AI and Human Responsibility

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i29.365948

Keywords:

human, artificial intelligence (AI), instrumental rationality, spiritual rationality, ethics, sacred

Abstract

Purpose. The purpose is to analyze the contemporary request for studying forms of responsible attitudes toward the development of artificial intelligence (AI). Achieving this involves addressing the following tasks: a) clarifying the core components of the modern interpretation of AI; b) studying the nature of the threat posed by AI to the further development of humanity. Theoretical basis. The principles of humanism, worldview pluralism, and objectivity form the theoretical and methodological basis of the article. Originality. The nature of the AI threat to humans has been examined through the lens of naive acceptance of instrumental rationality as universal, accompanied by a disregard for the spiritual rationality inherent in human beings. The peculiarity of the modern interpretation of AI stems from an abstract vision of reality that focuses primarily on its quantitative parameters. This is a departure from humanistic values and meanings, which are prerequisites for reducing humans to a means of servicing AI. The existence of a heuristic potential for understanding the problem of AI responsibility is substantiated in those texts of 20th-century humanists that are devoted to the phenomenon of technology. Conclusions. It has been revealed that the basis of the irresponsible interpretation of AI is the naive assumption about the universality of instrumental rationality and nihilism regarding spiritual rationality. It has been found that an abstract vision of reality is one of the substantive prerequisites for the prevalence of naively optimistic interpretations of AI, which consists in focusing attention exclusively on the quantitative parameters of the world, which is complemented by the promotion of man to the forefront as the center of the universe. Understanding the essential difference between the reduced type of rationality underlying AI and the spiritual rationality inherent in humans allows us to concretize the red lines that define human responsibility toward the spontaneous tendencies of AI development in modern civilization. The authors see prospects for further research in understanding the specifics of the existence of human freedom and responsibility at this stage of history.

References

Annet, K. A. (2025). The ethics of AI: Philosophical perspectives. Research Invention Journal of Research in Education, 5(2), 65-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59298/RIJRE/2025/526571 (in English)

Barnes, E., & Hutson, J. (2024). A framework for the foundation of the philosophy of artificial intelligence. International Journal of Recent Engineering Science, 11(4), 113-126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14445/23497157/ijres-v11i4p114 (in English)

Bogachov, M. (2021). Artificial intelligence as an anthropotechnology. Filosofska Dumka (Philosophical Thought), (3), 180-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2021.03.180 (in Ukrainian)

Fromm, E. (1973). The anatomy of human destructiveness. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. (in English)

Fromm, E. (2020). To have or to be? (H. Yanovska, Trans.). Kharkiv: Klub simeinoho dozvillia. (in Ukrainian)

Harari, Y. N. (2025). Nexus: A brief history of information networks from the Stone Age to AI (N. Khaietska, Trans.). Kyiv: BookChef. (in Ukrainian)

Jonas, H. (1987). Technik, Medizin und Ethik: Zur Praxis des Prinzips Verantwortung. Frankfurt am Main: Insel. (in German)

Jonas, H. (2001). Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation (A. Yermolenko & V. Yermolenko, Trans.). Kyiv: Libra. (in Ukrainian)

Kozlovets, M. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Technologies and Their Impact on Human Self-Being. Humanities studies, (19), 55-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/hst-2024-19-96-06 (in Ukrainian)

Krymskyi, S. (2003). Zapyty filosofskykh smysliv. Kyiv: PARAPAN. (in Ukrainian)

Krymskyi, S. (2008). Pid syhnaturoiu Sofii. Kyiv: Vydavnychyi dim "Kyievo-Mohylianska akademiia". (in Ukrainian)

Morioka, M. (2023). Artificial intelligence and contemporary philosophy: Heidegger, Jonas, and slime mold. Journal of Philosophy of Life, 13(1), 29-43. (in English)

Mumford, L. (1934). Technics and civilization. New York. (in English)

Skolimowski, H. (1979). Philosophy of technology as a philosophy of man. In G. Bugliarello & D. B. Doner (Eds.), The history and philosophy of technology (pp. 325-336). University of Illinois Press. (in English)

Downloads

Published

2026-06-30

How to Cite

Kuzmenko, A. I., Khalipova, N. V., & Lesnikova, I. Y. (2026). AI and Human Responsibility. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (29), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i29.365948

Issue

No. 29 (2026)

Section

THE MAN IN TECHNOSPHERE

License

Copyright (c) 2026 A. I. Kuzmenko, N. V. Khalipova, I. Y. Lesnikova

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).