Call for chapters: Humans Meet AI


Following our successful international conference in June 2019 at Örebro University, Prof Alessandro Saffiotti and myself will be the editors of the following book. We wish to extend the chapters to authors that did not participate in the symposium. You are welcome to send your abstract before the end of September 2019. Full papers (7000 words) are expected by the end of 2019 and content will be peer-reviewed. The publisher is very likely to be Springer (Anticipation Science Series). Please contact us for more details.

Humans Meet AI

Anticipating Anthrobotic Systems

Much has been said about artificial intelligence being used to replace the need for human workers, and perhaps even for human intelligence. We propose a reflection on the relationship between humans and AI, not in terms of replacement, but in terms of encounter, if possible a collaborative and supportive meeting. How is that possible? First we ought to admit, problematize and understand the anthrobotic nature of our epoch, the fact that humans and intelligent systems are now enmeshed in socio-technical ensembles. Then we need to anticipate what situations, issues or opportunities this merging might implicate, given that AI tools are often used today to reinforce analytical methods of prediction, a form of mechanistic anticipatory intelligence. If human and biological anticipation is more than reactive and mechanistic prediction, how can it play a role in the new anthrobotic symbiosis, if it is a symbiosis: intuitive, participative, proactive, dialectical, creative? This book emerged from the cross-disciplinary conference “Anticipation and Anticipatory Systems: Humans Meet AI”, organized at the university of Örebro in June 2019. It combines papers by computer scientists, philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, historians, etc. It is a unique and long-awaited contribution to the fields of Anticipation Studies and collaborative AI, and a contribution to the necessary cross-disciplinarity needed to solve the challenges and problems of cognitive automation in the twenty-first century.

The Naivety of Transhumanists

In the academic journal Bioethics, Schiller (2017) writes that ‘The Artificial Replacement Thesis suggests that we should replace our species with artificial creatures who are capable of living better lives’ (p. 393). This kind of argument reflect the typical transhumanism naivety regarding human history: humans have not waited for AI to do just what the replacement thesis describes. We are not fully natural. The invention of language or writing for example allowed humanity to live better lives by becoming more artificial: the proof that language and writing are artificial is that they have, still today, to be learned, while most of us don’t have to learn to breathe (breathing is natural).

Schiller, D. (2017). In Defense of Artificial Replacement. Bioethics, 31 (5), 393–399.