Scholarlink

<p>“Human-centred AI” has become a dominant formula in contemporary AI governance, yet it rarely specifies what conception of the human being is being placed at the centre of technological development. This article addresses that ambiguity through a comparative qualitative analysis of two layers of discourse: governance-oriented texts and high-level political discourse. Focusing on the European Union, Russia, India, and the BRICS Leaders’ Statement on the Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence, it applies an original codebook distinguishing between well-being (WB), thin human flourishing (HF-T), strong human flourishing (HF-S), and mixed formulations. Across the corpus, WB remains the dominant register, especially where AI is framed in terms of safety, rights protection, development, access, productivity, and institutional coordination. At the same time, the analysis identifies important cross-case and cross-layer differences in normative depth. EU discourse remains predominantly WB across both layers. The BRICS statement is likewise WB-dominant, but incorporates selective HF-T language around education, intellectual autonomy, and the augmentation of human capabilities. India combines a WB developmental backbone with a substantial HF-T layer and selective HF-S, especially where AI is linked to common good and responsibility toward future generations. Russia combines a strong WB strategic core with the clearest movement toward HF-T and HF-S, particularly where political discourse connects AI with cognition, authentic achievement, cultural code, and traditional values. The article argues that “human-centred AI” functions less as a shared normative paradigm than as a contested discursive formula through which different actors embed distinct conceptions of the human good into AI governance.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Human-centred AI between well-being and flourishing: comparing governance and political discourse in the EU, Russia, India, and BRICS

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月18日

查看全文
  • Elena Repman

摘要

“Human-centred AI” has become a dominant formula in contemporary AI governance, yet it rarely specifies what conception of the human being is being placed at the centre of technological development. This article addresses that ambiguity through a comparative qualitative analysis of two layers of discourse: governance-oriented texts and high-level political discourse. Focusing on the European Union, Russia, India, and the BRICS Leaders’ Statement on the Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence, it applies an original codebook distinguishing between well-being (WB), thin human flourishing (HF-T), strong human flourishing (HF-S), and mixed formulations. Across the corpus, WB remains the dominant register, especially where AI is framed in terms of safety, rights protection, development, access, productivity, and institutional coordination. At the same time, the analysis identifies important cross-case and cross-layer differences in normative depth. EU discourse remains predominantly WB across both layers. The BRICS statement is likewise WB-dominant, but incorporates selective HF-T language around education, intellectual autonomy, and the augmentation of human capabilities. India combines a WB developmental backbone with a substantial HF-T layer and selective HF-S, especially where AI is linked to common good and responsibility toward future generations. Russia combines a strong WB strategic core with the clearest movement toward HF-T and HF-S, particularly where political discourse connects AI with cognition, authentic achievement, cultural code, and traditional values. The article argues that “human-centred AI” functions less as a shared normative paradigm than as a contested discursive formula through which different actors embed distinct conceptions of the human good into AI governance.