Abstract In this contribution, I defend the fundamental role of the humanities in preserving the very human component of knowledge, conscience and associated life in an age dominated by the algorithm. The growing role of artificial intelligence and its power to accelerate economic processes risk leading human civilization to a progressive detriment of the rational and social faculties in favor of the automation of work, creativity and channels of socialization and exchange of ideas. The article deals previously with the technical aspects of this phenomenon and eventually sustains a rediscovery of the humanities as a bulwark for the preservation of the purely human component of life.

Abstract Scientific and public debates on the ethical aspects of AI development and deployment often end up focusing on trust in AI systems, rather than on their trustworthiness. This paper argues that actual trust should not be the focus of the debate in AI ethics or the goal of the responsible design, deployment, and assessment of AI systems. The argument will insist on three distinct—although interrelated—points. First, I will argue that trust is a complex psychological phenomenon that is influenced by many contextual and non-rational factors that may have little to do with AI systems’ actual trustworthiness. Then, I will show that some widely employed strategies to foster trust in AI are ethically questionable and hardly compatible with the trustworthy AI paradigm. Finally, I will focus on the fact that trust might lead to unmonitored reliance on systems whose risks are not negligible and, in many cases, largely unknown.

Abstract Computational creativity has gained in the recent years momentum as an established interdisciplinary field, whose aim is to investigate, design and foster artificial intelligence. This article analyses whether artificial outputs can appear to as being creative and assesses thus computational creativity from the standpoint of the receiver. While taking Boden’s distinction between several forms of creativity as a starting point, I argue that creativity implies besides surprise and value an additional essential feature, namely the creative intention, not only from the standpoint of the creator but also of the receiver. Following the notion that I propose, creative intention cannot be identified to the mere absence of randomness, but implies the possibility of interpreting the intention, as well as volition and the expression of personal lived experiences. Subsequently I reflect on the possibility of attributing creativity to computer programs while being aware of their lack of creative intention. I argue that the best solution for this purpose is considering computer programs as co-creative partners, which can be credited as contributors to the creative process. In my conclusive remarks, I assess the implications of this possibility for the notion of creative subject. More precisely, I raise the question whether the latter should necessarily be linked to the notion of creativity, and hence, whether co-creative artificial programs should necessarily be considered as creative subjects.

Abstract Utilizing data from over 11,000 posts and 127,000 responses on Reddit groups over a 10-year period, we employed AI-powered content analysis to examine patterns in the discussions of Reddit users who post about prison and who the model classifies as before/after incarceration across various topics. Our findings revealed significant shifts regarding personal issues. These included issues relative to users’ mental health, substance use, spirituality, family relationships, and guilt and blame expression. The results offered insights into the human challenges faced by individuals navigating the carceral system as expressed through their virtual identities. This study showcases how computational analysis of social media can reveal nuanced, longitudinal patterns in perceived carceral experiences while also highlighting methodological trade-offs between data richness and anonymity.