Журнал: Интеракция. Интервью. ИнтерпретацияБогданов Т. В.Этика использования искусственного интеллекта в качественных исследованиях

Институт социологии
ФНИСЦ РАН

Журнал: Интеракция. Интервью. Интерпретация

Богданов Т. В.

Этика использования искусственного интеллекта в качественных исследованиях

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/inter.2026.18.2.4
Богданов Тарас Владимирович
Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики», Москва, Россия
Студент магистратуры, стажер, Институт статистических исследований и экономики знаний, Центр статистики и мониторинга информационного общества и цифровой экономики

Полный текст

Открыть текст

Ссылка при цитировании:

Богданов Т. В. Этика использования искусственного интеллекта в качественных исследованиях // Интеракция. Интервью. Интерпретация. 2026. Том. 18. № 2. С. 30-50.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/inter.2026.18.2.4. EDN: BYQMLP

Рубрика:

Теоретические дискурсы и дискуссии

Аннотация:

Статья посвящена этическим и методологическим аспектам использования искусственного интеллекта (ИИ) в качественных социологических исследованиях. Широкое применение генеративного ИИ в научных исследованиях запустило междисциплинарную дискуссию об инструментальной эффективности и моральной допустимости применения технологии в процессе получения научного знания. Наиболее активные дебаты происходят в области социальных наук, в частности, среди исследователей, применяющих качественную методологию. Цель статьи — выявить векторы трансформации качественной методологии и очертить контуры новых этических дилемм, возникающих при делегировании интерпретативного труда нейросетям.Формирование новой исследовательской этики рассматривается через пересечение двух векторов: институционального регулирования («сверху вниз») и адаптации ИИ в реальных полевых условиях исследователями («снизу вверх»). Показано, что ИИ переходит из статуса вспомогательного инструмента в роль эпистемического медиума и со-исследователя, формируя модель гибридного (augmented) исследователя. Авторская позиция состоит в том, что этика использования ИИ не может быть сведена ни к нормативным запретам, ни к технооптимистическому принятию: продуктивным для исследователей, интегрирующих ИИ в свою практику, выступает принцип двойной рефлексивности. Главный вывод: этичное использование ИИ невозможно свести к формальным конвенциям. Решением выступает трансформация концепта методологической прозрачности из формальной декларации в подробный аудиторский след, фиксирующий все этапы взаимодействия алгоритма и исследователя, за которым сохраняется исключительная ответственность за валидность производимого социологического знания.

Литература:

  • Бурдье П. Включенная объективация // Социологический журнал. 2011. № 2. С. 21–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.38085/2308829X-2011-2-21 EDN: PBDUPP
  • Драч В.Е., Торкунова Ю.В. Использование генеративного искусственного интеллекта для социологических исследований // Дискурс. 2025. Т. 11. № 1. С. 52–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2025-11-1-52-70 EDN: BQIOAX
  • Рикер П. Модель текста: Осмысленное действие как текст // Социологическое обозрение. 2008. Т. 7. № 1. С. 25–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.38085/2308829X-2008-7-1-25 EDN: JWUSCX
  • Штейнберг И., Шанин Т., Ковалев Е., Левинсон А. Качественные методы: полевые социологические исследования. СПб.: Алетейя, 2009.
  • Ara A., Dash S. (2026) Sustainable AI Integration in Research: Ethics, Equity, and Long-Term Impact. AI and Ethics. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00966-4
  • Aspers P., Corte U. (2019) What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Sociology. Vol. 42. No. 2. P. 139–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7
  • Balalle H., Pannilage S. (2025) Reassessing Academic Integrity in the Age of AI: A Systematic Literature Review on AI and Academic Integrity. Social Sciences & Humanities Open. Vol. 11. P. 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101299
  • Barrera B., Feliu A., Espina C., Brand T., Zeeb H., Ahmed F. (2025) Leveraging AI to Enhance Qualitative Research: Experiences and Recommendations from Case Studies in Cancer Prevention Literacy Across the European Union. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Vol. 24. P. 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251365766
  • Bedington A., Halcomb E.F., McKee H.A., Sargent T., Smith A. (2024) Writing with Generative AI and Human-Machine Teaming: Insights and Recommendations from Faculty and Students. Computers and Composition. Vol. 71. P. 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102833
  • Bijker R., Merkouris S.S., Dowling N.A., Rodda S.N. (2024) ChatGPT for Automated Qualitative Research: Content Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research. Vol. 26. P. 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/59050
  • Blackie M., Luckett K. (2025) Embodiment Matters in Knowledge Building. Science & Education. Vol. 34. No. 2. P. 717–730. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00506-2
  • Blau W., Cerf V.G., Enriquez J., Francisco J.S., Gasser U., Gray M.L., Greaves M., Grosz B.J., Jamieson K.H., Haug G.H., Hennessy J.L., Horvitz E, Kaiser D.I., London A.J., Lovell-Badge R., McNutt M.C., Minow M., Tom M.M., Ness S., Parthasarathy S., Perlmutter S., Press W.H., Wing J.M., Witherell M. (2024) Protecting Scientific Integrity in an Age of Generative AI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 121. No. 22. P. 1–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2407886121
  • Bola?os F., Salatino A., Osborne F., Motta E. (2024) Artificial Intelligence for Literature Reviews: Opportunities and Challenges. Artificial Intelligence Review. Vol. 57. No. 10. P. 1–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.10462-024-10902-3
  • Braun V., Clarke V., Boulton E., Davey L., McEvoy C. (2021) The Online Survey as a Qualitative Research Tool. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. Vol. 24. No. 6. P. 641–654. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1805550
  • Bryda G., Costa A.P. (2023) Qualitative Research in Digital Era: Innovations, Methodologies and Collaborations. Social Sciences. Vol. 12. No. 10. P. 1–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12100570
  • Burger B., Kanbach D.K., Kraus S., Breier M., Corvello V. (2023) On the use of AI-Based Tools Like ChatGPT to Support Management Research. European Journal of Innovation Management. Vol. 26. No. 7. P. 233–241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2023-0156
  • Casal J.E., Kessler M. (2023) Can Linguists Distinguish between ChatGPT/AI and Human Writing?: A Study of Research Ethics and Academic Publishing. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Vol. 2. No. 3. P. 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100068
  • Cheng D. (2025) Leveraging ChatGPT for Research Writing: An Exploration of ESL Graduate Students’ Practices. Computers and Composition. Vol. 76. P. 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102934
  • Collins C.S., Stockton C.M. (2018) The Central Role of Theory in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Vol. 17. No. 1. P. 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918797475
  • Costa A.P., Bryda G., Christou P.A., Kasperiuniene J. (2025) AI as a Co-Researcher in the Qualitative Research Workflow: Transforming Human-AI Collaboration. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Vol. 24. P. 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251383739
  • Demuro E., Gurney L. (2024) Artificial Intelligence and the Ethnographic Encounter: Transhuman Language Ontologies, or What It Means “To Write Like a Human, Think Like a Machine”. Language & Communication. Vol. 96. P. 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2024.02.002
  • Dergaa I., Chamari K., Zmijewski P., Ben Saad H. (2023) From Human Writing to Artificial Intelligence Generated Text: Examining the Prospects and Potential Threats of ChatGPT in Academic Writing. Biology of Sport. Vol. 40. No. 2. P. 615–622. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2023.125623
  • Dillion D. (2023) Can AI Language Models Replace Human Participants? Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Vol. 27. No. 7. P. 597–600. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.04.008
  • Donkoh S. (2023) Application of Triangulation in Qualitative Research. Journal of Applied Biotechnology & Bioengineering. Vol. 10. No. 1. P. 6–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15406/jabb.2023.10.00319
  • Dwivedi Y.K., Kshetri N., Hughes L., et al. (2023) Opinion Paper: “So What If ChatGPT Wrote It?" Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Opportunities, Challenges and Implications of Generative Conversational AI for Research, Practice and Policy. International Journal of Information Management. Vol. 71. P. 1–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
  • Epstein Z., Hertzmann A., the Investigators of Human Creativity (2023) Art and the Science of Generative AI. Science. Vol. 380. No. 6650. P. 1110–1111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh4451
  • Eryaman M.Y. (2025) The Evolving Landscape of Qualitative Research: Exploring the Potential and Navigating the Challenges of Artificial Intelligence. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Vol. 24. P. 1–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251400178
  • Feng G.C. (2024) Best Practices for Responsibly Using AI Tools in Social Sciences Research. Cogent Social Sciences. Vol. 10. No. 1. P. 1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2420484
  • Fessenko D.S., Jasperse A. (2025) Ethics at the Heart of AI Regulation. AI and Ethics. Vol. 5. No. 3. P. 3387–3398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00562-y
  • Giglio A.D., Costa M.U.P.D. (2023) The Use of Artificial Intelligence to Improve the Scientific Writing of Non-Native English Speakers. Revista Da Associa??o M?dica Brasileira. Vol. 69. No. 9. P. 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20230560
  • Gordijn B., Have H.T. (2023) ChatGPT: Evolution or revolution? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. Vol. 26. No. 1. P. 1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-023-10136-0
  • Goyanes M., Lopezosa C., Jord? B. (2025) Thematic Analysis of Interview Data with ChatGPT: Designing and Testing a Reliable Research Protocol for Qualitative Research. Quality & Quantity. Vol. 59. No. 6. P. 5491–5510. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-025-02199-3
  • Grossmann I., Feinberg M., Parker D.C., Christakis N.A., Tetlock P.E., Cunningham W.A. (2023) AI and the Transformation of Social Science Research. Science. Vol. 380. No. 6650. P. 1108–1109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi1778
  • Hitch D. (2024) Artificial Intelligence Augmented Qualitative Analysis: The Way of the Future? Qualitative Health Research. Vol. 34. No. 7. P. 595–606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323231217392
  • Huang C., Zhang Z., Mao B., Yao X. (2023) An Overview of Artificial Intelligence Ethics. IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 799–819. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAI.2022.3194503
  • Humphries N., Byrne J.-P., Creese J., McKee L. (2022) “Today Was Probably One of the Most Challenging Workdays I've Ever Had”: Doing Remote Qualitative Research with Hospital Doctors During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Vol. 32. No. 10. P. 1557–1573. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323221106294
  • Ivanov S. (2025) Responsible Use of AI in Social Science Research. The Service Industries Journal. P. 1–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2025.2537115
  • Jackson A.Y., Mazzei L.A. (2022) Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315667768
  • Johnson J.L., Adkins D., Chauvin S. (2020) A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. Vol. 84. No. 1. P. 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7120
  • Jowsey T., Braun V., Clarke V., Lupton D., Fine M. (2025) We Reject the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Reflexive Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry. P. 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800425140
  • Joyce K., Smith-Doerr L., Alegria S., Bell S., Cruz T., Hoffman S.G., Noble S.U., Shestakofsky B. (2021) Toward a Sociology of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for Research on Inequalities and Structural Change. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World. Vol. 7. P. 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023121999581
  • Jungherr A. (2023) Artificial Intelligence and Democracy: A Conceptual Framework. Social Media + Society. Vol. 9. No. 3. P. 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231186353
  • Kabir S.M.A., Ali F., Ahmed R.L., Sulaiman-Hill R. (2025) Exploring the Use of AI in Qualitative Data Analysis: Comparing Manual Processing with Avidnote for Theme Generation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Vol. 24. P. 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251336810
  • Kalanda B.F., Cheboi A.J. (2025) Artificial Intelligence in the Analysis of Unstructured Qualitative Data: A Literature Review. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal. Vol. 12. No. 8. P. 199–205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1208.19286
  • Kwon D. (2025) A Nature Survey of 5,000 Researchers Finds Contrasting Views on When It's Acceptable to Involve AI in Research Papers and What Needs to Be Disclosed. Nature. Vol. 641. P. 574–578.
  • Li K., Wu H., Dong Y. (2024) Copyright Protection During the Training Stage of Generative AI: Industry-Oriented U.S. Law, Rights-Oriented EU Law, and Fair Remuneration Rights for Generative AI Training under the UN’s International Governance Regime for AI. Computer Law & Security Review. Vol. 55. P. 1–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106056
  • Lissack M., Meagher B. (2024) Responsible Use of Large Language Models: An Analogy with the Oxford Tutorial System. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. Vol. 10. No. 4. P. 389–413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2024.11.001
  • Luongo M., Ponticorvo M., Ligorio M.B., Crescenzo P., Ritella G. (2025) Artificial Intelligence to Enhance Qualitative Research: Methodological Reflections on a Pilot Study. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies (ECPS Journal). No. 30. P. 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7358/ecps-2024-030-luon
  • Mollaki V. (2024) Death of a reviewer or death of peer review integrity? The Challenges of Using AI Tools in Peer Reviewing and the Need to Go Beyond Publishing Policies. Research Ethics. Vol. 20. No. 2. P. 239–250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231224552
  • Morgan D. L. (2023) Exploring the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Qualitative Data Analysis: The Case of ChatGPT. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Vol. 22. P. 1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231211248
  • Morley J., Floridi L., Kinsey L., Elhalal A. (2020) From What to How: An Initial Review of Publicly Available AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Principles into Practices. Science and Engineering Ethics. Vol. 26. No. 4. P. 2141–2168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00165-5
  • Morse J.M. (2015) Critical Analysis of Strategies for Determining Rigor in Qualitative Inquiry. Qualitative Health Research. Vol. 25. No. 9. P. 1212–1222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315588501
  • Morse J.M. (2020) The Changing Face of Qualitative Inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Vol. 19. P. 1–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920909938
  • Nguyen A., Hong Y., Dang B., Huang X. (2024) Human-AI Collaboration Patterns in AI-Assisted Academic Writing. Studies in Higher Education. Vol. 49. No. 5. P. 847–864. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2323593
  • Nguyen M., Zhang Y., Bu Y., Belk R. (2026) Generative AI in Academic Research Activities: The Hidden Side of Self-Detrimental Consumption. International Journal of Information Management. Vol. 87. P. 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2025.103024
  • Nguyen-Trung K. (2025) ChatGPT in Thematic Analysis: Can AI Become a Research Assistant in Qualitative Research? Quality & Quantity. Vol. 59. No. 6. P. 4945–4978. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-025-02165-z
  • Perkins M., Roe J. (2024) Academic Publisher Guidelines on AI Usage: A ChatGPT Supported Thematic Analysis. F1000Research. Vol. 12. P. 1–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.142411.2
  • Pink S. (2025) Artificial Intelligence and the Futures Turn: An Anticipatory Infrastructure for Qualitative Methods. Qualitative Research in Psychology. P. 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2025.2570167
  • Purvis A. J., Crawford J. (2024) Ethical Standards in Social Science Publications. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. Vol. 21. No. 9. P. 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53761/hqnqr710
  • Reinhardt K. (2023) Trust and Trustworthiness in AI Ethics. AI and Ethics. Vol. 3. No. 3. P. 735–744. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00200-5
  • Ren X., Zheng W., Zhang M. (2025) Navigating Cognitive Dissonance: Master’s Students’ Experiences with ChatGPT in Dissertation Writing. Frontiers in Psychology. Vol. 16. P. 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1542559
  • Retkowski F., Sudmann A., Waibel A. (2025) The AI Co-Ethnographer: How Far Can Automation Take Qualitative Research? Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Natural Language Processing for Digital Humanities. P. 73–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.nlp4dh-1.8
  • Rodrigues Dos Anjos J., De Souza M.G., Serrano De Andrade Neto A., Campello De Souza B. (2024) An Analysis of the Generative AI Use as Analyst in Qualitative Research in Science Education. Revista Pesquisa Qualitativa. Vol. 12. No. 30. P. 1–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33361/RPQ.2024.v.12.n.30.724
  • Salah M., Al Halbusi H., Abdelfattah F. (2023) May the Force of Text Data Analysis Be with You: Unleashing the Power of Generative AI for Social Psychology Research. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans. Vol. 1. No. 2. P. 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100006
  • Skotnicky P., Puccio A., Das S. (2025) The AI Compass: Navigating Ethical Dilemmas in Tech-Driven Sustainability. Generative AI for a Net-Zero Economy. Singapore: Springer. P. 111–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-8015-3_7
  • Spirling A. (2023) Why Open-Source Generative AI Models are an Ethical Way Forward for Science. Nature. Vol. 616. No. 7957. P. 413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01295-4
  • Stoker A., Masn? E., Kvasni?kov? K., Novotn? J. (2025) Uncomfortable Geographies of Research Ethics: A View from the Academic Semi-Periphery. Geoforum. Vol. 166. P. 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2025.104426
  • Tao Y., Shen Q. (2025) Academic Discourse on ChatGPT in Social Sciences: A Topic Modeling and Sentiment Analysis of Research Article Abstracts. PLOS One. Vol. 20. No. 10. P. 1–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334331
  • Tong A., Sainsbury P., Craig J. (2007) Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): A 32-Item Checklist for Interviews and Focus Groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. Vol. 19. No. 6. P. 349–357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
  • Ukanwa K. (2024) Algorithmic bias: Social Science Research Integration through the 3-D Dependable AI Framework. Current Opinion in Psychology. Vol. 58. P. 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101836
  • Vallis C., Wilson S., Casey A. (2025) Fear and Awe: Making Sense of Generative AI Through Metaphor. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Vol. 2025. No. 1. P. 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.972
  • Van Manen M. (2023) What Does ChatGPT Mean for Qualitative Health Research? Qualitative Health Research. Vol. 33. No. 13. P. 1135–1139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323231210816
  • Van Niekerk J., Delport P.M.J., Sutherland I. (2025) Addressing the Use of Generative AI in Academic Writing. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 8. P. 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100342
  • Van Noorden R., Perkel J.M. (2023) AI and Science: What 1,600 Researchers Think. Nature. Vol. 621. No. 7980. P. 672–675. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02980-0
  • Victor B.G., Sokol R.L., Goldkind L., Perron B.E. (2023) Recommendations for Social Work Researchers and Journal Editors on the Use of Generative AI and Large Language Models. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. Vol. 14. No. 3. P. 563–577. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/726021
  • Vindrola-Padros C., Johnson G.A. (2020) Rapid Techniques in Qualitative Research: A Critical Review of the Literature. Qualitative Health Research. Vol. 30. No. 10. P. 1596–1604. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320921835
  • Watson S., Brezovec E., Romic J. (2025) The Role of Generative AI in Academic and Scientific Authorship: An Autopoietic Perspective. AI & SOCIETY. Vol. 40. No. 5. P. 3225–3235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02174-w
  • Witteborn S. (2026) Ethnography and Artificial Intelligence: The Question of Context. Annals of the International Communication Association. Vol. 50. No. 1. P. 66–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/anncom/wlaf026
  • Xu R., Sun Y., Ren M., Guo S., Pan R., Lin H., Sun L., Han X. (2024) AI for Social Science and Social Science of AI: A Survey. arXiv. P. 1–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.11839
  • Yadav D. (2022) Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. Vol. 31. No. 6. P. 679–689. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0
  • Yue Y., Liu D., Lv Y., Hao J., Cui P. (2025) A Practical Guide and Assessment on Using ChatGPT to Conduct Grounded Theory: Tutorial. Journal of Medical Internet Research. Vol. 27. P. 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/70122
  • Zajko M. (2022) Artificial Intelligence, Algorithms, and Social Inequality: Sociological Contributions to Contemporary Debates. Sociology Compass. Vol. 16. No. 3. P. 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12962
  • Zhou L., Rudin C., Gombolay M., Spohrer J., Zhou M., Paul S. (2023) From Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Intelligence Augmentation (IA): Design Principles, Potential Risks, and Emerging Issues. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 111–135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17705/1thci.00185

Содержание выпуска

>> Содержание выпуска 2026. Том. 18. № 2.
>> Архив журнала