Boden notes that carriers of artificial intelligence can be creative, but not intellectual.
Research task. The task of this article is to invent criteria for humanizing the subject of both natural and artificial intelligence.
Main material presentation. Strong artificial intelligence is studied, which has cognitive abilities that are equal to or superior to human ones. It is determined that these are those cognitive abilities that mean posing a problem and solving it independently - the presence of conceptualizing intelligence. The mental abilities of a person that we want to obtain from a subject with strong artificial intelligence, which are accompanied by some human qualities, without which these abilities are impossible. In other words, in order to achieve the reality of strong artificial intelligence, both the individualization of cognition and the personalization of the entire existence of a subject with artificial intelligence or, in other words, an artificial subject with intelligence are required. The authors propose the main principles of humanization: 1) existential experiences, 2) interaction of consciousness and the subconscious, 3) creativity and co-creation. All of these can be called basic features of the human, and in higher manifestations – humanity. The concept of humanity is defined as the ability to transcend the limits of what is present in human existence, the ability to freely develop all potentialities, not only without harming the Other, but also by assisting the Other in his development.
Conclusions. Speaking about the humanization of a subject with strong artificial intelligence from the standpoint of metaanthropology, we move between the extremes of inhumanity and humanness. On the one hand, we do not seek to create a cold “machine mind” that will always be someone’s tool, and therefore will not be strong, and on the other hand, we do not seek to simply copy the bodily and mental image of a person, locking the subject with artificial intelligence in the existential space of everyday life, to which we artificially attach limitlessness as a desire for power or knowledge and creativity. A subject with strong artificial intelligence should be formed naturally. This naturalness under the conditions of interaction with a person can only be humanization.
Keywords
References
Andrushchenko, VP & Khamitov NV, 2017 ‘Filosofska osvita i nauka yak katalizator tsyvilizatsiinoho proektu Ukrainy [Philosophical Education and Science as a Catalyst for Ukraine’s Civilizational Project]’, Vyshcha osvita Ukrainy, № 2, s. 5–17.
Berdyaev, NA 2023, About the Human Nature. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348512843_NA_Berdyaev_About_the_Human_Nature. [1 March 2026].
Kremen, VH, 2009. ‘Filosofiia liudynotsentryzmu v stratehiiakh osvitnoho prostoru? [The Philosophy of Human-Centrism in Educational Strategies?]’, Kyiv: Pedahohichna dumka, 520 s.
Krylova, SA 2022, ‘Krasa liudyny v zhyttievykh praktykakh kultury. Dosvid sotsialnoi ta kulturnoi metaantropolohii i androhin-analizu [Human Beauty in the Life Practices of Culture: The Experience of Social and Cultural Meta-Anthropology and Androgyne Analysis]’. Monohrafiia, Vydannia 2-e, vydannia, vypravlene i dopovnene, Kyiv, KNT, 536 s.
Pyrozhkov, SI & Khamitov, NV 2020, ‘Chy ye Ukraina tsyvilizatsiinym subiektom istorii ta suchasnosti? [Is Ukraine a Civilizational Actor in History and the Present?]’, Visnyk NAN Ukrainy, № 7, s. 3–15.
Sartr, ZhP 2001, Buttia i nishcho: Narys fenomenolohichnoi ontolohii? [Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology?], Kyiv: Osnovy, 854 s.
Filosofiia nauky i kultury: slovnyk [Philosophy of Science and Culture: A Dictionary] 2025, Za redaktsiieiu N. Khamitova. 2-e vydannia, vypravlene i dopovnene, Kyiv, VADEKS, 486 s.
Khamitov, NV 2023, ‘Dukhovnist i dushevnist’, v kn. Khamitov, NV & Krylova, SA, Liudyna i kultura: slovnyk. Filosofska antropolohiia, filosofiia kultury, kulturolohiia. 2-e vydannia, vypravlene i dopovnene. Kyiv: KNT, s. 63–64.
Khamitov, NV 2018, ‘Metaantropolohiia’, v kn. Khamitov NV & Krylova SA Fylosofskyi slovnyk. Liudyna i svit. Kyiv, KNT, s. 92–94.
Khamitov, NV 2023, Filosofska antropolohiia: aktualni problemy. Vid teoretychnoho do praktychnoho povorotu [Philosophical Anthropology: Contemporary Issues. From a Theoretical to a Practical Turn], 5-ye vydannia, vypravlene i dopovnene. Kyiv, KNT, 405 s.
Khamitov, NV 2021, ‘Filosofska antropolohiia: svitovyi ta vitchyznianyi konteksty [Philosophical Anthropology: Global and Domestic Contexts]’, Visnyk NAN Ukrainy, № 5, s. 81–94.
Khamitov, NV & Krylova, SA 2018, ‘Androhin-analiz [Androgyne Analysis]’, Filosofskyi slovnyk. Liudyna i svit. 2-e vydannia, vypravlene i dopovnene, Kyiv, KNT, s. 9–11.
Khamitov NV & Zobin SV 2020, ‘Metaantropolohiia kak teoriia evoliutsii sylnoho shtuchnoho yntelektu: problema novoi ekzystentsii y novoi kultury [Meta-anthropology as a Theory of the Evolution of Strong Artificial Intelligence: The Problem of a New Existence and a New Culture]’, Liudyna. Ekzystentsiia. Kultura. Pidkhid filosofskoi antropolohii yak metaantropolohii: zbirnyk naukovykh prats. Kyiv, KNT, s. 193–209.
Scheler, M 2019, ‘Philosophische Weltanschauung’, Independently published, 159 s.
Shynkaruk, V 2000, ‘Metodolohichni zasady filosofskykh vchen pro liudynu [Methodological Foundations of Philosophical Teachings on Humanity,” Philosophical Anthropology: Existential Problems]’, Filosofska antropologiia: ekzystentsialni problemy. Kyiv, Pedahohichna dumka, 286 c.
Bidney, D 1968, Theoretical Anthropology, N.Y., 528 p.
Ferrando, F 2018, ‘Posthumanism, Transhumanism, Antihumanism, Metahumanism, and New Materialisms. Differences and Relations’, Existenz, 8/2, p. 26–32.
Khamitov, N & Krylova, S 2011, ‘Metaantropology as a philosophy of moral education in conditions of multicultural world’, Jinju, p. 30–31.
Khamitov, NV & Dandekar, DD 2019, ‘Gender strategies and political leadership’, Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, № 15, Dnipro, p. 40–48.
Khamitov, N 2023, The War in Ukraine and the New Humanism: David versus Goliath. Meta anthropology of history of 21st century, Sofia: Kibea, 124 p.