ArchaeaBot’s imagined AI future begins with a microbe’s way of moving

In the artists’ account of ArchaeaBot, a glowing, roughly spherical robot turns its tails in a tank, shifts pebbles and reaches towards the enclosure. The description makes an abstract subject physical: an intelligent system has a body, and that body encounters a world.[3]

Anna Dumitriu and Alex May first presented the work in 2018. It is now included in the Frist Art Museum’s Shimmer: Dreaming the Posthuman, running in Nashville from 25 September to 3 January 2027. Dumitriu also lists it in AI: More Than Human at Mexico City’s Museo Franz Mayer from 9 October.[2][5][1]

The continuing exhibitions offer a reason to revisit a different imagination of AI. Here the question is how a machine might inhabit an environment. Conversation, persuasion and the imitation of a human personality are not the organising tasks.

A microscopic engine becomes a robotic appendage

FACT’s account locates the biological inspiration in Sulfolobus acidocaldarius. These archaea move using appendages called archaella, driven by tiny rotating mechanisms. The artists worked with cryomicroscopist Amanda Wilson through the MARA project at Imperial College London. In the artwork, the robotic archaella are made by 3D printing.[4]

The connection is more specific than giving a machine an organic outline. Movement provides the link between the organism being studied and the object being constructed. A tail can be both a recognisable part of a creature and a mechanical means of encountering its surroundings.

In the published Sapporo artist interview, the tails are described as controlled by a neural network using the robot’s sensors. The built-in learning system receives information including motor speed and direction; the account also describes movement sensing and water-temperature measurements. This is documentation of the work’s earlier design, not a benchmark of a newly released AI system.[3]

That description shifts the meaning of a useful response. In a conversation, an answer is something another person reads or hears. In this installation, behaviour is a movement that changes the relationship between a body and its immediate setting. The gallery makes that relationship available to interpretation without requiring the viewer to mistake it for human thought.

The materials keep the proposition visible

Frist’s current guide describes the work as a robot assembled from 3D-printed PLA, silicone, electrical components and a microcontroller, and dates the exhibited work 2018–26. Its proposed life-form is an artistic construction made from identifiable materials.[6]

That material account matters. A responsive object can invite the feeling that something is striving, exploring or persisting. Those are interpretations of what its movements suggest. The technical description establishes a sensing and control system; it does not establish an inner experience.

May’s project record places the work in a collaboration developed through an EMAP residency at LABoral in Spain. Alongside Wilson’s microscopy research, the artists worked with artificial-intelligence researcher Daniel Polani at the University of Hertfordshire. The piece therefore brings different kinds of expertise into one object rather than treating biology as an ornamental theme.[2]

Survival and progress are different questions

Shimmer supplies a wider context for that encounter. The Frist exhibition brings together 17 artists and connects biological and ecological questions with psychological transformation and the philosophy of being. Its account challenges the assumption that human exceptionalism excuses indifference to other species and environments.[5]

The gallery guide presents ArchaeaBot as an imagined descendant of a microorganism and a robot, capable within that fiction of continuing after humanity. That is the exhibition’s speculative proposition. It is not a report of an organism engineered to withstand planetary collapse.[6]

The useful tension is between persistence and a future worth inhabiting. A machine that continues functioning would answer one technical question. Whether the surrounding world remained hospitable, diverse or desirable would require other judgements. Success for a device cannot, by itself, define success for everyone sharing its environment.

Seen on those terms, the microbial starting point changes the scale of the discussion. It invites attention to the conditions that make activity possible: a body, a medium, a way of sensing and something the movement can change. The artwork’s imagined survivor gives those conditions a visible form.

ArchaeaBot leaves a productive question with its viewers: when we admire a machine’s capacity to adapt, what world are we asking it to adapt to? The answer involves the environment we choose to maintain as much as the capabilities we choose to build.

Report an error or suggest a correction