TY - JOUR

T1 - ФИЛОСОФИЯ ОБЩЕНИЯ И ИСКУССТВЕННЫЙ ИНТЕЛЛЕКТ: ОПЫТ СРАВНИТЕЛЬНОГО АНАЛИЗА ДИСКУССИЙ В ОТЕЧЕСТВЕННОЙ И ЗАРУБЕЖНОЙ ЛИТЕРАТУРЕ

AU - Резаев, Андрей Владимирович

AU - Трегубова, Наталья Дамировна

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - The paper aims to analyze three discussions pertaining to the artificial intelligence project that took place on both sides of the “Iron Curtain” since the 1960s: 1) E.V. Ilyenkov – D.I. Dubrovsky (USSR), 2) H. Dreyfus – computer scientists (USA), 3) H. Dreyfus – H. Collins (USA – UK). The authors observe the originality of the arguments of Soviet philosophers in comparison with the discussions in the US and UK. The basis for a comparative analysis of these discussions is the typology of social intercourse paradigms, which assumes the existence of three fundamentally different views of humans as social beings: the information-instrumental, the existential-phenomenological, and the social-institutional paradigms. These views correlate with the ideas about humans within different theoretical structures examining artificial intelligence. The information-instrumental paradigm poses the problem of social intercourse regarding communication, material, and informational exchange (D.I. Dubrovsky, computer scientists). The social-institutional paradigm considers social intercourse as personification, actualization, and implementation of the structural characteristics of social relations (E.V. Ilyenkov). The existential-phenomenological paradigm characterizes social intercourse as the realization of the internal potency of a self-conscious individual (H. Dreyfus). The paper exposes that the theoretical and methodological foundations of the discussions under consideration are similar to the paradigmatic foundations of the analysis of social intercourse in social philosophy and social sciences. There are “two and a half floors” in the research of problems associated with the entry of artificial intelligence technologies into the everyday life of society: 1) philosophy, computer and cognitive sciences; 2) social sciences; 3) interdisciplinary research. A particular paradigmatic structure and a unique research problem characterize each of them. In conclusion, “new old questions” are highlighted that structure the field of contemporary social analytics for studying artificial intelligence and artificial sociality.

AB - The paper aims to analyze three discussions pertaining to the artificial intelligence project that took place on both sides of the “Iron Curtain” since the 1960s: 1) E.V. Ilyenkov – D.I. Dubrovsky (USSR), 2) H. Dreyfus – computer scientists (USA), 3) H. Dreyfus – H. Collins (USA – UK). The authors observe the originality of the arguments of Soviet philosophers in comparison with the discussions in the US and UK. The basis for a comparative analysis of these discussions is the typology of social intercourse paradigms, which assumes the existence of three fundamentally different views of humans as social beings: the information-instrumental, the existential-phenomenological, and the social-institutional paradigms. These views correlate with the ideas about humans within different theoretical structures examining artificial intelligence. The information-instrumental paradigm poses the problem of social intercourse regarding communication, material, and informational exchange (D.I. Dubrovsky, computer scientists). The social-institutional paradigm considers social intercourse as personification, actualization, and implementation of the structural characteristics of social relations (E.V. Ilyenkov). The existential-phenomenological paradigm characterizes social intercourse as the realization of the internal potency of a self-conscious individual (H. Dreyfus). The paper exposes that the theoretical and methodological foundations of the discussions under consideration are similar to the paradigmatic foundations of the analysis of social intercourse in social philosophy and social sciences. There are “two and a half floors” in the research of problems associated with the entry of artificial intelligence technologies into the everyday life of society: 1) philosophy, computer and cognitive sciences; 2) social sciences; 3) interdisciplinary research. A particular paradigmatic structure and a unique research problem characterize each of them. In conclusion, “new old questions” are highlighted that structure the field of contemporary social analytics for studying artificial intelligence and artificial sociality.

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/682ffca2-e20f-3af8-8077-5babbc4de840/

U2 - 10.5840/eps202461230

DO - 10.5840/eps202461230

M3 - статья

VL - 61

SP - 134

EP - 156

JO - ЭПИСТЕМОЛОГИЯ И ФИЛОСОФИЯ НАУКИ

JF - ЭПИСТЕМОЛОГИЯ И ФИЛОСОФИЯ НАУКИ

SN - 1811-833X

IS - 2

ER -