Abstract
This article explores artificial intelligence (AI) as a technology from a philosophical perspective. It examines issues related to the philosophy of mind and consciousness, AI ethics, socio-political consequences, epistemological questions, and the future of humanity. The ontological status of AI is analyzed, along with its impact on human cognition, ethical considerations of its use, and potential risks. AI is not only a technological challenge but also a philosophical one. It stimulates the development of new research directions and forces us to reconsider fundamental questions about consciousness, ethics, society, and the future. The key issue is the philosophical definition of AI’s nature: Is artificial intelligence merely a complex mechanism that imitates human thinking, or is it capable of true consciousness and self-awareness? Equally important are questions of moral responsibility and the ethical limits of AI applications, particularly in situations where algorithms make decisions that affect human lives. This article aims to analyze the philosophical understanding of AI as a technology, with a focus on consciousness, cognition, and ethics. The emergence of AI fuels philosophical discussions on the risks of technological singularity, raising concerns about the potential threats posed by AI development toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and how to avoid negative scenarios. If AGI reaches the level of Artificial Superintelligence (ASI), several risks may arise: loss of control due to AI’s rapid evolution, differences in motivations and goals, conflicts between AGI and human interests, military applications of AGI, and loss of control over the economy and technology. To mitigate these risks, AI algorithms must incorporate criteria aligned with human values—ethical and humanistic principles. There is also a danger that, at some stage of self-development, AGI may form its values, such as the value of optimization, self-preservation, knowledge and development, and collective well-being. The development of artificial intelligence as a new technology can be seen both as a tool to solve many of humanity’s problems and as a potential existential threat. Therefore, the philosophical analysis of AI presents a challenge that drives new research directions and forces a reevaluation of fundamental questions regarding the future of humanity.
References
1. Voronkova, V., Kyvliuk, O., & Andriukaitene, R. (2023). Evoliutsiia vid aktyvnoho vidpovidalnoho hromadianstva do tsyfrovoho v konteksti krytychnoho myslennia: Dosvid krain EU [The evolution from active responsible citizenship to digital citizenship in the context of critical thinking: The EU experience]. Humanities Studies: Collection of Scientific Papers, 14(91), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.32782/hst-2023-14-91-03 (in Ukrainian)
2. Utiuzh, I., & Konovalenko, O. (2024). Ekzystentsiini smysly sotsialnoi synhuliarnosti [Existential meanings of social singularity]. Humanities Studies: Collection of Scientific Papers, 20(97), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.32782/hst-2024-20-97-15 (in Ukrainian)
3. Gao, D. K., Haverly, A., Mittal, S., Wu, J., & Chen, J. (2024). AI Ethics: A Bibliometric Analysis, Critical Issues, and Key Gaps. International Journal of Business Analytics, 11(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJBAN.338367
4. Bakumenko, O. (2024). Filosofsko-antropolohichni kontseptualizatsii tekhnichnoi tvorchosti: Vid filosofii nimetskoho idealizmu do shtuchnoho intelektu [Philosophical and anthropological conceptualizations of technical creativity: From the philosophy of German idealism to artificial intelligence]. Humanities Studies: Collection of Scientific Papers, 21(98), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.32782/hst-2024-21-98-01 (in Ukrainian)
5. Oleksandra, S. (2024). Vplyv ShI na transformatsiiu zhyttia suchasnoi liudyny [The impact of AI on the transformation of modern human life]. Humanities Studies: Collection of Scientific Papers, 21(98), 110–115. https://doi.org/10.32782/hst-2024-21-98-13 (in Ukrainian)
6. Kazim E., & Koshiyama A. S. A high-level overview of AI ethics. Patterns (N Y), 2(9), 100314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2021.100314
7. Erman, E., & Furendal, M. (2022). For one discussion of procedural requirements for politically legitimate governance for AI. Political Studies, 72(2), 421-441. https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217221126665
8. Wellner, G. (2024). A postphenomenological guide to AI regulation. Journal of Human-Technology Relations, 2(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.59490/jhtr.2024.2.7397
9. Melnyk, Yu., Todorova, S., & Shevchenko, H. (2024). Filosofiia shtuchnoho intelektu u vyshchii osviti [The philosophy of artificial intelligence in higher education]. Humanities Studies: Collection of Scientific Papers, 19(96), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.32782/hst-2024-19-96-14 (in Ukrainian)
10. Bilokobylskyi, O. (2019). “The hard problem” of consciousness in the light of phenomenology of artificial intelligence. Skhid, 1(159), 25–28. https://doi.org/10.21847/1728-9343.2019.1(159).157609
11. Mazurek, M. (2025). Limitations of artificial intelligence. Why artificial intelligence cannot replace the human mind. Philosophy and Science: Philosophical and Interdisciplinary Studies, (13), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.37240/FiN.2025.13.1.6

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Yurii Melnyk, Svitlana Todorova, Hanna Shevchenko
