The Postdigital Condition and Critical AI Literacy #KRIK

Next up from the KRIK conference in Zagreb is the second keynote The Postdigital Condition and Critical AI Literacy, by Mario Hibert (University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina). He talked about a lot of different scholars and ideas, and I most definitely haven't captured all of this in my liveblog. However, hopefully it gives a flavour of some of his ideas.
The first part of his talk focused on postdigital science and the postdigital condition. The postdigital condition concerns structural transformations in human-machine entanglements that have become so common that they can be difficult to perceive, they become invisible. Hibert observed that the term postdigital itself had appeared and disappeared in different disciplines, starting with art and moving to subjects such as media studies and critical pedagogy, taking root in the social sciences and education. The questioning of the postdigital has become part of its interest, and there is no one definition (discussing definitions is one way in which the concept evolves). One of the goals of the postdigital field is to understand the "messy relationships" between technology, society, people etc. 
Negroponte coined the term postdigitality, saying that the digital would become part of life and invisible, just as plastics have become integrated and banal. However Hibert felt that what was not banal was the "normalisation of infrastructural violence" by digital technologies. Digital's normality obscures the control that platforms exercise. Although the digital apparently gives us "what we think we want" it has resulted in trolling, misinformation. Lovink has argued that the internet has reached a point of no return, with people reacting to machine made prompts (rather than creating proactively). Capitalism can leverage these developments to sustain itself.
Hibert went on to talk about psychopolitics with the subjugated not aware of their own subjugation and then he talked about possible ways of de-platforming. Doctorow has argued that the AI financial bubble will burst, however as AI companies have formed such a disproportion of the stock market then there will be a destructive crash. Also, the use of AI for war has proved one of the most "profitable" uses, so it is possible that the uses that will survive will be escalating wars, with economic and social destruction. Parikka has also identified harms in terms of data (cognitive exploitation etc.), labour (exploitation, free labour etc.) and the environment (water etc.).
Moving on to Hibert's own work, this looks at "Unpacking black boxes" and "Uncovering the "inevitable"". This visualises 3 extractive processes on: material resources, human labour and data. He cited the work of Kate Crawford and Vladan Joler, including Joler's website https://extractivism.online and their joint project Calculating empires.
Talking about the unlearning of human cognition (accelarated by AI), he mentioned (among other things) that the PISA 2025 survey showed a decline in both maths and reading. Hibert also mentioned the work of Neil Postman, including that technology education "is a branch of the humanities". He thought that AI Literacy should extend beyond functional competence, with questioning technology as an important part of education. Also there was a need for literacy education to not just be a requirement of the individual, but also including questioning systemic issues, inequalities etc.
Hibert talked about digital backlash, "Contemporary disenchantment with digital information systems and media gadgets" which exists in this postdigital context. He positioned his concept of the postdigital as critical instruction and orientation. It can provide a broader critical orientation through which AI etc. can be examined. Mapping the infrastructues of the digital (digital/AI cartography) can be used to foreground critical engagement with the issues concerned.
Photo by Sheila Webber: hill track by Zagreb, September 2026