unique spaces. The Eden Project do not describe themselves as a museum, but arguably are somewhat – in that alongside education and discovery, this site acquires, conserves and presents plants. Natural methods are used to protect plants, in that chemical pesticides and insecticides are replaced by animals, birds or insects, who are introduced into the ecosystem as predators. Through this symbiotic relationship with millions of creatures being welcome and invited to inhabit and exist within this space – a win-win situation. Even though human actors orchestrate these interventions, this is interesting to consider how museums can incorporate nonhuman entities as participants responsible for the care of the collection. Both these museum spaces exemplify methods that mutually benefit humans and nonhumans, when museum spaces are treated as whole ecologies with multiple intra-actions. This really embodies Gurian’s notions of many conflicting and diverse elements within museums, alongside how Massey’s global thinking and treatment of local spaces have the potential to operate within museological spaces. From few selected examples, museum spaces within contemporary practices are for not just humans, but a whole host of other nonhuman actors within various capacities, as both audiences and participants. However physical museum spaces limit scope of ‘who museums are for?’ when considering a posthumanist stance, in that digital museum spaces also interrogate this. When exploring whom museums are for within digital spaces, it is simplistic to reduce the museum online presence as being solely an extension to the museum. However it is important to treat the museum’s digital presence, in all forms it may encompass, as a separate space within its own right. By doing so, only then can we understand a more multi-perspectival view, to identify which actors encounter this space and in what capacity they operate. In terms of online museums inhabiting intangible space, the prevalence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) illustrates the prevalence of alternative nonhuman curators. AI may be used in various capacities within digital museum spaces. The Anne Frank House has employed a Facebook Messenger Bot, to tailor specific digital, remote encounters between the museum and prospective visitors, by sharing photographs and information, depending on what the human recipient has chosen to engage with. This ‘bot’ operates tasks and responds quickly with efficiency and autonomy, according to your requests and interests. This bot is on the front line of museum access; this digital space can be accessed worldwide and may be an individual’s first encounter of accessing the collection. This experience is a finessed and comprehensive showcase of the museum and collection. The discussion also carried a social message within the conversation relating and referencing the wider context surrounding the collection. As an alternative space, we know that genuine exchanges occur though this technology, because outcomes are reached and the software facilitates ‘talking points’ for conversations. However the extent to which this could be considered as humans interacting with other humans, by utilising digital software as the facilitator, can be discussed. By applying Marshall McLuhan’s assertion that technology is an extension of the human, it appears that under human curators, museum practices use digital spaces to facilitate alternative>