Статья: ETHER REVIVAL. THE STRUCTURE OF MATTER (2026)

This article presents an attempt to analyze the problem of artificial intelligence (AI) subjectivity in the context of contemporary philosophical, ethical, legal, and technological debates. It is argued that attributing subjectivity to AI systems constitutes a cognitive and philosophical error based on the mistaken interpretation of their ability to perform complex intellectual tasks as evidence of will, consciousness, and responsibility. Particular attention is paid to the phenomenon of simulated subjectivity, which is reinforced by anthropomorphic interfaces and the communicative capabilities of modern AI systems, including generative neural networks, chatbots, and voice assistants. Various theoretical approaches to the understanding of subjectivity are examined, including anthropocentric, posthumanist, and actor-network theories. The article analyzes ethical dilemmas associated with the distribution of responsibility between humans and AI, as well as legal issues, including debates concerning AI legal personhood and its potential social consequences. Cultural and psychological factors contributing to the anthropomorphization of AI, along with the risks associated with the uncritical perception of AI as a subject, are also explored. The study concludes that contemporary AI systems remain technological tools lacking genuine subjectivity, and that full responsibility for their actions and decisions rests with human beings as the sole subjects of thought, creativity, and ethical judgment.

The article examines the possibility of replacing psychotherapists with chatbot systems based on large language models. Drawing on an analysis of Russian and international studies published between 2024 and 2026, the paper identifies the strengths of AI assistants in psychological support, including round-the-clock availability, reduced stigmatization, and a high level of empathic response in standardized scenarios. However, a more detailed analysis reveals fundamental limitations, including the absence of genuine understanding, systematic ethical violations, and the risks of aggravating severe mental health conditions. The article concludes that modern chatbots cannot replace psychotherapists, and that their optimal application lies in a hybrid model in which AI functions as an additional tool in the hands of a specialist.

The beginning of 2026 was marked by an intense debate over the overheating of the artificial intelligence technology market. Massive capital expenditures by leading corporations, declining software company stocks, and pessimistic forecasts from some economists raise the question of whether the AI boom represents one of the largest financial bubbles in history and what consequences its collapse might entail.

This article aims to analyze the arguments of both supporters and opponents of the “AI bubble” hypothesis, as well as to assess the potential economic consequences of a possible market correction.

The central thesis of the study is that even in the event of a severe financial crisis in the AI sector, the fundamental technological shifts triggered by the adoption of artificial intelligence are already irreversible, making purely financial shocks secondary to the depth of the structural transformation of the global economy.

The paper demonstrates that the likelihood of an acute crisis phase caused by the correction of overheated assets does indeed exist. However, even in such a scenario, the consequences would be qualitatively different from those of the dot-com crash. AI is no longer a superstructure but a new economic foundation embedded in infrastructure, production chains, and decision-making processes. A financial crisis may lead to asset revaluation and the bankruptcy of speculative projects, but it will not reverse the efficiency gains and automation that have already occurred.

The main long-term risk and challenge lies not in stock prices, but in the ability of society and the economy to adapt to a new reality in which autonomous agents perform functions that previously required human participation.

The author uses a methodological approach developed by W. S. Jevonson and A. L. Chizhevsky. The years of the solar cycles were numbered according to the order established in solar astrophysics, grouped, and compared with the average values of annual global GDP growth with a lag of one year. The determination coefficient was found to be 0.94.

The correlation coefficient of the average Wolf numbers and the annual growth of world GDP with a lag of 1 year in the interval of years 1–7 of the solar cycles (42 years of observations) is -0.90, and in the interval of years 7–12 of the cycles (29 years of observations) it is 0.81. The determination coefficient in the diagram “average Wolf numbers - annual growth of world GDP with a lag of 1 year” is 0.90 (65 years of observations).

With a 2024 Wolf number of 154.6, global GDP growth in 2025 will be 2.85% (the World Bank estimate is 2.7%), and with a 2025 Wolf number of 123.2, global GDP growth in 2026 will be 3.5% (the World Bank estimate is 2.6%). With a 2030 Wolf number of 11.5 (NASA forecast), global GDP growth in 2031 will be 1.3%.

Solar activity, through ultraviolet radiation and magnetic activity, regulates the biochemical balance of serotonin and melatonin in humans, creating a mood of business optimism in society with Wolf numbers equal to 20–140 or pessimism at its extremes (< 20 and > 140).

This psychological attitude determines the nature of current contracts and investments, which, with a lag of one year (the average duration of the production and contract cycle), are realized at the corresponding rates of growth of global GDP.