Demystify Artificial Intelligence

The views traced a clear path forward: preserve human agency, design for inclusion, and demystify AI so that responsibility remains with people, not machines.

How is the term “Digital Humanism” precepted and defined in own words?

• It decribes a human–technology bridge where technology serves humans, not replaces them; emphasizes ethics, interdisciplinarity, and designing systems that benefit people and remain accessible and inclusive for diverse users.
• It is an “ethics of the digital” rather than “digital humanism,” to keep human responsibility central and avoid ascribing agency to machines; influenced by contemporary digital ethics (e.g., Floridi) but critical of notions that shift responsibility from humans to technology.

We are talking about human choices.

Digital humanism is not a slogan, it is an interdisciplinary commitment to ensure that technologies serve human flourishing. The AI researcher framed it as a practical design mandate: interfaces must be inclusive not only for people with disabilities but also for users across the full spectrum of technical experience.

That means rethinking defaults, guidance, and error tolerance so everyone can act responsibly and confidently. It also means using design to cultivate good habits: encouraging source-checking, prompting reflection on uncertainty, and making it easier to spot bias and misinformation.

The framing that attributes “agency” to digital systems has been challenged, because Ethics remains a human discipline. When we talk about the “ethics of the digital,” we are talking about human choices in conception, data curation, development, deployment, and governance. Assigning agency to machines risks blurring accountability and undermining the human responsibility to guide AI.

The fear or rejection of technology rarely helps. Technologies are tools; their impact depends on how we build and govern them. Today’s systems enable unprecedented surveillance, profiling, and behavioral nudging. If a system persistently narrows choices, coaxes consent, or obscures what it collects and infers, it has crossed a line.

About the Global South: digital labor demands ethical standards

This is not only about code. It is also about labor, power, and global inequality. Behind the polished interfaces are workers who label data, moderate content, and help train models—often in the Global South or in hidden corners of the North—frequently at low pay and with limited protections. Just as industrial revolutions exposed factory abuses, AI’s rapid scaling reveals supply chains of digital labor that demand ethical standards. A responsible AI strategy must include fair contracting, transparent sourcing, and measurable labor safeguards.

The transfer from the conference stage into daily life

A recurring theme at the conference was literacy, technical and ethical. Too many decisions are made without a working grasp of how large language models function, where they fail, and why they hallucinate. Demystifying AI is essential: when leaders and citizens understand limitations, they can set proportionate rules, ask better questions, and avoid magical thinking. This sober view opens room for “secular” governance—concrete policies, audits, and design choices—over speculative promises of salvation through superintelligence.

In brief from these discussions: What should organizations and teams do now? Some takeaways framed into actions, from conference stage into daily life:

• Design for inclusivity across abilities and technical proficiency; test with diverse users early and often.
• Make uncertainty and sourcing visible; prompt users to verify critical claims and provide easy paths to evidence.
• Publish model facts: training data provenance where possible, known limitations, and intended use cases.
• Audit end-to-end supply chains, including data workforces; require living wages, mental-health safeguards, and grievance mechanisms.
• Build internal AI literacy for leaders, product managers, designers, and legal/compliance teams.
• Keep humans accountable: assign owners for decisions, document trade-offs, and track impacts over time.

What are your reflections about these actions? What do you think is the most important to transfer into practice?

Digital humanism is a culture, not a checklist.

It thrives where teams invite critique, reward transparency, and value humanistic education—critical thinking, ethics, and the long arc from Plato to today’s debates. The goal is not to resist technology, but to shape it and to act responsibly together. The conference is organised by Digital Humanism | Verein zur Förderung des digitalen Humanismus. More Information: https://dighum.wien

The post How digital humanism moves from a conference stage into everyday practice: deep-dive interviews at the DigHum Conference appeared first on dighumcollege Vienna Doctoral College on Digital Humanism.

Addressing the societal challenges of digital technologies requires collective action rather than isolated initiatives.

(Verbatim Conference Participant)

Researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and innovators who share a common interest: shaping technology for the benefit of society. To better understand our community and their perspectives on Digital Humanism, the Vienna Doctoral College on Digital Humanism invited conference participants to take part in a short survey during the event.

The survey represents a sample of conference attendees, what was the motivation to join the conference, how they understand Digital Humanism, and what they take away from the event.

Why do people come to the DigHum Conference? The power of an interactive ecosystem beats “pure” networking.

The survey shows that participants primarily attend the conference to engage with critical questions surrounding digital technologies rather than simply learning about the latest technical innovations.

The strongest motivation by far was the opportunity to explore diverse and critical perspectives on new technologies with the aim to:

• gaining inspiration for professional work,
• learning about innovation and emerging developments,
• discussing approaches for dealing with new technologies.

This suggests that the DigHum community values meaningful dialogue and interdisciplinary exchange over traditional networking alone: ECOSYSTEM over NETWORKING!

A broad understanding of Digital Humanism

The responses illustrate that participants view Digital Humanism as a multidimensional concept rather than a single discipline.

Open comments throughout the survey highlighted themes such as:

• people-centred technology,
• interdisciplinary collaboration,
• ethical responsibility,
• democratic governance,
• AI infrastructure,
• and the societal impact of emerging technologies.

Rather than focusing exclusively on technological innovation, respondents consistently connected Digital Humanism with questions of responsibility, collaboration, and public interest.

Key takeaways from the conference

The qualitative responses paint an encouraging picture of what participants experienced during the conference. Several attendees emphasised the value of encountering multiple perspectives: “Different perspectives and takes on current developments of AI and digital infrastructures.”

Others highlighted the collaborative spirit of the community:

“I’m not alone – there are many like-minded people.”

Participants also appreciated the interdisciplinary nature of the conference, recognising that Digital Humanism requires collaboration across research fields, policy, and practice.

Looking ahead

One particularly encouraging observation is that many participants indicated they would like to return for future editions of the conference. The feedback suggests that DigHum is increasingly recognised as a place where meaningful conversations about technology and society can happen across disciplinary boundaries.

For the Vienna Doctoral College on Digital Humanism, these results reinforce the importance of creating spaces where researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and civil society can jointly reflect on the future of digital technologies.

We thank sincerely everyone who participated in the survey. Your feedback contributes to a better understanding of the growing Digital Humanism community.

The post What We Learned from the Community of the DigHum Conference 2026 appeared first on dighumcollege Vienna Doctoral College on Digital Humanism.

Technology Regulations: about the  balancing act between enabling innovation and protecting fundamental rights

In our June session Nikolaus Forgó from the University of Vienna explored one of the most pressing questions of our digital age: Law, Regulation and Governance of Technology. The discussion highlighted that technology regulation has always been a balancing act between enabling innovation and protecting fundamental rights. Today, with AI systems increasingly shaping decision-making, this balance has become more complex.

A central focus of the lecture was the European Union’s AI Act, the world’s first comprehensive regulatory framework for artificial intelligence. The AI Act follows a risk-based approach: the level of regulatory obligations depends on the probability and severity of potential harm. Certain AI applications are prohibited because they are considered to pose an unacceptable risk, while high-risk systems must comply with strict requirements regarding risk management, data governance, transparency, human oversight, accuracy, robustness, and cybersecurity.

The concept of Risk from different perspectives: Nikolaus made us look beyond the simple idea that “more regulation means more safety.”

The concept of risk itself is complex and depends not only on technological capabilities but also on societal values, political priorities, and our perception of uncertainty. The history of technology regulation demonstrates that fears about emerging technologies can influence legislation just as much as measurable risks.

Can trustworthy AI, based on transparency, accountability, and respect for human rights, become a strategic advantage for Europe?

The lecture also addressed the ongoing debate around whether European regulation could slow down technological competitiveness.

• Critics argue that extensive rules may discourage innovation and drive AI development elsewhere, particularly to the United States and Asia. Others emphasize that trustworthy AI, based on transparency, accountability, and respect for human rights, can become a strategic advantage for Europe.
• Another important point was the relationship between the AI Act and the broader European digital regulatory landscape.
  AI governance does not exist in isolation but interacts with other legal frameworks, including data protection, cybersecurity, digital services, and digital markets regulation. This creates a complex ecosystem of overlapping responsibilities for technology providers, organizations, and regulators.

The discussion concluded with a broader reflection that lies at the heart of Digital Humanism: technology is never merely a technical question. It is a societal choice that requires legal, ethical, political, and interdisciplinary perspectives.

Nikolaus Forgo is a valued member of our faculty and Supervisor of the PhD project “Legal Frameworks vs. Technological Realities”  (Candidate Julia Kalus).

LinkedIN Profile Nikolaus Forgo

LinkedIN Profile Julai Kalus

The post Law, Regulation and Governance of Technology appeared first on dighumcollege Vienna Doctoral College on Digital Humanism.