Oʻzbekcha
SUN’IY INTELLEKT VA AKADEMIK HALOLLIK: MUALLIFLIK VA INTELLEKTUAL MUSTAQILLIKNING FALSAFIY JIHATLARI
Дата публикации
29.09.2026
Журнал
Scientific Epicenter
Выпуск
Scientific Epicenter 1-jild, 5-son
Аннотация
Generativ sun’iy intellektning ilm-fan va ta’limga kirib kelishi akademik halollik va mualliflik tushunchalarini o‘zgartirmoqda. Maqolada bu o‘zgarishlar faqat plagiat muammosi sifatida emas, falsafiy muammo sifatida tahlil qilinadi. Mualliflik matnni yaratish bilan emas, undagi fikrlar uchun epistemik mas’uliyatni zimmaga olish bilan belgilanadi, shu bois sun’iy intellekt muallif bo‘la olmasligi asoslanadi. Sun’iy intellektdan tafakkur o‘rnini bosuvchi emas, uni kengaytiruvchi vosita sifatida foydalanish intellektual mustaqillik mezoni sifatida ko‘rsatiladi. Akademik halollikni ta’minlashda taqiqlardan ko‘ra tanqidiy tafakkurni rivojlantirish samaraliroq ekani ta’kidlanadi.
Ключевые слова
akademik halollik
epistemik mas’uliyat
generativ sun’iy intellekt
intellektual mustaqillik
mualliflik
plagiat
sun’iy intellekt
tanqidiy tafakkur
Русский
ИСКУССТВЕННЫЙ ИНТЕЛЛЕКТ И АКАДЕМИЧЕСКАЯ ЧЕСТНОСТЬ: ФИЛОСОФСКИЕ АСПЕКТЫ АВТОРСТВА И ИНТЕЛЛЕКТУАЛЬНОЙ САМОСТОЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ
В статье изменения в понятиях академической честности и авторства, вызванные внедрением генеративного искусственного интеллекта в науку и образование, анализируются не только как проблема плагиата, но и как философская проблема. Обосновывается, что авторство определяется не созданием текста, а принятием эпистемической ответственности за его содержание, поэтому искусственный интеллект не может быть автором. Использование искусственного интеллекта как инструмента, который расширяет мышление, а не заменяет его, рассматривается как критерий интеллектуальной самостоятельности. Подчёркивается, что для обеспечения академической честности развитие критического мышления эффективнее запретов.
авторство
академическая честность
генеративный искусственный интеллект
интеллектуальная самостоятельность
искусственный интеллект
критическое мышление
плагиат
эпистемическая ответственность
English
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS OF AUTHORSHIP AND INTELLECTUAL INDEPENDENCE
The article analyzes how the spread of generative artificial intelligence in research and education is changing the concepts of academic integrity and authorship. It treats these changes not merely as a plagiarism issue but as a philosophical problem. It argues that authorship is defined not by producing a text but by assuming epistemic responsibility for its content; therefore, artificial intelligence cannot be an author. Using artificial intelligence as a tool that extends thinking rather than replacing it is presented as a criterion of intellectual autonomy. The article emphasizes that developing critical thinking is more effective than prohibitions in ensuring academic integrity.
academic integrity
artificial intelligence
authorship
critical thinking
epistemic responsibility
generative artificial intelligence
intellectual autonomy
plagiarism
1. Stephenson R., Armstrong C. Student Generative AI Survey 2026 (HEPI Report 199). – Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute, 2026. – URL: https://www.hepi.ac.uk/reports/student-generative-ai-survey-2026/ (murojaat sanasi: 05.10.2026).
2. Freeman J. Student Generative AI Survey 2025 (HEPI Policy Note 61). – Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute, 2025. – URL: https://www.hepi.ac.uk/reports/student-generative-ai-survey-2025/ (murojaat sanasi: 05.10.2026).
3. O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Prezidentining 2024-yil 14-oktabrdagi "Sun’iy intellekt texnologiyalarini 2030-yilga qadar rivojlantirish strategiyasini tasdiqlash to‘g‘risida"gi PQ-358-son qarori. – URL: https://lex.uz/docs/-7158604 (murojaat sanasi: 05.10.2026).
4. O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Oliy ta’lim, fan va innovatsiyalar vazirligi. Ta’limda sun’iy intellektdan foydalanish masalalari xalqaro anjumanda muhokama qilindi. – 30.09.2026. – URL: https://gov.uz/edu/news/view/226642 (murojaat sanasi: 05.10.2026).
5. Barthes R. The Death of the Author // Barthes R. Image – Music – Text / transl. by S. Heath. – London: Fontana Press, 1977. – P. 142–148.
6. Foucault M. What Is an Author? // Foucault M. Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews / ed. by D. F. Bouchard. – Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977. – P. 113–138.
7. Code L. Epistemic Responsibility. – Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1987.
8. Clark A., Chalmers D. The Extended Mind // Analysis. – 1998. – Vol. 58, No. 1. – P. 7–19.
9. Risko E. F., Gilbert S. J. Cognitive Offloading // Trends in Cognitive Sciences. – 2016. – Vol. 20, No. 9. – P. 676–688.
10. Bender E. M., Gebru T., McMillan-Major A., Shmitchell S. On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? // Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. – New York: ACM, 2021. – P. 610–623. – DOI: 10.1145/3442188.3445922.
11. Eaton S. E. Postplagiarism: Transdisciplinary Ethics and Integrity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Neurotechnology // International Journal for Educational Integrity. – 2023. – Vol. 19. – Article 23.
12. Cotton D. R. E., Cotton P. A., Shipway J. R. Chatting and Cheating: Ensuring Academic Integrity in the Era of ChatGPT // Innovations in Education and Teaching International. – 2024. – Vol. 61, No. 2. – P. 228–239. – DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148.
13. Kasneci E., Seßler K., Küchemann S. et al. ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education // Learning and Individual Differences. – 2023. – Vol. 103. – Article 102274. – DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274.
14. COPE Council. Authorship and AI Tools: COPE Position Statement. – Committee on Publication Ethics, 2023. – DOI: 10.24318/cCVRZBms. – URL: https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author (murojaat sanasi: 05.10.2026).
15. Thorp H. H. ChatGPT Is Fun, but Not an Author // Science. – 2023. – Vol. 379, No. 6630. – P. 313. – DOI: 10.1126/science.adg7879.
16. Tools Such as ChatGPT Threaten Transparent Science; Here Are Our Ground Rules for Their Use [Editorial] // Nature. – 2023. – Vol. 613. – P. 612. – DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1.
17. UNESCO. Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. – Paris: UNESCO, 2021.
18. Miao F., Holmes W. Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research. – Paris: UNESCO, 2023.
19. Elsevier. The Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in Writing for Elsevier. – URL: https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/the-use-of-generative-ai-and-ai-assisted-technologies-in-writing-for-elsevier (murojaat sanasi: 05.10.2026).
20. International Center for Academic Integrity. The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity. – 3rd ed. – 2021.
21. Weber-Wulff D., Anohina-Naumeca A., Bjelobaba S., Foltýnek T., Guerrero-Dib J., Popoola O., Šigut P., Waddington L. Testing of Detection Tools for AI-Generated Text // International Journal for Educational Integrity. – 2023. – Vol. 19. – Article 26. – DOI: 10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z.
22. Liang W., Yuksekgonul M., Mao Y., Wu E., Zou J. GPT Detectors Are Biased against Non-Native English Writers // Patterns. – 2023. – Vol. 4, No. 7. – Article 100779. – DOI: 10.1016/j.patter.2023.100779.
23. Perkins M., Furze L., Roe J., MacVaugh J. The Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale (AIAS): A Framework for Ethical Integration of Generative AI in Educational Assessment // Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. – 2024. – Vol. 21, No. 6.
24. Plato. Phaedrus / transl. by A. Nehamas, P. Woodruff // Plato. Complete Works / ed. by J. M. Cooper. – Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.
25. Kant I. Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung? // Berlinische Monatsschrift. – 1784. – Bd. 4. – S. 481–494.
26. Alberuni’s India: An Account of the Religion, Philosophy, Literature, Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws and Astrology of India about A.D. 1030 / ed. and transl. by E. C. Sachau. – London: Trübner & Co., 1888. – Vol. 1–2.
27. Brown J. A. C. Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World. – Oxford: Oneworld, 2009.
28. Matthias A. The Responsibility Gap: Ascribing Responsibility for the Actions of Learning Automata // Ethics and Information Technology. – 2004. – Vol. 6, No. 3. – P. 175–183.
29. Searle J. R. Minds, Brains, and Programs // Behavioral and Brain Sciences. – 1980. – Vol. 3, No. 3. – P. 417–424.
