Abstract
The relevance of the study is due to the rapid expansion of digital technologies, which leads to a fundamental transformation of classical ideas about individual and collective responsibility. The article aims to carry out a comprehensive socio-philosophical analysis of the processes of digitalization as a factor in the reformatting of subjectivity, freedom of speech and the ethical principles of urban space. The work is aimed at overcoming technological determinism by appealing to anthropological constants and classical philosophical heritage, in particular the ideas of J. G. Fichte, in the context of the challenges of algorithmic control and the ecological crisis. The study deconstructs the concept of “digitalization” as an ideological construct that imitates scientific objectivity and justifies the transition from passive models of liberal freedoms to a dynamic paradigm of communicative participation. It is proven that in the conditions of manipulative influence of large language models capable of influencing political beliefs through post-optimization methods, the philosophical ideas of J. G. Fichte should be considered as a tool for protecting the cognitive autonomy of the individual. An analysis of international experience, in particular the European AI Act (AI Act 2024), revealed the formation of a risk-oriented model of responsibility, where the transparency of algorithms and human supervision become mandatory regulatory guidelines. It is established that the digitalization of the sociosphere finds its constructive embodiment in the strategies of an intelligent city, where the introduction of biomorphic technologies and electromobility allows harmonizing the artificial and natural environment, minimizing the anthropogenic load on ecosystems. The study confirms that responsibility in the digital age is shifting from the plane of technical serviceability to the dimension of ethical subjectivity and legal accountability of algorithmic systems. The philosophy of technology is identified as a necessary methodological basis for designing a human-centered future, where digital tools serve as a means of strengthening freedom, not an instrument of alienation. Prospects for further exploration are related to the development of ethical protocols for the interaction of the subject with AI and the study of socio-psychological comfort in biomorphic urban structures.
References
1. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng
2. Fichte, J. G. (n.d.). Zurückforderung der Denkfreiheit [Reclaiming freedom of thought]. Zeno.org. http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Fichte,+Johann+Gottlieb/Zur%C3%BCckforderung+der+Denkfreiheit/Rede
3. Frank, M., Geier, T., Hornberg, S., Machold, C., Otterspeer, L., Singer-Brodowski, M., & Stošić, P. (2023). Grenzen auflösen – Grenzen ziehen: Grenzbearbeitungen zwischen Erziehungswissenschaft, Politik und Gesellschaft. Opladen, Berlin, Toronto.
4. Gesnot, R. (2025). The impact of artificial intelligence on human thought. Cornell University. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.16628
5. Hackenburg, K., Tappin, B. M., Hewitt, L., Saunders, E., Black, S., Lin, H., Fist, C., Margetts, H., Rand, D. G., & Summerfield, C. (2025, July 18). The levers of political persuasion with conversational artificial intelligence. Science, 390(6777). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.13919
6. Holodnytskyi, E. (2024, August 1). Z serpnia nabuv chynnosti AI Act – pershyi zakon pro shtuchnyi intelekt v YeS [The AI Act, the first artificial intelligence law in the EU, came into force in August]. International Advisers Association. https://iaa.international/publication/z-serpnia-nabuv-chinnosti-ai-act--pershii-zakon-pro-shtuchnii-intelekt-v-es (in Ukrainian)
7. Ivanova, O. (2024). Etychni vyklyky shtuchnoho intelektu: Antropolohichnyi vymir liudskoi subiektnosti [Ethical challenges of artificial intelligence: An anthropological dimension of human subjectivity]. Actual Problems of Philosophy and Sociology, (51), 72–76. https://doi.org/10.32782/apfs.v051.2024.12 https://doi.org/10.32782/apfs.v051.2024.12 (in Ukrainian)
8. Jünger, J., & Schade, H. (2018). Liegt die Zukunft der Kommunikationswissenschaft in der Vergangenheit? Ein Plädoyer für Kontinuität statt Veränderung bei der Analyse von Digitalisierung. Publizistik, (63), 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-018-0457-6
9. Kruip, G., Späth, E., & Sabater, A. (2025). Ethical aspects of research on AI-based social assessment. In P. Ahrweiler (Ed.), Participatory artificial intelligence in public social services. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-71678-2_3
10. Leiterer, C. (2025). Fichtes Philosophie im Kontext der sozialen Digitalisierung: Selbstbewusstsein, Anerkennung und ethische Handlungsfähigkeit. In M. Opielka & C. Erfurth (Eds.), Soziale Digitalisierung: Perspektiven der Sozialpolitik. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-46328-1_24
11. Levchenkov, E. (2025). Filosofiia tekhnolohii ta ekolohichna svidomist u dobu rozvytku smart-suspilstva [Philosophy of technology and environmental awareness in the age of smart society]. Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu. Seriia: Filosofsko-politychni studii, (59), 130–136. https://doi.org/10.30970/PPS.2025.59.14 (in Ukrainian)
12. Maine, I., & Bukohwo, E. (2024). The impact of artificial intelligence, ethical implications and technologies on the electoral process. E-Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 5(16), 3211–3219. https://doi.org/10.38159/ehass.202451641
13. Orel, A. (2022). Biomorfnyi urbanizm. Filosofiia rozumnoho mista [Biomorphic urbanism: Philosophy of the smart city]. Mulliversum. Philosophical Almanac, 1(175), 158–176. https://doi.org/10.35423/2078-8142.2022.1.1.11 (in Ukrainian)
14. Petriv, O. (2025, April 25). Rehuliuvannia vykorystannia ShI u vyborchykh protsesakh [Regulation of the use of AI in electoral processes]. Center for Democracy and Rule of Law. https://cedem.org.ua/analytics/ai-vybory/ (in Ukrainian)
15. Schmidt, E., & Cohen, J. (2015). Novyi tsyfrovyi svit. Yak tekhnolohii zminiuiut derzhavu, biznes i nashe zhyttia [The new digital world: How technology is changing the state, business and our lives]. Litopys. (in Ukrainian)
16. Werner, M. (2024). Redefreiheit, Digitalisierung und die Rolle der Philosophie. In R. Adolphi, S. Alpsancar, S. Hahn, & M. Kettner (Eds.), Philosophische Digitalisierungsforschung: Verantwortung, Verständigung, Vernunft, Macht (pp. 155–196). transcript Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839474976-006
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Tetiana Svidlo, Maryna Storozyk, Tetiana Bubon