## 1 Introduction
It should be emphasized here that digital cultural heritage includes both digital versions of analogue cultural objects and artifacts originally created in a digital format. According to researchers, these two components are represented by digitized exogenous data and digital endemic data. The endemic digital content includes simulators, quests, educational products, information data [16], as well as multimedia products, hypermedia, online dialogue, and mobile content. In this regard, software is no longer viewed as a code or a computer program, but more of a cultural object or \"a dimension of cultural space\" that provides access to cultural heritage and redistributes cultural practices [17]. At the same time, digitally born objects may refer to either fixed born digital or dynamic born digital [18]. Negative aspects of digitizing and popularizing cultural heritage should also be considered. For example, digital artifacts are believed to be characterized by the following feature: the more meaningless the content, the more the online action tends towards visual impact [19]. Attention is drawn to the difficulty of access to online resources for reasons of both objective and subjective nature. The former include software and hardware problems, high hardware costs, the lack of free or low-cost access, and intellectual property restrictions. The latter include the lack of digital skills and the lack of experience in using national and foreign information systems [20]. Researchers discuss new forms of vulnerability related to the problems of online fakes and \"filter bubbles\" [21]. This being a complex, multi-faceted issue, our article aims at a holistic theoretical comprehension of digital ontology with regard to using AI for popularizing cultural heritage in the context of Russian realia. The adopted methodological strategy includes factor analysis that reveals four types of human-AI interaction. These involve the expanded (\"human intellectual support\") and limited (\"human prerogative\") use of intelligent systems, as well as an applied aspect of AI connected with facilitating \"routine operations\" or operations aimed at solving \"applied problems\" [22]. Descriptive and comparative methods are used. We cannot fail to agree with scholars who emphasize the interdisciplinary nature of this area, comparing it to a \"melting pot\" of various technologies [23]. It is necessary to point out here that researchers involved in the analysis of technologies note that cultural heritage digitization relies on the so-called cross-reality (XR) technologies to represent objects of historical, scientific, and artistic interest. They highlight the efficacy of augmented reality (AR), including the reconstruction of architectural and environmental heritage, exhibition data management, presentation, and storytelling. However, more importantly, this specific augmented reality experience reveals the value of a cutting-edge VV (motion capture) technology to create a digital guide that would \"add flavor\" to museum visitors' museological experience [24]. Along with specific technological methods, attention should be given to an integral approach, which draws together the digital environment as a part of the cognitive system and the cognizing subject located in it [25]. Interdisciplinary analysis reveals statistical data that attest to a growing audience absorbed by screen culture. According to statistics, by the beginning of 2021 the number of Internet users worldwide had increased to 4.54 billion, which is 7% higher than the last year's estimates (298 million new users in comparison with the data for January 2019). According to the Digital 2020 report, the number of internet users in Russia amounted to 118 million in 2020. An average Russian spends 7 h 17 min online every day [26]. Figures are different for different age and gender groups: young people spend more time on the Internet than the older generation, and women spend less time than men.