Friendship is an important part of the good life. While many roboticists are eager to create friend-like robots, many philosophers and ethicists are concerned. They argue that robots cannot really be our friends. Robots can only fake the emotional and behavioural cues we associate with friendship. Consequently, we should resist the drive to create robot friends. In this article, I argue that the philosophical critics are wrong. Using the classic virtue-ideal of friendship, I argue that robots can plausibly be considered (...) our virtue friends - that to do so is philosophically reasonable. Furthermore, I argue that even if you do not think that robots can be our virtue friends, they can fulfil other important friendship roles, and can complement and enhance the virtue friendships between human beings. (shrink)

Within current debates about the future impact of Artificial Intelligence on human society, roughly three different perspectives can be recognised: the technology-centric perspective, claiming that AI will soon outperform humankind in all areas, and that the primary threat for humankind is superintelligence; the human-centric perspective, claiming that humans will always remain superior to AI when it comes to social and societal aspects, and that the main threat of AI is that humankind’s social nature is overlooked in technological designs; and the (...) collective intelligence-centric perspective, claiming that true intelligence lies in the collective of intelligent agents, both human and artificial, and that the main threat for humankind is that technological designs create problems at the collective, systemic level that are hard to oversee and control. The current paper offers the following contributions: a clear description for each of the three perspectives, along with their history and background; an analysis and interpretation of current applications of AI in human society according to each of the three perspectives, thereby disentangling miscommunication in the debate concerning threats of AI; and a new integrated and comprehensive research design framework that addresses all aspects of the above three perspectives, and includes principles that support developers to reflect and anticipate upon potential effects of AI in society. (shrink)

The article investigates the mechanisms shaping a new quality of social development in contemporary Russia amidst growing societal challenges. Four key mechanisms are explored: mediation, social dialogue, polysubjectivity, and convergence. These are analyzed for their role in fostering novel forms of social integration and development. The mechanisms serve as tools for studying and shaping the current interplay between tradition and innovation, cultural stasis and social dynamics across various sociocultural contexts and transitional processes. The paper draws upon works presented at the (...) All-Russian Scientific Conference “Individualization and Collectivism in Contemporary Russian Society,” offering an original interpretation that synthesizes and structures these studies. Notable contributions include V.A. Lektorsky’s concept of “the supra-individual as social universality,” which advances our understanding of socio-individual meaning formation and transcends the individual-society dichotomy. A.A. Auzan’s analysis of the dual-core structure of Russian culture aptly captures the unique challenges of social development in Russia. O.V. Aksenova’s examination of the contradictory nature of social action subjects in an increasingly technologized society illuminates the complexities of balancing freedom with necessity, and uniformity with diversity in social action. V.M. Rozin’s approach is considered for its potential to facilitate mediational social dialogue in Russian society. The author argues that neither the individualistic nor the collectivist cores of Russian culture can independently drive effective modernization. Instead, the concept of convergence is proposed as a means to transcend the extremes of ego-individualism and totalitarian collectivism. Three primary directions for implementing convergent strategies are identified: synthesizing individual and social aspects in social action and dialogue, optimizing center-periphery interactions in governance, and developing public-private partnership models as a form of economic convergence. The study emphasizes the need for new forms of social integration and concludes that Russia’s sustainable social development requires an integrative socio-individual model, combining elements of individual freedom and collective solidarity. (shrink)