Nataliia Viatkina

The intersection of philosophical research and artificial intelligence (AI) is, at first glance, fertile ground for research, but only at first glance. After all, it is not an easy task to thoroughly delve into the fundamental philosophical principles on which AI developments are based and to realize all the consequences of this relationship fully. The article is devoted to the search for those fundamental principles that may determine the value, effectiveness, and different risks that AI may generate alongside new ideas and experiences. The article exemplifies the role of AI in teaching the course "Research Methods and Analysis in Philosophical Studies" as a study. The author also analyzes the ethical and cognitive problems of AI, using two student research works as illustrations of how the course achievements are applied to consider, in particular, the bias of AI and its limited ability to "judge" compared to humans. Deliberately bypassing the history of AI development, the author describes the closest stage to us when there is a transition to creative processes, especially writing. ChatGPT is used for searching, classifying research objects, generating data, and rewriting with editing, as well as overcoming writer's block, all of which can be accomplished in a matter of minutes. There are also more specialized versions of artificial intelligence for academic work, such as searching and processing literature. True, one also has to deal with the consequences of such "encyclopedism" of AI. The fact is that AI finds information using the work of hundreds of thousands of academics (scientists, teachers), as well as writers. Everyone decides for themselves whether to use such a labor-intensive means of creating texts. However, the mechanism of AI borrowing literary sources requires immediate regulation and constant monitoring of copyright compliance. The article discusses the latest approaches to assessing the role of philosophy, which lays the principles of creating artificial intelligence and is, therefore, a fundamental part of effective AI. A field of AI philosophy is emerging that deepens and illuminates important topics, combining theoretical foundations with practical applications in technology. Furthermore, considering various concepts, such as explainable AI, highlights the need for users to understand, at least in general terms, the meaning of complex models, including information models. The conclusions emphasize the importance of moral responsibility in the development and use of AI, both personal and collective.

The paper is devoted to what happens to information at the level of language and speech when it is being transformed into false or fake information. How can data be restored to its original meaning and context? What is the role of deference in deconstructing concepts, and how could it be combined with Twardowski's approach? K. Twardowski focuses on the fact that some terms can change the meaning of other terms within a sentence, and that restores the meaning and scope of terms to their original meaning relative to the original context is achievable. He formulates the concepts of modifying and restorative terms.

The intersection of philosophical research and artificial intelligence (AI) is, at first glance, fertile ground for research, but only at first glance. After all, it is not an easy task to thoroughly delve into the fundamental philosophical principles on which AI developments are based and to realize all the consequences of this relationship fully. The article is devoted to the search for those fundamental principles that may determine the value, effectiveness, and different risks that AI may generate alongside new ideas and experiences. The article exemplifies the role of AI in teaching the course "Research Methods and Analysis in Philosophical Studies" as a study. The author also analyzes the ethical and cognitive problems of AI, using two student research works as illustrations of how the course achievements are applied to consider, in particular, the bias of AI and its limited ability to "judge" compared to humans. Deliberately bypassing the history of AI development, the author describes the closest stage to us when there is a transition to creative processes, especially writing. ChatGPT is used for searching, classifying research objects, generating data, and rewriting with editing, as well as overcoming writer's block, all of which can be accomplished in a matter of minutes. There are also more specialized versions of artificial intelligence for academic work, such as searching and processing literature. True, one also has to deal with the consequences of such "encyclopedism" of AI. The fact is that AI finds information using the work of hundreds of thousands of academics (scientists, teachers), as well as writers. Everyone decides for themselves whether to use such a labor-intensive means of creating texts. However, the mechanism of AI borrowing literary sources requires immediate regulation and constant monitoring of copyright compliance. The article discusses the latest approaches to assessing the role of philosophy, which lays the principles of creating artificial intelligence and is, therefore, a fundamental part of effective AI. A field of AI philosophy is emerging that deepens and illuminates important topics, combining theoretical foundations with practical applications in technology. Furthermore, considering various concepts, such as explainable AI, highlights the need for users to understand, at least in general terms, the meaning of complex models, including information models. The conclusions emphasize the importance of moral responsibility in the development and use of AI, both personal and collective.

In the process of natural language functioning, in the speech communication, new regulations and requirements are constantly emerging that become normative. In the paper, in focus are (1) the interaction of meaning and normativity, and 2) the process of norm construal through socio-linguistic practice, namely – through the concept of deference, the phenomenon of borrowing concepts, knowledge, information from other people, linguistic communities and sources of information is considered. With the help of deference, the other side of the meaningful relationship is indicated and described when we rely on other people's thoughts, knowledge that we believe to be true and authoritative. This can happen both consciously (deliberately), and unconsciously (by default). The bearers of the norm we rely on can be individuals, groups and large linguistic communities. The deferential mechanism described in the paper captures the fact that the communication participants can effectively use and reason with the help of concepts, with little or no understanding of their true meaning. The tendency towards normativisation, unification of language and speech and corrections of all that does not agree with the common usage of words, meanings, norms in society is disclosed in the paper. A distinction is also parsed between how norms work in closed language communities and research expert groups capable of "structural cooperation" and functional definition of norms. Lastly, the author emphasizes that deference substantially complements the language in which we describe guidance, in relation to the real and symbolic worlds, where our view goes, what we remember and what we design; it is our habitual, conscious or unconscious, but not always correct, use of words, which is an important part of living communication between the social and linguistic communities. This is the case where, in some sense, a defect, a violation of norms, or a hindrance of speech communication becomes (may be) a creative means of distinguishing between what is and is not an extension of the term.

This essay considers calls to boycott working with the Russian academy after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Against the view that such a boycott would prevent Western academics from working with their Russian colleagues to counter Kremlin propaganda and to co-produced Western-Russian research that may benefit everyone, I argue that the Russian censorship and policing of the academy combined with Russian ideology means that there are currently no conversation partners for Western academics within the Russian academy.