Abstract
The growing entanglement of humans, digital machines and artificial intelligence (AI) generates 'anthrobotic' protocols (de Miranda, Ramamoorthy and Rovatsos, 2016) that challenge our reflection on philosophical health. Whenever we forget that AI operates under human interpretation and design, then dramatic and anxiogenic narratives become unavoidable as AI is expected to autonomously outsmart humanity in the capacity to think (Geraci, 2008). We need to differentiate what, on the one hand, machines can 'help us' make sense of and of what, on the other hand, humans can think fruitfully about in a non-automated fashion. Moreover, despite the widespread use of the phrase 'artificial intelligence', there is no universal agreement on what intelligence is.