Sample Response

AI has quickly become a catalyst for shaping the future, and anthropologists are debating its place among humans. Traditionally, culture has been seen as the domain of meaning-making, creativity, and symbolic communication, qualities closely tied to human consciousness and social interaction. The rapid development of artificial intelligence technologies that simulate human behavior, such as generating text, composing music, and even holding conversations, challenges this assumption. 

​

Anthropologists argue that culture is not merely a product of biology, but a symbolic and social system through which meaning is created, shared, and contested. In this light, AI is not a neutral tool or detached artifact. Rather, it is deeply embedded in the human world: designed by people, shaped by cultural values, and used in ways that reflect human needs and desires. As such, AI does not stand outside of human culture, it is human culture. It is a cultural product and, increasingly, a cultural participant.

​

Consider AI-generated language models or art algorithms. While machines do not possess intention or consciousness, they produce outputs that circulate within cultural systems. A song generated by AI may be streamed by millions, a chatbot may offer mental health support, or an algorithm may co-author a screenplay. These actions are not isolated technical achievements; they are social acts that influence meaning, aesthetics, and behavior. This mirrors anthropologist Clifford Geertz’s view that culture is “webs of significance” spun by humans and interpreted by others. In this case, AI is part of the web, even if it did not spin it alone.

​

However, the presence of AI in the cultural sphere raises deeper questions about agency and life. Can something that does not possess self-awareness or emotion be said to “act”? From a biological standpoint, machines are not alive: they do not grow, reproduce, or metabolize. Yet from a sociocultural perspective, they are increasingly treated as if they are alive, or at least worthy of moral consideration. In Japan, robotic pets are mourned when they break; in the United States, people confess personal thoughts to chatbots. These behaviors suggest that cultural definitions of life and agency are more flexible than biology alone allows.

​

The concept of “social robots” illustrates this shift. Anthropologist Sherry Turkle has explored how people form emotional attachments to machines that simulate empathy, such as eldercare robots or conversational agents. Users project human qualities onto machines not because they are fooled, but because the interaction meets emotional or social needs. In these cases, the machine becomes a participant in social life, even if its participation is performative. This challenges the Cartesian idea that only conscious beings can be agents in society. From an anthropological perspective, what matters is not whether a machine “is” alive, but how it is treated, interpreted, and integrated into cultural practice.

​

Posthumanist theorists like Donna Haraway and Bruno Latour go further, questioning the boundary between the human and nonhuman altogether. Haraway’s “cyborg” metaphor blurs the line between organism and machine, suggesting that hybrid identities are not only possible but increasingly common. Latour’s actor-network theory similarly proposes that agency is distributed across both human and nonhuman entities. In this view, AI does not need to be alive or self-aware to have cultural influence. Its agency is relational and is emerging through networks of interaction with humans, software, institutions, and values.

​

There is a risk that simulated behavior could obscure real inequalities, such as the invisible labor behind AI systems, data labelers, content moderators, and coders, many working under exploitative conditions. Anthropologist Mary L. Gray has shown that AI systems depend heavily on human labor hidden behind the illusion of automation. By focusing only on the output of the machine, we risk erasing the deeply human infrastructure that sustains it.

​

Moreover, AI systems often reproduce and amplify cultural biases. Because they are trained on human-generated data, they inherit our prejudices about race, gender, language, and power. This further proves that AI is not culturally neutral; it reflects and reinforces the social structures from which it emerges. Thus, rather than asking whether AI is “part” of culture, we should recognize that AI is a mirror, and sometimes a magnifier, of the culture that creates it.

​

Machines that simulate human behavior are not outside observers of culture, nor are they simple tools. They are entangled with the human, both shaping and shaped by the cultural systems we live in. They reveal that our definitions of life, agency, and intelligence are not fixed, but evolving—responsive to new forms of interaction and imagination. Anthropology, with its deep attention to context, meaning, and human variability, offers crucial insight into these shifts.

​

Ultimately, AI challenges us not just to redefine machines, but to reconsider ourselves. If intelligence can be simulated, if emotion can be mirrored, if art can be algorithmically composed what, then, is irreducibly human? Perhaps the answer lies not in what machines can do, but in how we respond to their presence: with curiosity, reflection, and an enduring commitment to understanding what it means to live meaningfully, even in an age of artificial minds.