Value Orientations of Artificial Intelligence Technologies in USA and China: A Philosophical Analysis

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the 21^st century is no longer perceived as a purely technological phenomenon, more and more becoming a social and humanitarian phenomenon that develops in a complex context of cultural, value, philosophical, and ethical aspects of human life. The impact of AI related technologies on contemporary society is still difficult to assess fully, which does not prevent enthusiastic researchers and political leaders from attempting to define a value framework that will ensure the use of AI for societal development. As interest in AI grows, more and more technologically advanced countries in the world are creating their own strategies for the development and use of this technological marvel of the 21^st century. These pioneering documents often seem vague and indefinite, but nevertheless they allow us to assess how the political and scientific and technological elites of these countries see the value orientations of AI technology development, both nationally and internationally. The article presents a philosophical analysis of the value orientations of AI technology development in the USA and China – modern scientific and technological leaders in this field – on the basis of strategic documents defining the development and application of AI in these countries from the position of post-non-classical scientific rationality. The authors of the article conclude that, at the contemporary post-non-classical stage of science development, the value component is not only one of the integral components of scientific and technological activities but may be decisive in determining the goals and objectives of high-tech development at the state level.

1. Arkhipov V.V. & Naumov V.B. (2017a) Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Devices in Legal. SPIIRAS Proceedings. No. 6, pp. 46–62 (in Russian).

2. Arkhipov V.V. & Naumov V.B. (2017b) On Some Issues of the Theoretical Basis for the Development. Zakon. No. 5, pp. 157–170 (in Russian).

3. Beauchamp T.L. & Saghai Y. (2012) The Historical Foundations of the Research-Practice Distinction in Bioethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. Vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 45–56.

4. Floridi L. (2002) What is the Philosophy of Information? Metaphilosophy. Vol. 33, no. 1–2, pp. 123–145.

5. Floridi L. (2008) Foundations of Information Ethics. In: Himma K.E. & Tavani H.T. (Eds.) The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics (pp. 3–24). Hoboken: Wiley.

6. Floridi L. (2013) The Ethics of Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

7. Floridi L. (2019) What the Near Future of Artificial Intelligence Could Be. Philosophy & Technology. Vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1–16.

8. Floridi L. & Cowls J. (2022) A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society. In: Carta S. (Ed.) Machine Learning and the City: Applications in Architecture and Urban Design (pp. 535–545). Hoboken: Wiley.

9. Friedler S.A., Scheidegger C., & Venkatasubramanian S. (2021) The (Im) Possibility of Fairness: Different Value Systems Require Different Mechanisms for Fair Decision Making. Communications of the ACM. Vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 136–143.

10. Lektorsky V.A. (2001) Classical and Nonclassical Epistemology. Moscow: Editorial URSS (in Russian).

11. Lepskiy V.E. (2016) The Technology of Management and Information Wars (From Classical to Post-Non-Classicalneklassike). Moscow: KogitoTsentr (in Russian).

12. Savelyev A.M. & Zhurenkov D.A. (2019) National Strategies for the Development of Artificial Intelligence Systems: The Experience of the Leading Countries and the Situation in Russia. Scientific Bulletin of the Military Industrial Complex of Russia. No. 3, pp. 75–82 (in Russian).

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

14. Umpleby S.A., Medvedeva T.A., & Lepskiy V.E. (2019) Recent Developments in Cybernetics, from Cognition to Social Systems. Cybernetics and Systems. Vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 367–382.