Generally speaking, people's perceptions are typically connected to their broader attitudes towards technology, rather than prompting deep reflections on the essence of human existence. Most users are primarily concerned about the productivity aspects of AI technologies rather than their influence on human identity. Historically, AI has been regarded and conceptualized as a remarkable and distinct creation, separate from other technologies. Consequently, we have come to view AI as a technology that inherently poses questions to our comprehension of humanity and our personal identity.

1. Yiğit Kalafatoğlu
Ph.D 2023 – İstanbul Bilgi University
BEYOND EXTRAORDINARY: THEORIZING ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE AND THE SELF IN DAILY LIFE*
*This paper draws on the article titled "Beyond Extraordinary: Theorizing Artificial Intelligence and the Self in Daily Life" by Andrea L. Guzman,
found in the book "A Networked Self and Human Augmentics, Artificial Intelligence, Sentience," edited by Zizi Papacharissi.
The idea of "self" refers to a person's perception and recognition of their own identity, which
includes elements like their beliefs, values, feelings, actions, and life experiences. This complex
and cross-disciplinary concept is linked to diverse parts of an individual's character, their roles in
society, and their interactions with others.
Theorists like George Herbert Mead and W. B. Pearce argue that communication is crucial in
shaping the self. They believe that the self emerges through social interactions and communicative
procedures, with people continuously engaging with others and refining their identities.
Mead, in particular, highlighted the role of "symbolic interactionism" in the development of the
self. He suggested that the self is not a fixed entity but is instead formed and constantly redefined
through social engagements and the use of symbols, such as language, gestures, and expressions.
“He saw the human being as an organism having a self. The possession of a self converts
the human being into a special kind of actor, transforms his relation to the world, and
gives his action a unique character. In asserting that the human being has a self, Mead
simply meant that the human being is an object to himself. The human being may
perceive himself, have conceptions of himself, communicate with himself, and act toward
himself.” (Blumer, 1969, pg. 2)
Andrea L. Guzman, in contrast, critiques the customary ways we conceptualize and theorize
artificial intelligence and its influence on the "self." She suggests a dissonance between the
profound, existential consequences usually linked with AI and the more commonplace interactions
that individuals actually experience with AI technologies. Guzman proposes that earlier theories
portrayed AI as something exceptional, emphasizing its profound implications for humankind. The
phrase "AI as extraordinary" refers to the traditional view of artificial intelligence as a distinct and
remarkable technology.
This perspective is predominantly grounded in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics, largely because of AI's capacity to mimic human cognition and behavior,
differentiating it from other technologies. Consequently, it tends to spotlight the metaphysical
consequences of AI, prompting discourse and debates centered around ontology and
existentialism. Nonetheless, her research outcomes suggest that individuals usually regard AI as
another common technology. She notes that existing theories imply a requirement for a fresh
theoretical framework; one that more accurately encapsulates the present condition of AI
technology and the manner in which people interact with it. She basically aims to challenge the

2. existing paradigm and offers a research approach that, instead of starting from the metaphysical
implications, begins from individual-level interactions to theorize back to the metaphysical.
For example, her research on voice-based assistants and the ways people use or interact with these
technologies provides significant insights. It reveals how our daily lives, attitudes, and behaviors
are influenced and shaped by AI. This demonstrates that AI is not an extraordinary, otherworldly
entity, but rather a common part of our everyday experiences.
“People thought of themselves as lazy for vocally asking an agent for directions instead of
just typing an address into the device. They did not want people to perceive them as being
rude for talking to their phone while around others.” (Papacharissi, 2019, pg. 83)
This perspective is designed to accommodate the dynamic character of AI and its integration into
daily routines. Drawing from a symbolic interactionist perspective, we can theorize that
individuals can generate and co-create meanings through their interactions and communicative
exchanges. As they partake in these exchanges, they are perpetually shaping their own identities,
the identities of others, and their perceptions of the world..
Seen through the lens of AI, this argument aligns with the idea that the consequences and influence
of AI are reliant on context and can greatly differ based on individual experiences and utilizations.
Although AI is a game-changing technology, its effects can range from the ordinary to the
extraordinary, contingent on particular applications and user interactions. In this setting, it could
be necessary for all current theoretical frameworks to adapt in order to completely capture these
subtleties.
Andrea L. Guzman reflects on the historical backdrop and implications of artificial intelligence for
human beings and self-conception. She explains how the early advocates of AI believed that
acknowledging machines as intelligent could shake our existing notions of human nature. AI, with
its ambition to mimic human thought processes, has been traditionally perceived as a significant
challenge to our comprehension of what constitutes our humanity. Guzman asserts that while AI
is capable of influencing self-perception, it is not the only technology with this potential.
However, AI has been deemed extraordinary because it strives to replicate something often
considered uniquely human: our cognitive abilities. This viewpoint forms the basis of the
traditional theoretical interpretation of AI. She basically describes how the "intellectual
competition" between humans and machines has been integral to AI development. This concept
has been exemplified in various tests, from Turing's imitation game to the historic chess match
between IBM's Deep Blue and Garry Kasparov, and more recent AI successes in games like
Jeopardy and Go.
Guzman also examines the role of 'AI discourse' in molding our views. The metaphoric and
anthropomorphic language adopted by scientists, the media, and popular culture to talk about AI
can underscore the notion of AI as both a mirror and challenge to human nature. Essentially, AI
was birthed from the potential computers offered, suggesting a future where machines could
accomplish tasks that necessitated human intelligence. The narrative that AI can mimic human

3. cognition has been deemed a "myth," yet in this context, the myth itself propels the exploration of
AI's immense possibilities.
But does AI truly pose a challenge to our concept of human nature?
This question will seemingly continue to be debated for decades to come. Indeed, anthropomorphic
perspectives that emphasize similarities between humans and machines, without acknowledging
the differences, can lead to distorted perceptions of AI's capabilities and underplay the intricate
interplay between AI and humans. When it comes to humanity, as we engage in communication,
we collaboratively create meaning, shaping our perceptions of the world, one another, and
ourselves. Hence, communication is vital in constructing and sustaining our social reality. People
communicate to formulate norms, values, and regulations within a certain social group or culture,
thereby creating a collective understanding of their environment and societal expectations.
What then, of the interaction between AI and humans? How should we view this topic?
Guzman also broaches the subject of AI, particularly in the quest to realize Artificial General
Intelligence (AGI) – an echelon of AI that can execute any intellectual task that a human being is
capable of. The field has since progressed and diversified along various paths. Some researchers
are dedicated to constructing 'intelligent' machines, while others are driven to gain a deeper
comprehension of the human mind.
AGI refers to a type of artificial intelligence that has the capability to understand, learn, and apply
knowledge across a wide array of tasks at a level equal to or beyond a human being. It can transfer
knowledge from one domain to another and solve problems that it wasn't specifically trained to
handle. As AI has diversified and grown more complex, theories centered around 20th century
technology and a fixation on the future potential of AI may no longer provide a full understanding
of AI’s current state and its integration into our everyday lives.
Consequently, there is a necessity to reassess how we theorize the self in connection with AI. This
implies that our theories must progress and adjust in parallel with the technology, and we should
strive for a more detailed comprehension of the human-AI relationship. Guzman highlights the
evolution in AI research from the original aim of devising a machine that parallels human
intelligence to the more targeted, task-specific AI often referred to as "Narrow AI". She asserts
that the urge to monetize AI has resulted in an abundance of narrow AI, which is designed to be
proficient in particular domains rather than simulating the human mind.
AI has become deeply ingrained in our daily routines - even in this response paper - in manners
that may go unnoticed. AI systems are prevalent in residential, automotive, corporate, healthcare,
and internet settings. However, Guzman contends that, despite the pervasive integration of AI into
everyday life, our theoretical perspective of the "self" in conjunction with AI remains entrenched
in the idea of AGI and the perception of AI as an extraordinary, forward-looking technology.
For instance, revisiting Guzman's research on people's interactions with voice-activated AI
entities—examples of narrow AI—she discovered that theories predicated on AGI were
insufficient for interpreting these exchanges. Therefore, it's necessary to revise our theoretical

4. models for comprehending AI to include its practical, day-to-day applications, instead of fixating
on the more speculative, future-directed notion of AGI. Only then can we truly grasp "how
individuals engage with and are affected by AI" in their everyday lives.
Generative AI, inclusive of technologies like the renowned GPT-4, warrant consideration in this
context. These technologies are employed to generate creative content such as images, music,
and text, with thousands of novel variations emerging every day. While these systems can
produce remarkably intricate and inventive outputs, they continue to operate within a specific set
of tasks they've been trained on, lacking a broad understanding across multiple domains.
For this reason, Guzman introduces an approach that conceives interactions with AI not as tool
usage but as communication. In this framework, both humans and machines actively contribute
to shaping their mutual understanding, with the AI being considered not merely as a medium for
human-to-human communication, but as a communication partner in its own right. This
viewpoint facilitates exploration of our understanding of specific AI technologies and our self-
perception in relation to them.
According to the Social Penetration Theory (SPT) put forth by Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor,
interpersonal relationships progressively move from surface-level, public dimensions to more
intimate, private ones as individuals disclose increasingly personal details about themselves over
time. The theory asserts that social relationships, and consequently, the individual self, evolve in
layered stages through both spoken and unspoken communication, much like the peeling of an
onion. This transition navigates from superficial, non-intimate aspects to the more intimate, deeper
layers of the involved individuals (Altman., Taylor, pg. 6).
Every type of relationship involves various levels of closeness and degrees of social penetration.
SPT implies that as connections intensify, individuals progressively reveal their private selves to
others, enhancing the depth of the relationship. Therefore, if the interaction between AI and
humans becomes more profound and a person fully discloses themselves to AI, wouldn't the
openness that arises from this communication create a potential hazard? Isn't it also relevant to
consider who or what the AI is serving and the manner in which it does so? As such, it is crucial
to scrutinize the ownership framework of technology. In this context, it could be essential to
employ a critical economy-politic viewpoint when examining AI.
Guzman further contends that this human-machine interaction framework requires a thorough
understanding of the particular AI technology being examined, including its creators, its intended
use, its features, its level of intelligence, and the context in which it is engaged and interacted
with. Media portrayals and promotional narratives about the technology should also be
considered.
In conclusion, we can say that people's perceptions are usually tied to broader attitudes towards
technology, rather than leading to existential contemplations about humanity. For the majority of
users, the primary concern with AI technologies revolves around their productivity, not their
impact on human identity. Traditionally, AI has been viewed and theorized as an extraordinary
and separate construct, distinct from other technologies. This has led us to see AI as a technology
that inherently challenges our understanding of humanity and our sense of self.

5. However, Guzman asserts that such existential transformations haven't yet taken place. Instead,
there needs to be a paradigm shift towards recognizing AI as a "typical" part of our world. In
doing so, we can examine it within the context of our lived experiences and daily interactions.
This re-conceptualization is vital as it emphasizes that AI, no matter how human-like it may
appear, is not exempt from the processes we employ to comprehend and interpret our world.
This viewpoint acknowledges AI's potential, yet also situates it within the realm of the mundane,
thereby reducing its status as an existential threat and making it more of a tool that can be
comprehended, utilized, and studied within the framework of everyday human existence.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Zizi Papacharissi (2019). A networked self and human augmentics, artificial intelligence
sentience, NewYork: Routledge,Taylor & Francis Group .
 Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
 Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism, University of California Press, Berkeley.