A special issue of the Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences discusses one of the most important problems of our time – the revelation and analysis of social and humanitarian foundations for evaluation criteria for innovations based on digital technologies and artificial intelligence.

Nowadays, new directions for the development of artificial intelligence (AI) have emerged, the task has been set to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI), which is able to go beyond the narrow AI, gain a high degree of autonomy, independently solve problems in different environmental conditions and thus have the ability to perform the functions of natural intelligence. In this regard, important philosophical, theoretical, and methodological questions arise concerning the definition and evaluation of the social significance of new AI achievements, especially regarding the correlation of their socio-humanitarian and technological aspects. It is necessary to overcome a purely technocratic approach, which usually ignores the negative consequences of digitalization, the possible risks and threats of AI development. These difficulties are conditioned by the paradigm gap between the system of concepts used to describe technologies and the systems of concepts specific to socio-humanitarian descriptions and explanations. The so-called ontological paradox arises during digital transformation and the introduction of AI into social systems. An ontological paradox is also an epistemological paradox, since any statement of an ontological type presupposes its epistemological justification. To overcome this gap, V.E. Lepskiy proposes the conception of self-developing polysubjective environments – cybernetics of the third order. This conception allows to create a conceptual “bridge” between two systems of definitions that do not have direct logical connections between them. A productive tool for this can be the information approach, which is widely used to solve such interdisciplinary problems. This makes possible to theoretically correctly connect technological and socio-humanitarian descriptions in a single conceptual structure and to analyze main socio-humanitarian criteria for evaluating digital innovations. The article discusses in detail the main provisions of the information approach and its application for the development of AGI systems, the socio-humanitarian assessment of AI autonomous development, and the resolution of security issues.

The development of the systems of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital transformation in general lead to the formation of multitude of autonomous agents of artificial and mixed genealogy, as well as to complex structures in the information and regulatory environment with many opportunities and pathologies and a growing level of uncertainty in making managerial decisions. The situation is complicated by the continuing plurality of understanding of the essence of AI systems. The modern expanded understanding of AI goes back to ideas formulated more than 100 years ago. In official national policy documents on the development of AI, working definitions of AI are preferred. The current stage of AI systems life cycle can be assessed as the completion of the initial period in the development of systems associated with weak AI. The ability of artificial systems to realize themselves as a separate person becomes one of the serious scientific and practical challenges. Attention to the issues of the ethics of AIS indicates the expansion of the diversity of its forms and the beginning of the work in the field of goal-setting. New moral and ethical problems also arise in connection with the possibility of the creation of genuine conscious subjects in the foreseeable future. There is an increasing phenomenon of degradation of natural intelligence. It is required to take into account the issue of the heterogeneity of data generated by humans, electronic sensors and network devices in the dynamic complex environments of the digital economy, the issue of the complexity of the process of co-evolution of AI systems, collective and individual natural consciousness. A special area of opportunities and risks is the development of neurotechnologies. The object of control is digital twins, through which there can be manipulation of real attitudes, preferences, and behavior of individuals. As a result, there are the development of technological capabilities that provoke destructive phenomena as well as the formation of a new class of mass addictions.

The article presents grounds for defining the fetish of artificial intelligence (AI). We highlight the fundamental differences of AI from all earlier technological advances, as they are primarily related to its introduction into the human cognitive sphere and generating fundamentally new uncontrollable consequences for society. We provide solid evidence that the leaders of the globalist project are the main beneficiaries of the AI fetish. This is clearly manifested in the works of philosophers who are close to major technology corporations and their mega-projects. We suggest considering the problem of how to use the capabilities of AI to overcome the growing international conflicts and the global crisis. The focus is on the problem of agency, which solution from the standpoint of an anthropomorphic approach to AI is fraught with serious negative consequences. Endowing AI with agency, responsibility is implicitly removed from the person who uses the technology, and the established legislative practice is also destroyed. We present AI as an agent endowed with a set of invariant generalized qualities that is similar to natural subjects. These qualities include: the ability to deliberation, reflexivity, communication and elements of sociability. Such a representation of AI as an agent (pseudo-subject) is consistent with the principle of distributed control in biology and psychology, which was called the principle of a dual subject. In combination with the systems of principles and ontologies specified in the concept of post-nonclassical cybernetics of self-developing environments, this will allow the use of AI as a means of social innovation, while maintaining control over AI technologies. This will also help to pose and solve the problem of integrating formations of artificial and natural intelligence while maintaining the basic qualities of carriers of natural intelligence.

The article addresses the problem of identifying methods to develop the ability of artificial intelligence (AI) systems to provide explanations for their findings. This issue is not new, but, nowadays, the increasing complexity of AI systems is forcing scientists to intensify research in this direction. Modern neural networks contain hundreds of layers of neurons. The number of parameters of these networks reaches trillions, genetic algorithms generate thousands of generations of solutions, and the semantics of AI models become more complicated, going to the quantum and non-local levels. The world’s leading companies are investing heavily in creating explainable AI (XAI). However, the result is still unsatisfactory: a person often cannot understand the “explanations” of AI because the latter makes decisions differently than a person, and perhaps because a good explanation is impossible within the framework of the classical AI paradigm. AI faced a similar problem 40 years ago when expert systems contained only a few hundred logical production rules. The problem was then solved by complicating the logic and building added knowledge bases to explain the conclusions given by AI. At present, other approaches are needed, primarily those that consider the external environment and the subjectivity of AI systems. This work focuses on solving this problem by immersing AI models in the social and economic environment, building ontologies of this environment, taking into account a user profile and creating conditions for purposeful convergence of AI solutions and conclusions to user-friendly goals.

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.

The paper discusses the self-reproduction ability of the existing technogenic civilization and the issues of the influence of self-reproduction mechanisms on the formation of axiological grounds for the use of digital technologies generated by this civilization. The self-reproduction of civilizational structures is considered through their constant repetition in the process of communication. In existing philosophical and sociological studies based on systems approach, the term autopoiesis, introduced for these purposes in the works of N. Luhmann, has already been used to describe such processes. Considering the autopoiesis of the technogenic civilization, the articles relies on the works of V.S. Stepin to determine the main features of that civilization. As a result of the conducted research, it was revealed that the existing internal contradictions of the technogenic civilization that can lead and are already leading to its crisis, including the value one, are caused by simultaneous presence of mutually non-complementary autopoietic structures: (1) the ones related to the industrial and post-industrial era and to the scientific worldview; (2) and structures that have passed into modernity from the pre-industrial era, and yet still are have value and cultural significance in modern society. The author concludes that, forming the value foundations of the use of modern digital technologies, the technogenic civilization is forced to overcome the abovementioned gaps in its own autopoietic structures and create value systems free from these contradictions.

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.

This research discusses the social and humanitarian grounds of measurement and assesment of innovations in the field of digital technologies based on the analysis of the international experience of the standards, in particular on the basis of the Oslo Manual issued by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which is the foundation for ISO standards. From the point of view of digitalization, an important stage in understanding innovation is the recognition of innovation not only as a product, but also a process that leads to increased efficiency. Most of the tasks in the field of digital technologies are precisely related to increasing the efficiency of processes, and, consequently, digitalization is becoming an important criterion for the innovativeness of organizations. One of the purposes of digital technologies is the integration of various types of activities, therefore integrative development (including using digital platforms) is also a criterion of innovation. The digital format is unique since it allows to gain new knowledge from data analysis and processes, and therefore the analytical component, including artificial intelligence technologies, is also an indicator of innovation. The article concludes that the criteria for the innovativeness of digital technologies should include their use to improve the efficiency of organizations, to adopt communicative digital platforms, and to create a variety of data analysis tools, including artificial intelligence.