ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS AN ANTHROPOTECHNOLOGY

PAGE OF A YOUNG SCIENTIST

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2021.03.180

Keywords:

artificial intelligence, anthropotechnology, everyday life, human nature, digital environment, instrumental rationality

Abstract

Artificial intelligence is a computer system that thinks or acts like humans. Features of AI sys- tems embody implicit beliefs concerning the human nature that AI developers have. “Strong” AI, which has the general cognitive abilities of an adult, has not yet been created, while “weak” AI is already part of the planetary computation infrastructure. Neural network AI mimics specific types of human behavior, generalizing data about the everyday lives of its users. This AI approach corresponds to the philosophical mainstream of the 20th century, when everyday life was seen as a source of the linguistic and the social pre-given that yields mutual understanding. This ap-proach is also based on the traditional human-machine dichotomy and the corresponding idea that human nature is stable and independent of the technological condition. However, in the post-metaphysical age, when human interaction with technology is communicative rather than instrumental, data on everyday life cannot be an independent paragon of the human nature. AI systems do not only codify the descriptive features of human nature, but also discipline their users, as the digital environment in which everyday data can be collected is already organized by AI. Accordingly, in the digital environment, people are forced to reproduce new norms of behav- ior, codified by AI, which became one of the forms of human self-mastery, or anthropotechno- logy. The impact of AI is rarely noted, as the digital environment in which people interact with AI is not organized in a way that is clearly understandable. The anthropotechnological nature of AI is a side effect of the development of platforms, so AI developers rarely take responsibility for the norms embodied in the systems they create.

Author Biography

Mykhailo Bogachov

Master of Philosophy, graduate student of the 3rd year of study, Department of Social Philosophy, Institute of Philosophy. H.S. Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine 4, Triokhsviatytelska St., Kyiv, 02000

References

Anand, K., Wang, Z., Loog, M., van Gemert, J. (2020). Black Magic in Deep Learning: How Human Skill Impacts Network Training. In: ArXiv:2008.05981 [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2008.05981

Bohman, J., Rehg, W. (2017). Jürgen Habermas. In: E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/habermas/

Bratton, B. H. (2015). The stack: On software and sovereignty. http://site.ebrary.com/id/11206783

https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262029575.001.0001

Buhrmester, V., Münch, D., Arens, M. (2019). Analysis of Explainers of Black Box Deep Neural Networks for Computer Vision: A Survey. ArXiv:1911.12116 [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1911. 12116

Dennett, D. C. (1978). Artificial intelligence as philosophy and as psychology. Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology, 109-126.

Domingos, P. (2012). A few useful things to know about machine learning. Communications of the ACM, 55 (10), 78-87.

https://doi.org/10.1145/2347736.2347755

Dreyfus, H. L. (1992). What computers still can't do: A critique of artificial reason. MIT Press. Feenberg, A. (2006). What is the philosophy of technology? In: J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining Technological Literacy: Towards an Epistemological Framework. Palgrave-Macmillan.

Feenberg, A. (2016). Ten paradoxes of technology. [In Ukrainian]. In: Anthology of the Modern Philosophy of Science, or ASIMO Smile (pp. 258-281). Ivan Franko.National University of Lviv.

Gorz, A. (2010). Intangible. Knowledge, value and capital. [In Russian]. PH. SU HSE.

Heidegger, M. (1993a). The Thing. [In Russian]. In: Time and Being: Articles and Speeches (pp. 316-327). PH "Respublika".

Heidegger, M. (1993b). The question of technology. [In Russian]. In: Time and Being: Articles and Speeches (pp. 221-238). PH "Respublika".

Hui, Y. (2016). On the existence of digital objects. University of Minnesota Press.

https://doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816698905.001.0001

Jonas, H. (2001). The principle of communication. At the jokes of ethics for technological civilization. [In Ukrainian]. Libra. [=Йонас 2001]

Li, C. (2020, June 3). OpenAI's GPT-3 Language Model: A Technical Overview. https://lamb-dalabs.com/blog/demystifying-gpt-3/

Liao, S., Meskin, A., Knobe, J. (2020). Dual Character Art Concepts. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 101 (1), 102-128.

https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12301

Lindberg, S. (2019). Being with Technique-Technique as being-with: The technological communities of Gilbert Simondon. Continental Philosophy Review, 52 (3), 299-310.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-019-09466-9

Madden, S. (2012). From Databases to Big Data. IEEE Internet Computing, 16 (3), 4-6.

https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2012.50

McCarthy, J., Minsky, M., Rochester, N., Shannon, C. E. (1955). A Proposal for the Dartmouth

Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html

Müller, C. J. (2016). Prometheanism: Technology, digital culture and human obsolescence. Rowman & Littlefield International.

Nilsson, N. J. (1998). Artificial Intelligence A New Synthesis. Elsevier Science. http://kcl.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1014253

Penrose, R. (1995). Beyond the Doubting of a Shadow A Reply to Commentaries on Shadows of the Mind. PSYCHE: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research On Consciousness, 2. Putnam, H. (Ed.) (1975). The meaning of 'meaning.' In: Mind, Language and Reality (pp. 215- 271). Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625251.014

Reuter, K. (2019). Dual character concepts. Philosophy Compass, 14 (1), e12557.

https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12557

Russell, S. J., Norvig, P. (2020). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (Fourth edition). Pearson.

Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (3), 417- 424.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756

Simondon, G., Adkins, T. (2020). Individuation in light of notions of form and information. Uni- versity of Minnesota Press.

Singularity.FM (2013). Marvin Minsky on AI: The Turing Test is a Joke! (July 12, 2013). https:// www.singularityweblog.com/marvin-minsky/

Sloterdijk, P. (2009). Rules for the Human Zoo: A Response to the Letter on Humanism. En- vironment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27 (1), 12-28.

https://doi.org/10.1068/dst3

Sloterdijk, P. (2014). Anthropo-Technology. New Perspectives Quarterly, 31 (1), 12-19.

https://doi.org/10.1111/npqu.11419

Stiegler, B. (1998). Technics and time. Stanford University Press.

Turing, A. M. (1950). I.-COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE. Mind, LIX (236), 433-460.

https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433

Waldenfels, B. (1991). Everyday life as a melting pot of rationality. [In Russian]. In: Socio-Logos (pp. 39-50). Progress.

Weiser, M. (1999). The Computer for the 21st Century. SIGMOBILE Mob. Comput. Commun. Rev., 3 (3), 3-11.

https://doi.org/10.1145/329124.329126

Yermolenko, A. (2019). Normative coherence of philosophical discourse. [In Ukrainian]. Philosophska Dumka, 5, 21-28.

https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2019.05.021

Abstract views: 40

Published

2021-09-06

How to Cite

Bogachov, M. (2021). ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS AN ANTHROPOTECHNOLOGY: PAGE OF A YOUNG SCIENTIST. Filosofska Dumka, (3), 180–200. https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2021.03.180

Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.