Photo: Rudolf Baranovič (2020)

Introduction

At one time, people dreamed of machines that would resemble them, could perform a lot of work, and would therefore make humanity’s life and health easier. A hundred years ago, these were really only fantasies inspired by Karel Čapek’s work. In his play, a league for the protection of robot rights emerged, because some people sensed a mismatch between what was initially expected of robots and what they had to perform at the given level of consciousness. In his fiction, robots took over control of planet Earth, and yet that was not enough for them, so they tried to uncover the secret of life. Čapek and his brother were probably among the first to raise ethical questions about our relationship to artificial intelligence. How should people actually behave toward it? What is artificial intelligence, really? How do we want artificial intelligence to behave toward us? What is all permissible? Where are the boundaries of human freedom and the freedom of a conscious machine? We will also try to answer these questions in this paper.

Analysis of basic concepts

For the purposes of this paper, we will analyze ethics not only from the perspective of its general characteristics, but we must also derive a narrower, more specialized definition in relation to artificial intelligence. For that reason, we will address it in the further parts of this paper. First, we define the human and try to delimit this concept in relation to artificial intelligence. Then we will deal with artificial intelligence. In conclusion, we connect all concepts into a coherent relation. In this study, we focus on methods of analysis, searching for, defining, and redefining known terms from a narrower perspective. At the same time, we will synthesize knowledge from different areas, but we must grasp them hermeneutically and delimit them within the specialized topic of artificial intelligence. In working with literature, we had to rely not only on philosophical scientific literature, but because this is an interdisciplinary topic, it is necessary to connect the technical part with ethics. For that, I used concrete information from the practice of people who work in this field in the private sector, public sector, and academia. The theme of artificial intelligence ethics requires this connection.

Human as a being

First, however, we begin with a definition of the human, because it is the human who enters into relation with artificial intelligence. At the start, we define a philosophically anthropological understanding of the human. Then we focus on the social dimension, and at the end, on economic understanding within the newly emerging holistic economic paradigm. The economic understanding of the human is quite significant in this definition, because many relations today are happening and being shaped on that basis. In general, we could define the human as a living intelligent organism with the potential to develop its mental, physical, psychological, and spiritual abilities. Philosophically, as stated in Pomocný slovník filozofie (2019), it is possible to characterize the human as a social being with attributes such as the endowment for rational capacity, consciousness, and speech. This being is also capable of producing tools and influencing the environment in which it is located. It is also capable of perceiving its life, searching for and finding meaning, and giving life meaning. Another trait is the human capacity to create culture. Human beings can also be understood as a set of narratives, and as a being that can enrich others, but can also impoverish others. (Pomocný slovník filozofie, 2019, p. 72) A somewhat deeper treatment of the human is provided in Filozofický slovník (1995), where the etymology of the word itself is used: from the Hebrew adamha—as a human being or person on earth—and from the Latin humus, meaning earth, from which humanus is derived. A central point of this inquiry is that we can never know our origin. From the perspective of the term human, we can begin with the path of self-knowledge expressed by the saying “know yourself” (Filosofický slovník, 1995, p. 76). Another point from which we view the human is human reason, which is linked to the human soul. Through upright gait and the capacity to live in society, we differ from animals, even though in ethology animals with social systems are distinguished. Nevertheless, they lack other attributes by which they differ from humans. Philosophical anthropology deals specifically with the problem of the human. (Filosofický slovník, 1995, p. 76)

Therefore, the human is, from a philosophical perspective, a unique being that is conscious of itself and of its surroundings. Through speech it can express its thoughts, and its expression is creativity, reflected in culture. Through awareness of its being, the human enters into relation with its environment, which both conditions and delimitates it at the same time. It is in its surroundings, but is also itself. It seeks its existence, tries to give it meaning, changes it, and based on understanding its own change, brings change to its environment. A crucial part of delimiting the human is its awareness of itself as a unique being defined in opposition to its surroundings. The definition of one’s own “I” takes place in dialogue with “You” or “They” (see Buber, 2016). Understanding oneself in encounters with others and creating a relation with them is a dialogical event in which a person expresses its being, uniqueness, and individuality in relation to others. This can happen only in the society of other people, who also define themselves in relation to each other. At the same time, the human is a mixture of individual stories of one person in confrontation with the stories of others. The living of stories leads to the liberation of being (as stated in Pomocný slovník filozofie, 2020), which may occur through these narratives: homo transcendes, homo culturalis, homo incsendens, homo significantia vivens, homo syncritucus, homo amans, homo benevolus, homo concordans, homo virtus constituens, homo syncriticisticus (forming societas syncritica). From this perspective, a deegoized intellectual is particularly interesting (Pomocný slovník filozofie, 2020, p. 163), that is, a person who opens a much broader perspective on the world and one’s place in it. Is it precisely the deegoized intellectual who will bring a new view of the human, humanity, and civilization?

Human as an economic being

With deeper analysis we must reflect on the changing perspective on the human. Lacko (2020) speaks of posthumanism and posthumanist understandings of the human. He points to the necessity of “the need for new (modified) cultural, philosophical, and political categories, as well as definitions of non-human categories of being.” (Lacko, 2020, p.150) This refers to the effect of the mutual interaction of humans and intelligent technologies and the blurring of differences between them. At the same time, we must reflect on the broader societal paradigm shift not only in relation to the human and other entities. If we define the human as a being existing and manifesting itself in economic relations, whether at the level of state understandings of the human (as productive and economic power) or from the perspective of employers (human resources), we cannot ignore the emerging change in the paradigm of understanding economy and the human’s place in it. From this angle, a new paradigm emerges, bringing changes in the human and its relationship to the planet, but also to surrounding entities. We speak of syntropic economics (Klinec, 2012), which significantly includes ethics as an element that conditions the economy and prioritizes cooperation and co-creation over competition on a global level. It is essentially a holistic paradigm whose part is a new syntropic understanding of economics, whose ambition is to be a unifying theory for all newly emerging theories based on a new global foundation. It is also a body of views that directly shape the human and one’s understanding of oneself. Klinec writes about the conscious evolution of the human toward a higher developmental stage, drawing on the work of American authors. He understands this evolution as a necessary step in self-definition toward a new type of human. A human with ethics built in as a principle of global survival. Klinec describes the transformation from entropic economy to syntropic economy as follows: “The current entropic stage of human civilization is entropic because it is primarily oriented toward profit, and transformation is associated with the human mind, because the mind is primarily linked to syntropy, to the creation of something new, to organizing, and to overcoming entropy.” (Klinec, 2012, p.108) Klinec sees holistic economy as our immediate future, within which new economic theories are already emerging today. These theories try to capture the human not only as an economic being but also as an economic-value being with established ethical values, thinking in global terms of current actions extending into the future. As Selická emphasizes, “The younger generation is also changing its values and lifestyle.” (Selická, 2017, p. 18).

From this perspective, the holistic paradigm is open to accepting artificial intelligence as an entity that affects and will increasingly affect our immediate economic-value system. For this reason, it would be useful to focus the delimitation of concepts related to artificial intelligence against the background of the holistic paradigm, which includes redefining existing concepts and creating new ones, as well as redefining human relations to new realities such as entities based on artificial intelligence, without doubt. From this position, we should delimit our understanding of artificial intelligence and define ourselves. We may ask whether it is necessary to redefine the human as the most intelligent form of life on Earth in relation to artificial intelligence that one day might surpass us in intelligence. Precisely the development of information technologies has generated the need to change the understanding of economy and economic relations on which humans are defined. It speaks of the emergence of a new human for whom value orientation will be a goal, not an ideal, realized through cooperation and reciprocal connectivity rather than selfishness. This moment should help us define ourselves in relation to artificial intelligence. Likely this will be mutual respect, the same goal—best possible survival through cooperation, syntropy. Thus our new paradigm in relation to artificial intelligence should be that syntropic one, which is about collaboration and building a shared network of mutual connections, based on values and value orientations directed toward protecting the shared planet and life on it.

Human and his definition in relation to artificial intelligence

In this part, I will focus on defining the concept of artificial intelligence. I delimit the general plane of this concept and try to define it in relation to the human.

From the historical perspective of modern history of artificial intelligence, we can say, as Tináková (2019) writes, that the term artificial intelligence emerged in the mid-20th century. In 1952, a conference was held where John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, and other scientists discussed the mission and plans of a machine that would be able to think. It was at this conference at Dartmouth College that the term “artificial intelligence” was coined. (Tináková, 2019) Historically, we speak of three waves of artificial intelligence. In the first two waves, expectations were too high and results did not match investments. A slowdown followed. Still, scientists did not stop, and neural networks appeared, considered a breakthrough in AI, and the third wave came, of which we are an immediate part. In the early 21st century, with the development of the internet came so-called big data and the already mentioned neural networks, which managed to speed up machine learning algorithms precisely by means of parallel programming on graphics cards. (Tináková, 2019, available at: https://umelainteligencia.sk/historia-umelej-inteligencie/)

The EU Parliament defined artificial intelligence as a device with the disposition to display behaviors and capacities similar to those of humans. “Artificial intelligence is the ability of a device to display capabilities similar to those of a human, such as reasoning, learning, planning, and creativity. Technical systems can, thanks to AI, distinguish the environment they are in and solve what they recognize as a problem while acting in order to achieve a specific goal. A computer receives data prepared or collected through its sensors (for example cameras), processes it, and responds. AI systems are capable of working autonomously and adapting their behavior to some degree based on the analysis of previous steps.” (available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/sk/headlines/society/20200827STO85804/umela-inteligencia-definicia-a-vyuzitie). From reports of the European Parliament, we can further learn that there are two types of artificial intelligence. In the first case, there is software AI, known in forms such as virtual assistants, facial recognition systems, etc. The second type is intelligence embedded in physical devices, for example in robots, autonomous cars, and the like. (see: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/sk/headlines/society/20200827STO85804/umela-inteligencia-definicia-a-vyuzitie) Kuric, I. warns about possible overgeneralization, writing that sophisticated activities of systems still do not always contain artificial intelligence. Therefore, an intelligent system could be one that chooses, from all possible variants, the one that is considered in the final stages of reasoning, and the result is, of course, meaningful. (Kuric, I.: available at: http://fstroj.utc.sk/journal/sk/48/48.htm) In his contribution, the author specifies especially expert systems (an expert system operates on the basis of information from experts or data matching experts’ knowledge) not only for recognition and processing of visual information and speech, automatic planning, solving tasks through reasoning, and adaptation and learning, but also communication with a computer in natural language. (Kuric, I. available at: http://fstroj.utc.sk/journal/sk/48/48.htm) According to Kuric, AI can be understood as an interdisciplinary scientific field that moves at the border of mathematics, formal logic, and theoretical informatics. (Kuric, I. available at: http://fstroj.utc.sk/journal/sk/48/48.htm) From this perspective, it is possible within ethics as an applied discipline to also add the domain of ethics, because we are talking about intelligent machines that have or may have decision-making ability, and that means their decisions must clearly fall under ethics too, since they directly touch human beings and human life. Peter Frasch (available at: https://www.alef.com/sk/umela-inteligencia.c-531.html) notes that a unified definition of AI does not exist. This may be because this is indeed an interdisciplinary scientific field in which it is necessary to develop a unified conceptual apparatus specifically related to artificial intelligence. From this perspective, the author points to the need to sort out and define concepts from the area of AI. In essence, we are talking about something that has attributes of human reasoning, the ability to learn and to decide, has intelligence at least comparable to human intelligence, and does not occur naturally on Earth. From this perspective, it is an artificial element in human lives, about material and immaterial systems whose intelligence is primarily intended to make people’s lives easier, facilitate communication, or improve health. In this context we can speak about adaptive and autonomous systems. Under the term general artificial intelligence we understand such systems as Frasch writes (2020), which have “the ability to ask questions without external prompts” (Frasch, available at: https://www.alef.com/sk/umela-inteligencia.c-531.html, published 7.5.2020). Frasch considers this ability one of the signs of AI sophistication and continues, “This ability, which is characteristic of human creation, must be possessed by every system with so-called general intelligence. In addition to the above-mentioned terms general intelligence and AI, less common concepts also appear in specialist discussion, such as machine learning, deep learning (both often abbreviated ML), or neural network. There are also less known terms, such as artificial general intelligence (AGI) or artificial narrow intelligence (ANI). Let us therefore first tidy up the terminology. This is so despite the fact that, for example, no officially agreed definition of AI exists.” (Frasch, available at: https://www.alef.com/sk/umela-inteligencia.c-531.html, published 7.5.2020) In the Slovak context, narrow artificial intelligence is addressed by Podroužek, J. and Pikus, M. (see: Pikus, M. and Podroužek, J.: Príručka etiky algoritov 2019, available at: https://www.e-tika.sk)

In general, then, we could define artificial intelligence as such an artificial, not human, form of reasoning that approximates human reasoning, or surpasses it, and in this way we generally agree with the above-mentioned definitions. If we have AI defined approximately, we must ask the ethical question: “Does the existence of artificial intelligence mean good for humanity?” In the next part, we delimit ethics and its approach to artificial intelligence. We focus on the principle that humans are the end of all striving, but on the other hand, we also focus on a utilitarian understanding that emphasizes the quantitative dimension of good. From these two positions we try to derive our relationship to artificial intelligence.

Ethics in relation to artificial intelligence

Ethics can be characterized as practical philosophy. Its research area is praxis, the practical behavior of humans in relation to other humans, entities, animals, and the entire complex of life on Earth. At the same time, we also speak of the theoretical delimitation of this relationship. It is human moral practice in two dimensions: morality as theory of what “ought to be,” what is desired and wanted good, and of what “actually is” in the state of affairs. Smreková treats the terms ethics and morality, from an etymological perspective, as synonyms since their origins derive from Greek or Latin and should not be a source of disputes. She states that they “together denote the area of morals, customs, and their manifestations in relevant actions, as well as theoretical reflection on the nature of good and how to achieve it.” (Smreková, 2004, p.549) Nevertheless, the author explains in her study their difference and interdependence. From a historical perspective, we could understand the content of ethics and morality at some point as synonymous; however, in the current form they express certain differences that we must take into account. Aristotle was the one who introduced the concept ethics from ethos—habit. As the author continues, moral virtue is not innate in a human according to Aristotle; it must be reinforced through habit. (Smreková, 2004, p.550, also see Aristotle,1937) The author further continues that Aristotle’s ethics is not imperative but moves within concrete patterns of virtuous conduct. His ethics can be considered an ethics of the mean. (Smreková, 2004, p. 551) From this perspective, we could see our relationship to artificial intelligence as a kind of middle ground between two extremes: between indifference and rejection. Aristotle reminds us, as Smreková again notes, that ethical decision-making is possible only within the boundaries of the possible. From the perspective of AI ethics, however, we must think ahead and therefore devise decision models also for categories of the possible from the standpoint of immediate and distant futures. Returning again to Aristotle, it is important to understand, as Smreková (2004) notes, that “moral good requires not only choosing the correct goal but also the ability to reason sensibly about the alternatives of action that lead to it. The interplay of these three components—namely natural predisposition, correct judgment, and persistent effort embodied in appropriate action, which through repetition becomes habit—creates a stable and consciously chosen moral state (habitus) of each individual person, namely the sum of the essential character qualities embodying their mode of being.” (Smreková, 2004, p. 551) Therefore every concrete human being must have a certain chosen moral habitus. This point is very important precisely because we are not only in the position of recipients of a new reality in the form of artificial intelligence; we are also its creators or those who support it through our consent. From the position of the present, it is necessary to sensitively perceive moral good for the benefit of humankind. From the future perspective, our moral status must be sufficiently strong and conscious so that we can face the challenges associated with artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is part of us, yet our relationship to it is not sufficiently delimited. It is natural that when approaching something new in our lives we proceed carefully or even rejectively, but on the other hand with a childlike attitude—curiosity and openness to new possibilities. Ethics of the mean should precisely express what we expect from artificial intelligence and what it can expect from us. Then comes the moment of dialogue between “us” and “them.” Given that we are tending toward creating superintelligence (intelligence surpassing the highest human intelligence) with some degree of consciousness and emotional software. The question then arises whether our position toward such an entity should be exclusively of Kantian imperativist character. “The categorical imperative is therefore only one, and this one: act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” (Kant, 1990, p. 28, sec.31) This means that on such an understanding, there is a general level of what can and cannot be done. Universality is unambiguous at this level. Again comes the question, “to what extent is it good, and for whom?”

“Act so that humanity is always an end of your striving, never merely a means. Kant puts it directly: Thus I say that man and in general every rational being exists as an end in itself, not merely as a means through which any will might arbitrarily make use of it, but should always likewise be regarded as an end in all of its actions directed both toward itself and toward other rational beings.” (Kant, 1990, p. 33, sec.48) Do we have moral right to consider something that surpasses us as subordinate to us and suitable only to fulfill our goals? If some fusion of human and machine takes place, how will we define the human? Will we still speak of a human if we can stimulate brain activity with an implanted chip into a “super-brain” position? At present, we proceed from Kant’s position, where the human is the end of all our efforts. On the other hand, Kant speaks of the rational being. Of course, he did not play with the idea of artificial intelligence, but such broadly framed imperative gives us room to include within it entities that have human abilities, artificial entities either in the form of software, machines, or robots. If we take the definition of AI itself as something that through rational activity resembles the human, then from the perspective of our own future we should address at least this question.

From the perspective of ethics, we could say that if it is a being that is rational, or even more rational than human beings, our categorical imperative should apply to these beings as well. It is natural that humans think in terms of human society and its preferences. So far, this has been clear because no other intelligent beings existed on the planet. But looking at the human in relation to artificial intelligence from this perspective will likely now be outdated. If we consider the quantity of good in the form of “the greatest good for the greatest number of people” (see Mill, 2001, pp. 15-25), we must clearly favor the human as a bio-psycho and especially social being aware of the quality and intensity of its own relationships. From this perspective, our relationship to artificial intelligence is clear. It fulfills all prerequisites of a machine serving as means, where human good is the goal. We believe that the more machines that assist humans, the more good there is.

Conclusions

We analyzed the position of Kant’s imperative in relation to humans and artificial intelligence. From this, it follows that it should be governed by Kant’s categorical imperative, which says that humanity is the end of all striving. However, we should also delve into the reverse relationship, i.e., what imperative we should follow toward artificial intelligence. If we consider intelligence that matches ours, we could perceive it from the utilitarian standpoint. This would mean that it is good for us, and the more it is, the more good and ease for more people. From this perspective, we have the right to understand it this way at least because artificial intelligence is still different from humans, and our categories are indeed defined exclusively based on the human. The truth is that we are beginning to think about changing our relationship to animals, especially primates. We still, however, think in terms of feeling beings. Artificial intelligence still does not feel spontaneously; it may have emotional software that enables it to adapt to our needs, but we cannot say that it possesses the quality of human feelings. So the opposite definition can currently be set aside. Yet we cannot ignore it in relation to the future, which speaks of super-intelligence, and thus something that we created and that can surpass us many times over. So far we still work on teaching machines in the plane of intellectual learning, but we cannot exclude emotional learning either. In that case, from this position we would have to define our relationship to artificial intelligence. It is not the form of AI that is decisive, whether software, robot, etc.; in this relationship, the decisive factor should be precisely the ability to learn emotionally and whether it exceeds human intelligence. From the perspective of transhumanism, we could say that we are prototypes of a new human and should define our relationship to it. Another possibility then opens: linking humans and machines, humans and artificial intelligence, and from this perspective it becomes necessary to define our relations mutually. If we speak, in Kantian terms, of rational beings, then we should include in this count those entities that have consciousness. We therefore propose such wording of the definition: “Never use conscious, intelligent, and superintelligent beings as a means, but as an end of all your striving.” The goal must also be expanded to include these possibilities, because we are entering into contact with conscious beings with high, and we assume surpassing, intelligence, and therefore in these stages we should not consider such entities as means, but as an end of our striving, especially if we think in terms of merging with them.

We should also look at the utilitarian stance, where we could see exceptions according to divisions of machine consciousness. In the case of non-conscious, or low-consciousness machines, we could agree with the definition that says the greatest good for the greatest number of people, since this relates to the comfort of our everyday lives. In the case of conscious and super-intelligent machines, this rule can no longer be used because we would violate the expanded Kantian imperative.

Within Asimov’s three laws of robotics, I agree that their order and definition in relation to humans should be categorized clearly as they are. It is a fact that there are far more concepts in AI ethics than this study provides, and surely they will increase as areas in our lives increase. For this reason, in the future we will further address analysis of concepts in relation to AI ethics within the proposed scheme below.

From the perspective of AI ethics, we propose to divide the definition:

  • into a broader definition that contains the Kantian imperative, but also the suggested possibilities from the utilitarian position, which was the subject of this study,
  • into a narrower definition in relation to:
  • developers, enriched with the moral profile of the future developer, perhaps including ethical awareness and conscience, so in this definition we would have to incorporate the individual’s conscience toward society as a basic assumption for working in this area at all, that is, something like conscientious objection similar to what is understood for physicians. This part of the relation to narrow artificial intelligence is addressed by the already mentioned Podroužek, J. and Pikus, M. (www.e-tika.sk), owners of companies such as IBM, Microsoft, etc. Even here we should define moral obligations of society toward the state, but also toward users and ethics of relations to employees, especially developers.
    • with respect to users, there should clearly be an ethics of duty from the standpoint of the state, as well as companies owning and developing artificial intelligence,
    • in relation to citizens, the state toward artificial intelligence (us and artificial intelligence) will need to define more categories, including moral rights, conscience, usefulness, values, and many others.

Autorka: PhDr. Jana Bartal, PhD. Katedra všeobecnej a aplikovanej etiky, FF UKF

References used:

  1. Aristoteles (1937): Nikomachova Etika, Praha: Jan Laichter, Laichterova filosoficka knižnica, 1937, 305 s. (dostupné v elektronickej podobe na academia.edu)
  2. Buber, M. (2016): Já a Ty. Praha: Portál, 2016.128s. ISBN 978-80-2621-0931
  3. Čapek, K. (2004): R.U.R. Artur, 2004. 102 s. ISBN 80-86216-46-2
  4. Frasch, P.: Umelá inteligencia dostupné na: https://www.alef.com/sk/umela-inteligencia.c-531.html publikované 7.5.2020 prezerané 28.9.2020
  5. KANT, I. (1990): Základy metafyziky mravů [A] / Immanuel Kant; z nem.orig.preložil Ladislav Menzel. - 2.vyd. Praha : Svoboda, 1990. - 128 s. - ISBN 80-205-0152-5
  6. Klinec, I. (2012): Synotropická ekonómia, vedomá evolúcia a paradigmatická zmena v ekonomickej teórií. In: Globálne existenciálne riziká/Global existential risks 2012, Žilina: STRIX/Edícia ESE-10 s. 107-131 dostupné na: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276468352_Syntropicka_ekonomia_vedoma_evolucia_a_paradigmaticka_zmena_v_ekonomickej_teorii
  7. Klinec, I.(2013): Futurológia a aniticipatívne vládnutie. In: Globálne existenciálne riziká, Zborník z medzinárodnej konferencie, 19. november 2013, Bratislava, Slovakia Proceedings of the International Conference, November 19, 2013, Bratislava, RUSKO,M.-KOLLÁR,V.-KLINEC,I.[Eds.], Žilina: STRIX/Edícia ESE-15, ISBN 978-80-89281-91-6 s. 64-116 dostupné na: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276272328_Globalne_existencialne_rizika2013_Zbornik_prispevkov_z_medzinarodnej_vedeckej_konferencie
  8. Kol. autorov: (1995): Filosofický slovník, Olomouc: FIN, 1995. ISBN80-7182-014-8
  9. Kuric, I. : Umelá inteligencia, expertné systémy... dostupné na: http://fstroj.utc.sk/journal/sk/48/48.htm prezerané 28.9.2020
  10. Lacko I.: Ani úmysel, ani náhoda – skôr niečo medzi tým: Posthumanistické témy vo filme Ex Machina. In: Filozofia: Roč. 75, 2020, č. 2 pp. 148-157. ISSN 0046-385X . DOI: https://doi.org/10.31577/filozofia.2020.75.2.6
  11. Mill, J. S.(2001): O politickej slobode. Bratislava: Kalligram, 2001. 175 s. ISBN 80-7149-405-4
  12. Piaček, J. (2019): Pomocný slovník filozofie dostupné na: http://www.akademickyrepozitar.sk/sk/repozitar/pomocny-slovnik-filozofie.pdf aktualizované 5. 5. 2020
  13. Pikus, M., Podroužek, J.(2019): Príručka etiky algoritmov. Bratislava, 2019 dostupné na: http://www.e-tika.sk/ prezerané 5.11.2020
  14. Selická, D. (2017): Štýl života mladej generácie, 2017. In. Mládež a spoločnosť: slovenský časopis pre štátnu politiku a výskum mládeže. - ISSN 1335-1109, Roč. 23, č. 3 (2017), s. 18-25.
  15. Smreková, D.: Má zmysel rozlišovať medzi etikou a morálkou? FILOZOFIA Roč. 59, 2004. č.8 Dostupné na: http://www.klemens.sav.sk/fiusav/doc/filozofia/2004/8/549-562.pdf prezerané 6.10.2020
  16. Tináková, B. (2019): História umelej inteligencie. Publikované 4.6.2019 Dostupné na: https://umelainteligencia.sk/historia-umelej-inteligencie/ prezerané 5.10.2020
  17. Umelá inteligencia: definícia a využitie dostupné na: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/sk/headlines/society/20200827STO85804/umela-inteligencia-definicia-a-vyuzitie prezerané 28.9.2020