Philosophical and Methodological Foundations for Improving Digital Transformation and Implementing Artificial Intelligence

Nowadays, there is an evolving process of digital transformation and the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) into a wide range of social systems. Usually, insufficient attention is paid to assessing the social consequences of such innovations. The underlying causes of that are related to the dominance of the technogenic model of civilization, the embodiment of which is the technocratic approach, and the use of this approach in the interests of the globalist project. In the development and implementation of digital technologies and AI, an ontological paradox arises, for overcoming which it is required to develop adequate philosophical and methodological foundations for assessing social innovations based on digital technologies. The article discusses the expediency of using three types of scientific rationality (classics, non-classics, post-non-classics) to overcome the limitations of the Western model of technogenic civilization and the use of a subjective approach corresponding to this rationality. It is fundamentally important that the three types of scientific rationality correspond to the key stages in the evolution of cybernetics and AI. The evolution of AI is analyzed from these positions and an approach is proposed to overcome the ontological paradox in digital transformations and the implementation of AI. In the context of the development of ideas on scientific rationality, the author considers the specifics of innovative models based on digital technologies and AI. The article examines the problem of the formation of an integrative field of knowledge as the ergonomics of digital transformations and AI, which will allow to take into account the rich ergonomic experience of a multi-criteria socio-humanitarian assessment of the use of computer technology and software: productivity, safety, satisfaction, and development. In the conclusion, the article considers the basic positions of the configurator, that is, of the devise for assessing innovations based on digital technologies and AI, including assessing of scientific, methodological and organizational issues and persons concerned.

1. Berezkin B.S., Lepskiy V.E., Munipov V.M., & Smolyan G.L. (1985) Ergonomic software engineering. In: Ergonomic Support of Computer and ACS Design (pp. 8–19). Moscow: VNIITE (in Russian).

2. Bohr N. (1976) Collected Works. Vol. 3: The Correspondence Principle (1918–1923) (J. R. Nielsen, Ed.). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.

3. Goriunova O. (2019) Digital Subjects: An Introduction. Subjectivity. Vol. 12, no.1, pp. 1–11.

4. Grieves M. (2014) Digital Twin: Manufacturing Excellence through Virtual Factory Replication. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275211047

5. Kuhn T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

6. Lefebvre V.A. (1973) Conflicting Structures. Мoscow: Sovetskoe radio (in Russian).

7. Lektorskiy V.A. (2010) Subject in the History of Philosophy: Problems and Achievements. Metodologiya i istoriya psikhologii. Vol 5, no. 1, pp. 5–18 (in Russian).

8. Lepskiy V.E. (2016) Innovative Development of Russia: A Philosophical Analysis. Filosofiya nauki i tekhniki. Vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 169–187.

9. Lepskiy V. (2018) Evolution of Cybernetics: Philosophical and Methodological Analysis. Kybernetes. Vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 249–261.

10. Lepskiy V.E. (2021a) Artificial Intelligence in Subjective Control Paradigms. Filosofskie nauki = Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences. Vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 88–101 (in Russian).

11. Lepskiy V. (2021b) Systems Analysis of the Foundations for the Formation of new Paradigms of Control. IFAC-PapersOnLine. Vol. 54, no. 13, pp. 622–626.

12. Schwab K. & Malleret T. (2020) COVID-19: The Great Reset. Geneva: Forum Publishing.

13. Stepin V.S. (1989) Scientific Knowledge and Values of Technogenic Civilization. Russian Studies in Philosophy. No 10, pp. 3–18. (in Russian).

14. Stepin V.S. (2003) Theoretical Knowledge. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya (in Russian).

15. Wark S. (2019) The Subject of Circulation: On the Digital Subject’s Technical Individuations. Subjectivity. Vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 65–81.