Historically\, the development of artificial intelligence (AI) has been targeted\, in part\, at creating autonomous AI systems. Paradigmatic autonomous systems carry out their functions independently of human guidance. The requirements for capturing the autonomy criterion (i.e.\, independent function) utilized by AI theorists are at odds with the ways philosophers typically designate the term. There is a tension\, then\, with how autonomy is represented in philosophical literature\, and thus\, according to several philosophers\, paradigmatic autonomous AI should not be considered autonomous systems. This tension has recently been extended to the philosophical literature on the development and deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs)\, which behave rather differently than traditional autonomous AI systems. I argue that the autonomy tension breaks down when considering behaviors of LLMs\, including typical behaviors (e.g.\, learning\, reasoning\, planning\, memory retention\, problem solving\, etc.)\, and atypical behaviors (as in the documented cases of alignment faking in certain model instances). I show that LLMs are already exhibiting the characteristics of autonomous systems accepted under multiple philosophical frameworks\, and that they circumvent various problems leveled against the general possibility of developing autonomous artificial systems. Then\, I turn the conversation over to the question of whether these foundational questions about AI systems really matter when considering various practical issues. I elucidate why the autonomy question initially arises but argue that it is not particularly fecund. Instead\, I argue that philosophers should look more precisely at the comparative measurable dynamics of various systems when making practical decisions (e.g.\, decisions about policy\, pursuit-worthiness of model development\, etc.). LLMs are rapidly evolving and are already being implemented in social institutions. As such\, I argue it is more promising to look at the apparent implications of these instances\, rather than bother with foundational issues such as whether systems are really autonomous.
ORGANIZER;CN=Torgeir Fjeld: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260707T033634Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20260808T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20260809T170000 SUMMARY:Artifices: technology\, thought\, art UID:20260717T181121Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@fe80:0:0:0:5864:16ff:fe1a:92fe%3 TZID:Europe/Warsaw LOCATION:EJSMONDA 2\, Gdynia\, Poland DESCRIPTION:Our contemporary world is increasingly enamored by artificiality\, yet the Artificial Intelligence moniker of the latest dot-com bubble triggers profound anxieties. The idea that we can create an artificial intelligence by way of machinic technology is by no means novel in the history of culture. In the Iliad\, for example\, Homer speaks of Hephaestus&lsquo\; &ldquo\;handmaidens wrought of gold in the semblance of living maids&rdquo\;\, characteristic by their intelligence\, speech and strength. To Aristotle\, technê\; \;was a craft grounded in knowledge\, and in this sense AI is precisely a product of practice\, an art. Thus\, it can be argued that artificial is our use of encyclopedias\, as much of our use of chatbots who in turn perform database searches on our behalf. Should not thinking machines\, wrought by our own technological mastery\, be a solace and relief?
\nClearly\, our concerns with AI and the potential chaos brought about by Large Language Models (LLMs) are significant and diverse. We know that LLMs can have environmental\, social\, juridical\, and economic effects that are poorly understood\, but potentially cataclysmic in force. artifices\, the 6th Ereignis Conference\, seeks to bring together thinking from across philosophy\, social theory\, and psycho-analysis to shed light on the complex emergence of AI. We approach artifice in its broadest sense: as that which is derived\, non-originary\, or external to traditional notions of the authentic. Relevant areas of examination and contestation are whether AI should be considered as generating a novel kind of alterity\, prompting us to ask whether the Other is being reduced to a zero degree of algorithmization or manifesting as a radical new ethical encounter. Further\, we can ask whether LLMs should be viewed not merely as models of cognition but as schizoanalytic desiring-machines that actively reorganize the circuits of human affect\, labor\, and planetary life. This necessitates a fundamental questioning of the natural/artificial distinction itself\; by deconstructing this binary\, we reveal how our anxieties regarding the cyborg reflect a deeper lack\, forcing us to confront the structural brokenness of a humanity that has always been technologically mediated.
\nThis conference invites new ways of positioning &ldquo\;thinking machines&rdquo\; in relation to humans through the lenses of alterity\, psychoanalysis\, and schizoanalysis. We seek to explore AI not as a mere model of cognition\, but as a machinic assemblage that reorganizes desire\, labor\, and planetary forms of life. Drawing on the tension between the Other as a source of alienation (Sartre) and a source of creation (Levinas)\, we ask how AI functions as a Big Other or as an instansiation of the symbolic order. Beyond simple ethics or regulation\, we aim to address the &ldquo\;cyborging&rdquo\; of humanity and the political task of philosophy -- moving toward a post-Lacanian and Deleuzian understanding of how modes of life and care can be composed within the shadow of the machinic earth.
\nKey Questions
\nWe invite papers from across disciplines that engage one or more of these questions: \;
\nInvitation
\nWe invite papers from all traditions and schools of philosophy and adjoining discipline (critical and social theory\, psycho-analysis and schizoanalysis\, media studies and arts\, literary theory and comparative literature\, etc.) to address any of the topics and questions above. Submissions should be structured\, well-argued\, and show evidence of rigorous scholarship. Include an abstract (max. 300 words) and a short author bio (max. 50 words). \;
\nSubmit abstracts by June 15\, 2026 \;(extended) through our online submission engine at ereignis.no. We will return to you with a notification on acceptance. Registration is required.
\nHybrid format
\nThe conference will be held on-site in Gdynia\, Poland\, on August 8 and 9\, 2026\, and on-line on the Zoom videoconferencing platform for those unable to attend in person. More information about travel and accommodation is available on the conference page. For accepted papers\, registration will be required by July 1\, 2026.
\nConfirmed keynote speaker
\nSessions
\nPapers are timed to 20 minutes and followed by a Q&\;A with the audience. Each session is moderated.
\nPublishing opportunities
\nAll authors are encouraged to submit essay-versions of their presentation to a themed issue of our peer-reviewed journal\, Inscriptions. Deadline for submitting full-text essays will be October 15\, 2026. Note that this journal has its own criteria for submission\, review and publication. For more information\, see the journal&lsquo\;s about page. \;
\nConference fee
\nScholastic committee
\nOrganisers
\nThis event is hosted by Ereignis Center for Philosophy and the Arts and Inscriptions &mdash\; a journal for contemporary thinking on art\, philosophy and psycho-analysis.
\nMore information about travelling to Gdynia\, Poland\, visa requirements\, accommodation\, and some information for those travelling with families is available on the conference page.
ORGANIZER;CN=Torgeir Fjeld: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR