Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

Ten serwis zostanie wyłączony 2025-02-11.

Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Ograniczanie wyników

2 Sociālo Zinātņu Vēstnesis

2 2020

Znaleziono wyników: 2

Liczba wyników na stronie

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Wyszukiwano:
w słowach kluczowych: artificial sociality

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

ИСКУССТВЕННАЯ СОЦИАЛЬНОСТЬ: ПРЕДПОСЫЛКА ИЛИ РЕЗУЛЬТАТ ВЗАИМОДЕЙСТВИЯ ЧЕЛОВЕКА И МАШИНЫ?

100%

Komarova V. , Kolesnichenko M.

Sociālo Zinātņu Vēstnesis

2020

nr 2

40-65

This article aims to clarify the essence of the concept of “artificial sociality” in the context of human-machine interaction, answering the main research question of this study - is artificial sociality a prerequisite or a result of this interaction? To achieve this aim, the authors conducted a logical analysis of the definitions of sociality and artificial sociality presented in the scientific literature as well as empirically studied artificial sociality in the context of human-machine interaction, using three methods - method of comparing means, correlation and discriminant analysis. All three methods applied for the analysis of the same data: indicators of the potential of human-machine interaction and G. Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions in the countries of the world (n = 63). With the help of cultural dimensions the authors tried to interpret empirically the degree of “artificiality” of the culture of a particular country (based on the methodological approach about the presence of “natural” and “artificial” in a culture), which [“artificiality”of the culture] determines the development of artificial sociality. The main conclusions of the research are as follows: 1) sociality is understood by the authors not as characteristics of agents included in the communication network, but as a result of the implementation of these characteristics - the mechanism of social interactions created and used by communicating agents, which [social interactions] are of various types: cooperation, rivalry, grouping, merging, etc.; 2) artificial sociality presupposes - and thus differs from natural sociality ñ artificial (algorithmic), as opposed to natural (associative or intuitive), mechanism of interaction between social agents in the course of their communication; 3) artificial sociality arose in human society along with the development of writing and, after that, various methods of processing and storing information (cataloging, archiving, etc.), i.e. long before the appearance of machines, it [artificial sociality] is determined by the relative “artificiality” of a culture and is a prerequisite, but not a result of human-machine interaction. The research funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union, Eurokey project No. 2017-1-TR01-KA202-046115.

СОЦИОЛОГИ О МЕНЯЮЩЕЙСЯ СОЦИАЛЬНОСТИ

100%

Menshikov V.

Sociālo Zinātņu Vēstnesis

2020

nr 2

22-39

In the present article, the author considers the topical issue of human-machine collaboration, as interest in such an issue is caused not only by the technical and economic consequences of the broadening of the scope of artificial sociality. The article aims to clarify the scientific and theoretical prerequisites for the statements made by some sociologists on the emergence and broadening of the scope of artificial sociality as a real result of human-machine communication. This is achieved by solving the following tasks: 1) analysis of the scientists’ and researchers’ statements either on the presence or the fundamental impossibility of artificial sociality; 2) analysis of N. Luhmannís theory on communication as the basis of sociality; 3) considering some assessments by certain authors given to the deepening of human-machine cooperation, which contribute to the broadening of the scope of artificial sociality; 4) outlining further directions for studying the artificial sociality. In the given article, the author uses the methods of comparative analysis, analogy, generalization, classification, structural-functional and semiotic methods. All of them are united within an interdisciplinary approach to the study of the stated theory. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the comparative historical analysis of the concepts of changing sociality, especially N. Luhmann’s theory of communication. This allowed the author to formulate his own definition of sociality - natural and artificial - from the point of view of the sociology. The author understands sociality as the essence of communication of agents, who autonomously function in a self-organizing network of an autopoiesis nature. In the final part of the article, the author considers several issues that demand more active and innovative participation of sociologists in their solution: the need of a new methodology for assessing the scope and consequences of the broadening of artificial sociality in the short-term and the long-term; study of the forms of organizing contact between humans and devices with artificial intelligence, especially in the case of machines using non-binary logic; the role of culture in broadening human-machine collaboration.