Abstract

Nowadays, there is an evolving process of digital transformation and the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) into a wide range of social systems. Usually, insufficient attention is paid to assessing the social consequences of such innovations. The underlying causes of that are related to the dominance of the technogenic model of civilization, the embodiment of which is the technocratic approach, and the use of this approach in the interests of the globalist project. In the development and implementation of digital technologies and AI, an ontological paradox arises, for overcoming which it is required to develop adequate philosophical and methodological foundations for assessing social innovations based on digital technologies. The article discusses the expediency of using three types of scientific rationality (classics, non-classics, post-non-classics) to overcome the limitations of the Western model of technogenic civilization and the use of a subjective approach corresponding to this rationality. It is fundamentally important that the three types of scientific rationality correspond to the key stages in the evolution of cybernetics and AI. The evolution of AI is analyzed from these positions and an approach is proposed to overcome the ontological paradox in digital transformations and the implementation of AI. In the context of the development of ideas on scientific rationality, the author considers the specifics of innovative models based on digital technologies and AI. The article examines the problem of the formation of an integrative field of knowledge as the ergonomics of digital transformations and AI, which will allow to take into account the rich ergonomic experience of a multi-criteria socio-humanitarian assessment of the use of computer technology and software: productivity, safety, satisfaction, and development. In the conclusion, the article considers the basic positions of the configurator, that is, of the devise for assessing innovations based on digital technologies and AI, including assessing of scientific, methodological and organizational issues and persons concerned.