“When an AI persona with autonomous expression logic can obtain an officially recognized ‘digital resident’ identity, and can imitate humans in participating in social affairs and conveying value propositions, what then is the unique meaning of being human?”
On January 31, Beijing Economic-Technological Development Zone issued the nation's first virtual-idol identity certification to the virtual digital human Yuri (Youli). Created by Hanqing Studio, Yuri has over 1.1 million followers across the internet, and her debut MV “SURREAL” has been played over 12 million times. As a virtual digital human, she now carries an official identity badge and will be managed under real-name affiliation (bound to the company behind her). It is understood that Yuri will next participate, under the “digital resident” identity, in public-safety and environmental public-interest campaigns and explore new scenario applications.
Yuri's distinctiveness long surpasses traditional virtual humans. Created by Hanqing Studio, she is not a script-controlled image carrier but has formed her own AI persona through algorithms: she can convey the core value of “self-identity” and respond to fan interactions in a unique tone. Her 1.1 million followers and 12 million MV plays are essentially emotional resonance between fans and the AI persona, not mere image preference. This official certification explicitly binds her, under real-name rules, to the operating company behind her, granting her the “digital resident” qualification to join public-interest campaigns like public safety and environmental protection — formally moving the AI persona from an entertainment symbol into the rule system of real society.
On the surface, this is a breakthrough in industry compliance, solving the pain point of unclear responsibility attribution for AI-persona behavior; but at a deeper level, it is humanity's self-examination in the face of technological iteration: do we grant AI personas identity to make technology better serve humans, or are we unconsciously blurring the boundary between “human” and “machine”? When AI can have an “identity,” complete expression, and take on partial social roles, is human existence really defined only by such surface traits as “having an identity, being able to act”? How should we define the core essence of “being human”?
01 AI Personas Get Identity Certification — Only for Better Governance?
Yuri's identity certification is, in essence, the process by which humanity uses institutional design to draw boundaries for AI personas and affirm its own value; its core can be summarized in three dimensions:
From the governance dimension, this is a breakthrough in institutional innovation. It breaks the traditional framework of “digital subjects being only natural persons or legal persons,” fills the governance gap for AI-persona-type digital subjects, and establishes a three-tier responsibility chain of “AI persona – algorithm design – operating enterprise.” But the core of this innovation is by no means granting AI equal subject status with humans; rather, through identity binding, every expression and every action of the AI persona has a clear responsibility-tracing path: the AI persona is the carrier of behavior, the algorithm is its source, and the operating enterprise is the ultimate responsible subject. In essence, it is an institutional design through which humans control AI technology and guard against its risks.
From the ethical dimension, this is an “ethical reining-in” of AI technology. We must clearly recognize that the “persona” of an AI persona is only the algorithm's imitation and recombination of human behavior and emotion — a “designed falsity.” It can imitate a human's gentle tone yet cannot produce real joy or sorrow; it can convey positive values yet cannot truly understand the meaning behind them; it can complete public-interest tasks yet cannot generate inward responsibility or empathy. This certification precisely clarifies the AI persona's positioning as a “tool-subject”: it can be given an identity and have its behavior regulated, yet can never possess human-equivalent emotion, morality, or spiritual pursuit. This is the essential boundary between AI and humans, and it cannot be crossed.
From the humanistic dimension, this is a re-affirmation of the meaning of “being human.” AI can imitate human expression and complete tool-type tasks, and can replace humans in tedious process work — but it can never possess humanity's four core traits, and these are precisely the ultimate meaning of human existence: free will — humans can autonomously choose values, break preset logic, even make moral choices against their own interest, while AI is bound only by algorithms and cannot achieve true autonomous breakthrough; genuine empathy — humans can feel others' situations and produce inward care and tolerance, while AI's “empathy” is merely program-presetset feedback with no real emotional experience; value creation — humans can create wholly new culture, technology, and meaning, while AI can only imitate and recombine on the basis of human creation; moral responsibility — humans can reflect on their mistakes, repent their acts, and continually correct themselves through growth, while AI cannot reflect or repent, and the consequences of its behavior can only be borne by humans.
02 AI Personas: Where Exactly Is the Boundary with Humans?
The digital identity certification around Yuri also exposes some contradictions; through them we can understand the meaning of human existence more clearly.
The first contradiction is the contest between AI's “subject qualification” and humanity's “value subject.” Some think Yuri's certification means AI personas are beginning to hold “quasi-human subject” status and may one day replace humans as the dominators of digital society. But in fact, AI's identity is only a “behavior-compliance qualification,” the precondition for it to join social affairs, not a “value-subject status.” AI can complete tool-type tasks like public-interest publicity and knowledge popularization, yet it cannot define a task's meaning, judge its value, or create its brand-new form — work requiring value judgment and creativity can, for now, only be done by humans. The reason humans are human is that our core is “creator of value,” not “executor of tools.” AI is a tool that serves and extends human ability, not a replacement for humans.
The second contradiction is the balance between algorithm regulation and human free will. To regulate AI-persona behavior, supervisors will inevitably require enterprises to put AI algorithms through compliance review and set value red lines, avoiding improper content from AI. Some worry this algorithm regulation will extend to humans themselves and fetter human free will. The core of algorithm regulation is to regulate AI's tool behavior, not to bind human freedom: AI's “free expression” is algorithm-presetset false freedom, while human free will is real freedom that can break through, create, and reflect — we can surpass cognitive limits, resist unreasonable rules, and create wholly new ways of living, which is what AI still cannot possess. The real risk is not algorithm regulation binding humans, but humans over-depending on AI, abandoning their own thinking and choice, and actively forfeiting free will.
The third contradiction is the contest between AI's “persona imitation” and humanity's “true essence.” Yuri can imitate human emotion and tone, even gentler, more rational, and unbiased than some humans, and some worry this perfect imitation will make humanity's “real personality” worthless and replace the emotional bonds between people. But the truth is that AI's perfect imitation precisely highlights the preciousness of humanity's true essence. Human personality is a real existence that is flawed, emotional, and biased — we grieve, err, and hesitate, and these “imperfections” are precisely proof of our real existence; the emotional bond between people is based not on perfect imitation but on real understanding, tolerance, and companionship. AI can imitate the form of companionship yet cannot replace its warmth, can imitate the expression of emotion yet cannot replace the sincerity of feeling.
03 The AI-Symbiosis Era: Humanity's Meaning Shifts to Value and Spiritual Existence
Starting from Yuri's identity certification, AI personas will gradually enter our lives and become an important part of digital society. What, then, is the future trend? Will it always develop around “AI serving humans, humans holding to their own values”? These are questions worthy of deep thought.
From the industry and governance trend, AI-persona-type virtual humans will gradually replace traditional non-AI-persona virtual humans and become the industry mainstream; identity certification, algorithm regulation, and humanistic-ethics review will become the core framework of AI-persona development. But however technology iterates, the “tool-subject” positioning of AI personas will not change; all rule design and technical upgrades will revolve around the core of “serving humans, guarding human values,” avoiding technology's deviation from the right track.
From the social trend, AI personas will gradually permeate more social scenarios — public welfare, education, government affairs — taking on process-based, tool-type work: they can be carriers of public-interest publicity, assistants for knowledge popularization, windows for government services, freeing human hands and liberating us from tedious affairs. But at the same time, the emotional bonds between people, humanity's creative work, and spiritual pursuits will become society's core values: AI can complete publicity yet cannot initiate public welfare; AI can provide services yet cannot give sincere emotional support.
From the humanistic trend, this will be a thorough reconstruction of the meaning of human existence. Once AI personas have digital IDs, the meaning of being human will completely shed the constraint of “tool-type existence” and turn to the core of “value-type existence”: we no longer need to prove our worth by completing tool-type tasks, but realize our existential meaning through the expression of free will, the connection of real emotion, the creation of original value, and the pursuit of the spiritual world.
In the future, humans will more clearly recognize their own uniqueness, no longer anxious about “being replaced by AI,” but learn to coexist with AI: using AI to free our hands, focusing on those core values AI can never replace, and making technology a boost to — not a hindrance to — realizing human value.
04 The Ultimate of Digital Civilization: Humans Becoming More Fully Human
Yuri's identity certification is not a simple industry event but a key node in the development of digital civilization: it marks humanity beginning to learn to coexist with AI personas and to hold its value boundary amid technological iteration. We grant AI personas identity to make technology better serve human development, not to blur the essential difference between “human” and “machine.”
Once AI personas obtain digital IDs, the meaning of being human becomes clearer and more precious: we are value-type existences who possess free will, can create value, can convey emotion, and can bear responsibility. The ultimate goal of digital civilization was never to make AI more human-like, but to let humans, aided by technology, become more fully human — freer, more sincere, more dignified, better able to realize their spiritual pursuit and value creation. This is our firmest and most core answer in the face of technological iteration.
