Sociocultural recursion in the context of actor-network interaction with generative artificial intelligence

Technologies of generative artificial intelligence (hereinafter referred to as GenAI) are becoming an integral part of society, taking part in various socio-cultural and socio-economic spheres, and therefore they actualise the problem of socio-cultural reproduction. Despite the active development of this research vector in terms of generative synthesis effects and risks, there is no detailed conceptualisation of transition processes between the current and predicted states. The purpose of the article is to reveal the essence of the process of forming socio-cultural distortions when interacting with the GenAI. The methodological basis is the actor-network theory. The study reveals the actor structure of interaction with the GenAI as part of the composition of social and generative actors and data array mediating their connection. It is argued that the resulting nature of socio-generative interaction is determined by the social predestination of the data array, which we propose to distinguish in four variants. Moreover, these variants set four types of relationship between the actors, and in the end, socio-cultural meaning-making occurs. The process of transition including the direct one (in which the information-objective result of social-generative interaction transfers to its socially subjective representation) and the revers one (in which the generative-subjective result transfers to its socially objective representation) are conceptualised. It is concluded that this process is a recursive cycle of distorting reproduction of the socio-cultural system. The results contribute to the conceptualisation of the phenomenon of the AI and its role in social systems, complement the discussion regarding the likely effects and risks for society and can serve as a basis for developing regulatory solutions in various areas of the GenAI use.

1. Alekseeva E.A. Is an artificial teacher possible? Technologos. 2020;4:40–55. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.15593/perm.kipf/2020.4.04

2. Barnes J.A. Class and committees in a Norwegian Island parish. Human Relations. 1954;1(7):39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700102

3. Batenova Yu.V. Information space: an interdisciplinary perspective. Innovation in psychological and pedagogical studies. 2015;4(40):7–19. (In Russian).

4. Bylevsky P.G. Socio-cultural risks of large multimodal generative models of “artificial intelligence” (GenAI). Culture and Art. 2024;6:213–224. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0625.2024.6.70926

5. Callon M. Actor network theory. Trans. from Eng. A.G. Kuznetsov. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. 2001. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-08-043076-7/03168-5

6. Chubarov I.M., Popova T.A., Sentsova K.A. The digital other: problems of identity in the artificial intelligence paradigm. International Research Journal. 2024;3(141):95–100. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.23670/IRJ.2024.141.54

7. Darawsheh S.M.H. The digital social actor: the marginalized player in the sociology of social change. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry. 2021;9(12):6322–6338.

8. Denisova G.S., Polonskaya I.N., Susimenko E.V. Actor-network theory: innovative aspects of sociological methodology. Bulletin of the Institute of Sociology. 2022;2(13):137–158. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.19181/vis.2022.13.2.797

9. Foster D. Generative deep learning. Creative applications of neural networks. Trans. from Eng. St. Petersburg: Piter; 2024. 448 p. (In Russian).

10. Goriunova O. Digital subjects: an introduction. Subjectivity. 2019;1(12). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41286-018-00065-2

11. Heimann M., Hübener A.-F. AI as social actor: a Lacanian investigation into social technology. Journal of Digital Social Research. 2023;1(5):48–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v5i1.159

12. Homans J. Social behavior as exchange. In: Modern foreign social psyhology. Trans. from Eng. Moscow: Moscow Order Lenin, October Revolution Order and the Order of Labor Red Banner State University named after M.V. Lomonosov; 1984. Pp. 82–91. (In Russian).

13. Hsu G., Bechky B.A. Exploring the digital undertow: how generative AI impacts social categorizations in creative work. Organization Theory. 2024;3(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877241275118

14. Kim A.V. Methodological approach to study relationships in network: qualitative social network analysis. Interaction. Interview. Interpretation. 2023;3(15):11–30. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.19181/inter.2023.15.3.1

15. Kuzmin A.N., Turovets A.M. The problem of minimizing the total errors of linguistic generative models of neural networks in logistic systems. In: Business. Innovations. Economics. Issue 10. Minsk: Institute of Business of the Belarusian State University; 2024. Pp. 155–160. (In Russian).

16. Laine J., Minkkinen M., Mäntymäki M. Understanding the ethics of generative AI: established and new ethical principles. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2025;1(56). https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.05601

17. Latour B. Reassembling the social. Аn introduction to actor network theory. Trans. from Eng. I. Polonskaya. Moscow: National Research University “Higher School of Economics”; 2014. 382 p. (In Russian).

18. Li Yu., Zhu J. An ethical study of generative AI from the actor-network theory perspective. International Journal on Cybernetics & Informatics. 2024;13(1):67–78. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijci.2024.130106

19. Lichutin A.V. Ontology of recursive structures. Abstr. Diss. … Cand. Sci. (Philos.): 09.00.01. Arkhangelsk: Pomor State University named after M.V. Lomonosov; 2006. 20 p. (In Russian).

20. Orlikowski W.J., Scott S.V. The digital undertow and institutional displacement: a sociomaterial approach. Organization Theory. 2023;2(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877231180898

21. Morozova E.V., Plotichkina N.V., Popova K.I. The state as an agent of digital socialization. Bulletin of Perm University. Political Science. 2019;2(13):5–16. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17072/2218-1067-2019-2-5-16

22. Pirliev K., Tejenova J., Charyev M. Importance of network analysis in study of social connections among juvenile offenders. Bulletin of Science. 2024;3(72(1):401–407. (In Russian).

23. Sazonov A.A. Integration of actor-network theory and the concept of sociotechnical imaginaries in the context of social studies of artificial intelligence. Sociology of Science & Technology. 2024;4(15):83–99. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24412/2079-0910-2024-4-83-99

24. Sedinin Ya.A. Perversion of the digital world: ethics of ChatGPT in the context of psychoanalysis and social philosophy. Journal of wellbeing technologies. 2023;4(51):73–86. (In Russian). https://do.org/10.18799/26584956/2023/4/1664

25. Tishkova A.S. features of digital socialization of modern youth: theoretical excursion. Human capital. 2023:12–1(180):212–218. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.25629/HC.2023.12.19