Algorithmic Mediation and the Transformation of Social Subjectivity: A Social-Philosophical Analysis of Artificial Intelligence

The article examines how the spread of artificial intelligence changes the practical conditions of human social subjectivity. Social subjectivity is understood as the capacity to act within social relations, receive recognition, participate in communication, and relate one’s actions to their consequences. The central problem lies in the gap between the formal status of the subject and the actual organization of their participation in decision-making. A person retains the right to act, choose, and challenge the result; however, the very situation of choice is increasingly pre-structured by an algorithmic environment through ranking, recommendation, classification, or automated verification. Therefore, interaction with an institution takes place through a social situation that has already been sorted, assessed, and partially directed by a technical system. This requires an analysis of responsibility, explainability, and the possibilities for revising decisions that affect the individual. The study uses social-philosophical, comparative-philosophical, and philosophical-anthropological approaches. The first approach makes it possible to consider AI as part of social procedures rather than as an isolated technology. The second allows the foreign discussion of risks and accountability to be compared with Russian studies of the human being and responsibility. The third keeps the question of the subject as a bearer of action, meaning, and responsibility at the center of the analysis. The novelty of the study relates to the clarification of the category of algorithmic mediation. This category does not replace the concepts of «hybrid system,» «algorithmic governance,» or «artificial sociality,» but describes the transition from technical classification to a socially significant consequence: access to employment, social benefits, medical care, educational assessment, or political information. Three features of such mediation are identified: the preliminary organization of the field of the possible, the distributed character of the institutional result, and the asymmetry of explanation. It is shown that, in this transition, an algorithmic output acquires institutional force and begins to change a person’s position in relation to institutions. The article concludes that socially acceptable AI requires the revisability of decisions, an explanation understandable to the affected person, and a responsible addressee who accepts the consequences of using the system.