BXU Logo

Buxoro Xalqaro
Universiteti

9-tom, 1-son, b. 438–442, Nashr: 2026-09-21

SUN’IY INTELLEKT VA BILIM FALSAFASI: RAQAMLI DAVRDA “BILIM” VA “HAQIQAT” TUSHUNCHALARINING TRANSFORMATSIYASI

ФИЛОСОФИЯ ИСКУССТВЕННОГО ИНТЕЛЛЕКТА И ЗНАНИЯ: ТРАНСФОРМАЦИЯ ПОНЯТИЙ «ЗНАНИЕ» И «ИСТИНА» В ЦИФРОВУЮ ЭПОХУ

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF KNOWLEDGE: THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE CONCEPTS OF “KNOWLEDGE” AND “TRUTH” IN THE DIGITAL AGE

  • Karimova Gulchehra Abdukarimovna — Jismoniy madaniyat va gumanitar fanlar kafedrasi dotsent v.b. f.f.f.d. (PhD), Muhammad al-Xorazmiy nomidagi TATU · ORCID: 0009-0001-6847-0805

To'liq matn (PDF)

Annotatsiya

Maqolada sun’iy intellekt texnologiyalarining jadal rivojlanishi sharoitida “bilim” va “haqiqat” tushunchalarining falsafiy-epistemologik mazmuni o‘zgarishi tahlil qilinadi. Klassik epistemologiyada bilim asoslangan haqiqiy ishonch sifatida talqin etilgan bo‘lsa, raqamli davrda bilim hosil qilishning yangi - algoritmik, ehtimoliy va tarqoq shakllari yuzaga kelmoqda. Maqolada bilimning subyekti, manbasi va asoslanish mexanizmi masalalari, sun’iy intellekt tomonidan generatsiya qilinadigan axborotning epistemik maqomi, “qora quti” muammosi hamda haqiqat mezonlarining o‘zgarishi yoritilgan. Shuningdek, raqamli muhitda epistemik ishonch, tanqidiy tafakkur va epistemik mas’uliyat masalalari tahlil qilinib, ularni ta’minlashning falsafiy-metodologik yo‘llari taklif etilgan.

Аннотация

В статье анализируется трансформация философско-эпистемологического содержания понятий «знание» и «истина» в условиях стремительного развития технологий искусственного интеллекта. Если в классической эпистемологии знание трактовалось как обоснованное истинное убеждение, то в цифровую эпоху возникают новые - алгоритмические, вероятностные и распределённые - формы производства знания. Рассматриваются вопросы субъекта, источника и механизма обоснования знания, эпистемический статус информации, генерируемой искусственным интеллектом, проблема «чёрного ящика», а также изменение критериев истины. Анализируются проблемы эпистемического доверия, критического мышления и эпистемической ответственности в цифровой среде и предлагаются философско-методологические пути их решения.

Abstract

This article analyzes the transformation of the philosophical and epistemological meanings of the concepts of “knowledge” and “truth” in the context of the rapid development of artificial intelligence technologies. While classical epistemology has traditionally interpreted knowledge as justified true belief, the digital age has introduced new algorithmic, probabilistic, and distributed forms of knowledge production. The article examines issues related to the subject and sources of knowledge, mechanisms of justification, the epistemic status of information generated by artificial intelligence, the “black box” problem, and transformations in the criteria of truth. In addition, the study analyzes epistemic trust, critical thinking, and epistemic responsibility in digital environments and proposes philosophical and methodological approaches for ensuring these principles.

Kalit so'zlar: sun’iy intellekt, bilim falsafasi, epistemologiya, haqiqat, raqamli davr, axborot falsafasi, epistemik ishonch, tanqidiy tafakkur, algoritmik bilim, epistemik mas’uliyat

Foydalanilgan adabiyotlar

  1. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
  2. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
  3. Schwartz, R., Vassilev, A., Greene, K. K., Perine, L., Burt, A., & Hall, P. (2022). Towards a standard for identifying and managing bias in artificial intelligence. National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1270
  4. Weidinger, L., Uesato, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Huang, P.-S., Mellor, J., Glaese, A., Cheng, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., Biles, C., Brown, S., Kenton, Z., Hawkins, W., Stepleton, T., Birhane, A., Hendricks, L. A., Rimell, L., Isaac, W., … Gabriel, I. (2022). Taxonomy of risks posed by language models. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 214–229). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533088 (research.ed.ac.uk)
  5. Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeiffer, F., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 (DOI)
  6. Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y. J., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2023). Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12), Article 248, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571730 (DOI)
  7. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., … Wright, R. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, Article 102642, 1–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 (Bond University Research Portal)
  8. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0). U.S. Department of Commerce. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1
  9. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO.
  10. Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30, 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1
  11. Bommasani, R., Liang, P., & others. (2021). Foundation models and the future of artificial intelligence. Communications of the ACM.
  12. Autio, C., Schwartz, R., Dunietz, J., Jain, S., Stanley, M., Tabassi, E., Hall, P., & Roberts, K. (2024). Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile. National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1 (NIST)
  13. UNESCO. (2024). AI competency framework for teachers. UNESCO.
  14. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Generative artificial intelligence profile. U.S. Department of Commerce. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1 (NIST)