pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.23417 · v1 · pith:JPMYO4WInew · submitted 2026-06-22 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.CY

Digital Humanism and Evolutionary Design

Wolfgang H\"ohl This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 08:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.CY
keywords digital humanismevolutionary designartificial intelligenceopen technology developmentfunctional specializationsubjectivitysustainable softwareconviviality
0
0 comments X

The pith

Digital humanism and evolutionary design share structures that enable mutual synergies in human-centered technology despite differences in autonomy and subjectivity.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper sets out to identify common structures, synergies, and challenges between digital humanism and evolutionary design for guiding how technical systems should be created. A sympathetic reader would care because these ideas address building AI and software that respects human freedom and responsibility instead of being shaped only by market demands. It explores terms like conviviality and subjectivity through examples such as the Turing Test and Chinese Room, while introducing evolutionary concepts including Simondon's open machine and sustainable development practices. The central point is that their cooperation can yield positive effects, but functional specialization from consumer-oriented approaches harms open technology development.

Core claim

Both digital humanism and evolutionary design share similar structures. In joint cooperation, they can lead to positive effects and mutual synergies. Significant differences lie in the areas of autonomy and determination in decision-making, as well as in genuine and simulated subjectivity. Open technology development is currently suffering from the functional specialization of software and AI applications due to a purely market- and consumer-oriented approach, which also has a detrimental effect on quality-oriented development.

What carries the argument

The shared structures between digital humanism and evolutionary design, contrasted against differences in autonomy, decision-making, and subjectivity, analyzed through interdependencies with functional specialization and the open machine concept.

Load-bearing premise

That a purely market- and consumer-oriented approach to software and AI causes functional specialization which detrimentally affects open and quality-oriented technology development.

What would settle it

An empirical case where market-driven AI development increases openness and quality without rising specialization, or where digital humanism and evolutionary design exhibit no shared structures or synergies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23417 by Wolfgang H\"ohl.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Technological Evolution and Environmental Design [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Intentions, desires, and beliefs as the result of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Free Human Choice, Technological Development and Environmental Design [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Technological Evolution and Environmental Design as a Result of Artificial Intelligence Decision-Making [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Scope of Application, Energy and Resource Consumption and Ethics as a Result of Human-centered [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper examines the two concepts of digital humanism and evolutionary design. The aim is to identify and highlight potential common structures, synergies, and challenges. How should and can technical systems be designed, and what implications does this have for the design of our environment? In light of the current debate surrounding artificial intelligence, this paper aims to serve as a preliminary study to help better understand the two concepts of digital humanism and evolutionary design within the context of human-centered technological development. Following a brief introduction, the two concepts of Digital Humanism and Evolutionary Design are presented and graphically visualized. The terms of freedom and responsibility in human decision-making, conviviality, and subjectivity are discussed, along with examples illustrating the distinction between human and artificial intelligence (Turing Test and Chinese Room). The various concepts of evolutionary design (e.g., co-evolutionary or sustainable software development, clean code, or green IT) and Gilbert Simondon's concept of the "open machine" are introduced. The interdependencies between functional specialization and open technology development are highlighted. Both concepts share similar structures. In joint cooperation, they can lead to positive effects and mutual synergies. Significant differences lie in the areas of autonomy and determination in decision-making, as well as in genuine and simulated subjectivity. Open technology development is also currently suffering from the functional specialization of software and AI applications due to a purely market- and consumer-oriented approach. Even optimizations for energy efficiency in sustainable software development lead to greater specialization and thus also have a detrimental effect on open and quality-oriented technology development.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a conceptual preliminary study comparing digital humanism and evolutionary design in the context of human-centered AI and technological development. It presents both concepts, discusses freedom/responsibility, conviviality, and subjectivity (with Turing Test and Chinese Room examples), introduces evolutionary design variants (co-evolutionary/sustainable software development, clean code, green IT) and Simondon's open machine, and highlights interdependencies with functional specialization. The central claims are that the two concepts share similar structures enabling mutual synergies, differ in autonomy/determination and genuine vs. simulated subjectivity, and that open technology development currently suffers from detrimental functional specialization in software/AI due to market/consumer-oriented approaches—even energy-efficiency optimizations in sustainable development exacerbate this.

Significance. If the asserted synergies and interdependencies hold, the work could stimulate interdisciplinary dialogue between philosophical humanism and practical software design practices. Its value would lie in framing how concepts like subjectivity and conviviality might guide less specialized, more open technological systems. As presented, however, the contribution remains exploratory and literature-based without new empirical tests, formal models, or case analyses, limiting its immediate impact on cs.AI research or design methodologies.

major comments (1)
  1. [interdependencies between functional specialization and open technology development] The interdependencies section (and concluding paragraph): the claim that 'open technology development is also currently suffering from the functional specialization of software and AI applications due to a purely market- and consumer-oriented approach' and that 'even optimizations for energy efficiency in sustainable software development lead to greater specialization and thus also have a detrimental effect on open and quality-oriented technology development' is asserted as background without mechanism, examples, references, or derivation. This premise is load-bearing for the argument that specialization creates challenges to the claimed synergies.
minor comments (2)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from explicit definitions or citations for key terms (e.g., 'conviviality', 'genuine subjectivity') at first introduction to aid readers unfamiliar with the referenced philosophical traditions.
  2. Figure captions or the graphical visualizations of the two concepts should include legends or annotations clarifying how the diagrams encode the discussed differences in autonomy and subjectivity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review of our conceptual paper. We address the single major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made to strengthen the argument.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The interdependencies section (and concluding paragraph): the claim that 'open technology development is also currently suffering from the functional specialization of software and AI applications due to a purely market- and consumer-oriented approach' and that 'even optimizations for energy efficiency in sustainable software development lead to greater specialization and thus also have a detrimental effect on open and quality-oriented technology development' is asserted as background without mechanism, examples, references, or derivation. This premise is load-bearing for the argument that specialization creates challenges to the claimed synergies.

    Authors: We agree that the interdependencies are stated without explicit mechanisms, examples, or citations, making the premise insufficiently supported for a load-bearing role in the argument. Although the manuscript is positioned as a preliminary conceptual study drawing on the prior sections on market-driven approaches and Simondon's open machine, this does not substitute for a clearer derivation. In revision we will expand the interdependencies section to include: (1) a step-by-step reasoning linking consumer-oriented incentives to reduced openness (e.g., proprietary APIs and data silos), (2) concrete examples such as the specialization induced by energy-optimized but closed-source AI training pipelines, and (3) supporting references from software engineering and STS literature on functional specialization. These additions will directly address how the claimed synergies are challenged. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; conceptual discussion with no derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper is a philosophical comparison of digital humanism and evolutionary design. It contains no equations, fitted parameters, derivations, or mathematical claims. The highlighted interdependencies and assertions about market-driven specialization are presented as background premises rather than derived results. No self-citations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked in a load-bearing way that reduces the central claims to the paper's own inputs by construction. The structure is self-contained as a discussion of established concepts.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on abstract only; the paper draws on domain assumptions from philosophy and AI ethics without introducing free parameters or new entities. Full text might reveal additional structure.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Technical systems design should incorporate human freedom, responsibility, and conviviality.
    Invoked when discussing implications for human decision-making and environment design.
  • ad hoc to paper Market- and consumer-oriented approaches cause detrimental functional specialization in software and AI.
    Stated as a current issue affecting open technology development and energy optimizations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5792 in / 1254 out tokens · 25259 ms · 2026-06-26T08:12:20.026337+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Thomas Fuchs. 2024. Understanding Sophia? On human interaction with artificial agents.Phenom Cogn Sci 2323 (2024), 21–42. doi:10. 1007/s11097-022-09848-0

    2024

  2. [2]

    Kreutzer

    Ralf T. Kreutzer. 2023. Künstliche Intelligenz verstehen: Grundlagen - Use-Cases - unternehmenseigene KI-Journey.Springer Fachmedien2. Auflage (2023). doi:10.1007/978-3-658-42598-2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-658-42598-2 2023

  3. [3]

    Blake Lemoine. 2022. Is LaMDA Sentient? - an Interview.in: Medium, June 11th(2022). https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda- sentient-an-interview-ea64d916d917

    2022

  4. [4]

    Yelle Lieder. 2024. Green Coding – Guidelines für die Entwicklung nachhaltiger Software.adesso Blog vom

    2024

  5. [5]

    https://www.adesso.ch/de_ch/news/blog/green-coding-guidelines- fuer-die-entwicklung-nachhaltiger-software.jsp

    Februar 2024 , Zürich (accessed 14 April 2026)(2024). https://www.adesso.ch/de_ch/news/blog/green-coding-guidelines- fuer-die-entwicklung-nachhaltiger-software.jsp

    2024

  6. [6]

    Martin et al

    R.C. Martin et al. 2026. Clean code: A handbook of agile software craftsmanship.Addison-Wesley ProfessionalSecond Edition (2026)

    2026

  7. [7]

    Julian Nida-Rümelin. 2019. Digitaler Humanismus.Zur Sache - Com- puterethik, MaxPlanckResearch02 (2019), 10–15

    2019

  8. [8]

    Karl R. Popper. 1989. Logik der Forschung.Mohr, Tübingen9., verb. Aufl. (1989)

    1989

  9. [9]

    Ingo Rechenberg. 1994. Evolutionsstrategie ´94.Frommann-Holzboog, Stuttgart(1994)

    1994

  10. [10]

    J. R. Searle. 1980. Minds, brains, and programs.Behavioral and Brain Sciences3(3) (1980), 417–424. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00005756

    work page doi:10.1017/s0140525x00005756 1980

  11. [11]

    Gilbert Simondon. 1980. On the mode of Existence of Technological Objects.University of Western Ontario, Canada(1980)

    1980

  12. [12]

    Smith and H

    B. Smith and H. Shum. 2018. The Future Computed: Artificial intelli- gence and its role in society.Microsoft Corporation, Redmond(2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    Smith et al

    B. Smith et al. 2020. Tools and Weapons - Digitalisierung am Schei- deweg: Versprechen, Gefahren und neue Verantwortung im digitalen Zeitalter.Redline Verlag1. Auflage (2020)

    2020

  14. [14]

    Sonnet et al

    D. Sonnet et al. 2025. Nachhaltige Künstliche Intelligenz: Eine Zukun- ftsvision und ihre Hintergründe.Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden1st ed. (2025). doi:10.1007/978-3-658-46050-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-658-46050-1 2025

  15. [15]

    Heinrich Spoerl. 1933. Die Feuerzangenbowle.Droste Verlag(1933)

    1933

  16. [16]

    A. M. Turing. 1950. Computing Machinery and Intelligence.Mind. Band LIX236 (1950), 433–460. doi:10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433

    work page doi:10.1093/mind/lix.236.433 1950

  17. [17]

    Frei Otto und Bodo Rasch. 2006. Gestalt finden – Auf dem Weg zu einer Baukunst des Minimalen.Edition Axel Menges, Deutscher Werkbund Bayern, München5. Auflage (2006)

    2006

  18. [18]

    Nida-Rümelin und N

    J. Nida-Rümelin und N. Weidenfeld. 2018. Digitaler Humanismus: Eine Ethik für das Zeitalter der Künstlichen Intelligenz.Piper Verlag, München(2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    Mayerson, Bart Rip- perda, and Seppe Staelens.A Beginner’s Guide to Black Hole Imaging and Associated Tests of General Rela- tivity, pages 183–237

    X. Yao und S.Y. Chong. 2025. Evolutionary Computation: An Overview. Coevolutionary Computation and Its Applications. Natural Computing Series, Springer, Singapore3(3) (2025), 417–424. doi:10.1007/978-981- 96-2841-4_1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981- 2025

  20. [20]

    European Union. 2024. Artificial Intelligence Act.Official Journal version of 13 June 2024(2024). https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/

    2024

  21. [21]

    Makoto Sei Watanabe. 2002. Induction Design: A Method for Evolu- tionary Design.Birkhäuser, Basel(2002)

    2002