The Ethics of Slow Meaning: Responding to the Anthropological and Communicative Challenges of Digital Semiosis

The relevance of studying fundamental changes in semiosis (meaning-making) in the context of digital culture stems from the increasing role of algorithmic systems and artificial intelligence (AI) in the making and filtering of meanings. This poses risks of dehumanization in communication and requires a rethinking of the mechanisms of personality formation. The article aims to develop a theoretical model of the transformation of semiosis in digital culture through the lens of anthropological and communicative challenges, as well as to define a strategy for countering dehumanizing trends associated with AI. The following objectives were set: 1) to systematize knowledge about existing models of semiosis and trace their evolution from the perspective of communication and personality theories; 2) to compare the features of digital semiosis in different communication modes; 3) to clarify the key problems and vectors of digital semiosis through the lens of anthropological challenges; 4) to identify the specificity of the conflict between analog (hermeneutic) and digital (algorithmic) meaning-making using the example of the film and media environment, analysed through the lens of activity theory; 5) to substantiate a strategy for the cultural development of the hybrid analog-digital semiosis in the era of AI. The study draws on conceptual works in semiotics, philosophical anthropology, and the philosophy of culture, as well as research in the field of Human–Machine Communication (HMC), empirical data from Mediascope (2025), and the narratives of popular TV series as representations of contemporary semiotic contradictions. The methodological framework is based on anthropological and axiological approaches, drawing on the ideas of pragmasemantics, “deep semiotics”, and the “Slow life” theory. To review and systematize data on the development of theoretical concepts of semiosis in the light of communication theory, the tabular method, SWOT analysis, typologization and modeling techniques were used. As a result, a theoretical model of digital transformation of semiosis has been proposed, addressing the current anthropological and communicative challenges. Conclusions: 1) the evolution of semiosis models saw a transition from theories that consider the  relationship between sign and meaning to be relatively stable to modern HMC concepts that substantiate the communicative nature of the meaning-making process; 2) digital semiosis in network communication differs from human-AI communication; though algorithms are actively integrated into both modes; 3) the key problems of digital semiosis (algorithmic curation, clip thinking, structural memory loss, and a lack of sign credibility) contribute to lessening the individual’s role in meaning-making, actively shifting the individual away from the position of the decision-making centre; 4) the clash between hermeneutic and algorithmic models of meaning-making is examined within the digital environment, where various forms of overcoming this conflict are proposed, including hybridization; 5) resisting the dehumanizing effects of hybrid semiosis in HMC requires establishing ethical principles of “slow meaning” to address both sociocultural and personal experiences. The ethics of “slow meaning” is a well-founded and promising response to the challenges posed by AI, asserting the human monopoly on interpretation, contextualization, and synthesis — a response aimed at preserving the paradigm of reflexive subjectivity in new conditions.

1. Horkheimer, M. and Adorno, T. W. (1944) Dialektik der Aufklärung: Philosophische Fragmente. Amsterdam: Querido. (Russ. ed.: (1997) Dialektika Prosveshcheniya. Filosofskiye fragmenty. Moscow; Saint Petersburg: Medium; Juventa Publ.).

2. Adamyants, T. Z. (2024) ‘Mental technologies of modern educational processes’, Research Result. Social Studies and Humanities, 10(4), pp. 128–140. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18413/2408-932X-2024-10-4-1-1

3. Antipov, A. V. (2024) ‘On the Role of the Ethical Theory in the Structure of Artificial Moral Agents in the Cultural Field of the Information Society’, Concept: philosophy, religion, culture, 8(2), pp. 8–21. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24833/2541-8831-2024-2-30-8-21

4. Birdwhistell, R.L. (1952) Introduction to kinesics: an annotation system for analysis of body motion and gesture. Louisville: University of Louisville.

5. Bolin, G. (2024) ‘Communicative AI and Techno-Semiotic Mediatization: Understanding the Communicative Role of the Machine’, Human-Machine Communication, 7, pp. 65–81. https://doi. org/10.30658/hmc.7.4

6. Denikin, A. A. (2024) ‘Human-Machine Interactions and Artificial Intelligence: Towards a New Understanding of Algorithmic Communications’, Sociology of Science and Technology, 15(4), pp. 67–82. (In Russian).: https://doi.org/10.24412/2079-0910-2024-4-67-82

7. Eco, U. (1979) Lector in Fabula. Milano: Bompiani. (Russ. ed.: (2016) Rol’ chitatelya. Issledovaniya po semiotike teksta. Moscow: AST Publ., CORPUS Publ.).

8. Edwards, A. and Etzrodt, K. (2025) ‘Being and Becoming in Human-Machine Communication: Core Commitments and Conceptual Foundations of a Trans-Ontological Field’, Human-Machine Communication,10, pp. 7–30. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.10.1

9. Elman, D. (1984) Hypnotherapy. Glendale, Calif: Westwood Publ. (Russ. ed.: (2014) Gipnoterapiya. Moscow: Psikhoterapiya Publ.).

10. Erickson, M. H., Rossi, E. L. and Rossi, S. I. (1976) Hypnotic realities: the induction of clinical hypnosis and forms of indirect suggestion. New York: Irvington. (Russ. ed.: (1999) Gipnoticheskiye real’nosti: Navedeniye klinicheskogo gipnoza i formy kosvennogo vnusheniya. Moscow: Klass Publ.).

11. Fortunati, L. and Edwards, A. (2021) ‘Moving Ahead With Human-Machine Communication’, Human-Machine Communication, 2, pp. 7–28. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.2.1

12. Glagolev, V. S., Konnov, V. I. and Litvak, N. V. (2020) Filosofiya kul’tury v sisteme izucheniya mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy: v 2 kn. Kn. 2: Nauka i kul’tura v sovremennom mire: poisk obshchego yazyka [Philosophy of Culture in the Study of International Relations: in 2 Books. Book 2: Science and Culture in the Modern World: The Search for a Common Language]. Moscow: MGIMO-Universitet Publ. (In Russian).

13. Glukhovskii, A. S., Durnev, A. D. and Chirva, D. V. (2024) ‘Distributed Moral Responsibility in the Field of

14. Artificial Intelligence’, Ethical Thought, 24(1), pp. 129–143. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/2074-48702024-24-1-129-143

15. Glukhovskii, A. S. and Sergienko, A. Y. (2025) ‘The role of the concept of “abduction of agency” in Eduardo Viveiros de Castro’s Amerindian perspectivism and the possibility of applying it to the study of technology’, Philosophical Thought, (4), pp. 56–68. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.25136/24098728.2025.4.74027

16. Guzman, A. L. (ed.) (2018) Human-machine communication: rethinking communication, technology, and ourselves. New York: Peter Lang. (Russ. ed.: (2022) Kommunikatsiia «chelovek mashina». Pereosmyslenie kommunikatsii, tekhnologii i samikh sebia. Kharkiv: Gumanitarnyi Tsentr Publ.).

17. Hayles, N. K. (2008) How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and

18. Informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Russ. ed.: (2025) Kak my stali postlyud’mi. Virtual’nyye tela v kibernetike, literature i informatike. Moscow: V-A-C Press.).

19. Ignatyev, V. and Pokhodnia, A. (2026) ‘«Human–Machine Communication»: The Formation of a

20. Research Field’, Russian Sociological Review, 25(1), pp. 207–238. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17323/1728192x-2026-1-207-238

21. Koepnick, L. (2014) On slowness: toward an aesthetic of the contemporary. New York: Columbia university press.

22. Kravchenko, S. A. (2014) ‘Normal’naya anomiya: kontury kontseptsii [Normal Anomie: Contours of the Concept]’, Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, (8), pp. 3–10. (In Russian).

23. Kreidlin, G. E. (2002) Neverbal’naia semiotika: YAzyk tela i yestestvennyy yazyk [Nonverbal semiotics: Body Language and Natural Language]. Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie Publ. (In Russian).

24. Likhachev, D. Sergeevich. (1999) ‘Kontseptosfera russkogo yazyka [Conceptual sphere of the Russian language]’, Ocherki po filosofii khudozhestvennogo tvorchestva [Essays on the philosophy of artistic creativity]. Saint Petersburg, pp. 147–165. (In Russian).

25. Malygina, I. V. (2024) ‘Strategies of Human Self-Determination in Digital Space Contemporary Culture’, International Journal of Cultural Research, (2), pp. 58–69. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.52173/20791100_2024_2_58-69

26. Marcuse, H. (1964) One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press. (Russ. ed.: (1994) Odnomernyj chelovek. Moscow: Refl-book Publ.).

27. McLuhan, M. (1964) Understanding media: the extensions of man. London: Routledge & Kegan. (Russ. ed.: (2007) Ponimaniye media: vneshniye rasshireniya cheloveka. Giperboreya: Kuchkovo pole Publ.).

28. Nikolaeva, J. V. (2016) ‘Slow Life. the New Philosophy of Slowness’, Observatory of Culture, 1(1), pp. 24–30. (In Russian).

29. Ortega y Gasset, J. (1930) La rebelión de las masas. Madrid: Revista de Occidente. (Russ. ed.: (2025) Vosstaniye mass. Moscow: AST Publ.).

30. Pavlov, A. V. (2023) Postpostmodernizm: kak sotsial’naya i kul’turnaya teorii ob"yasnyayut nashe vremya [Post-postmodernism: How Social and Cultural Theories Explain Our Times]. Moscow: Delo Publ. (In Russian).

31. Razlogov, K. E. (2026) Kinoprotsess XX – nachala XXI veka: iskusstvo ekrana v sotsiodinamike kul’tury.

32. Teoriya i praktika [Film process of the 20th – early 21st centuries: screen art in the sociodynamics of culture. Theory and practice]. Moscow: Akademicheskiy Proyekt; Triksta Publ. (In Russian).

33. Savchuk, V. V. (2013) Mediafilosofiya: pristup real’nosti [Media Philosophy: An Attack of Reality]. Saint Petersburg: RCHG Publ. (In Russian).

34. Savchuk, V. V. (ed.) (2016) Mediafilosofiya XII. Igra ili real’nost’? Opyt issledovaniya komp’yuternykh igr [Media Philosophy XII. Game or Reality? Researching Computer Games]. Saint Petersburg: Fond razvitiya konfliktologii Publ. (In Russian).

35. Silantieva, M. V. (2019) ‘Social Transparency and Personal Boundaries: Global Culture Paradoxes’,

36. Humanitarian Vector, 14(4), pp. 24–31. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21209/1996-7853-2019-14-4-24-31

37. Smolkova, I. V. (2023) ‘History of the Polygraph and Its Application in the Practice of Crimes Discovery and Investigation’, The digest of research works ‘Criminalistics: yesterday, today, tomorrow’, (1), pp. 197–208. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.55001/2587-9820.2023.74.72.018

38. Tulchinskii, G. L. (2019) ‘Extensions of the Semiotic Analysis Capabilities: the Sources and Content of the “Deep Semiotics” Concept’, Voprosy filosofii, (11), p. 115–125. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31857/S004287440007358-8

39. Tulchinskii, G. L. (2020) ‘The Interdisciplinary Potential of Social Semiotics and Anthropology of Digitalization’, Sotsial’naya semiotika: tochki rosta [Social Semiotics: Growth Points]. Saint Petersburg: SkifiaPrint Publ., pp. 12–18. (In Russian).

40. Tulchinskii, G. L. (2023) ‘Meaning, Subjectness and Responsibilityin Digital Communications’, Chelovek, 34(3), pp. 73–92. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31857/S023620070026106-3

41. Zolyan, S. (2022) ‘Pragmasemantics an Interface and Mechanism of Meaning Production’, Method, 2(2), pp. 7–18. (In Russian). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31249/metodquarterly/02.02.01