In the development of a world that is experiencing the intensity of technological disruption, which has actually broken down the boundaries of space and time, and has ceased various developments in the order of daily life. This confirms the need for a clear mindset that every development or dynamic of technology in the industrial era 4.0 is like a double-edged sword. In a sense, positive and negative impacts. The technological progress of philosophy responds back, that is, one way of doing philosophy in the midst of increasingly powerful industrial technological advances. At that point, it becomes a challenge for philosophy to carry out its function as a critic and as a contributor of constructive direction. The struggle of the 21st century is the progression of industrial technology; therefore, this reality is interesting to study/examine in such a way through a comparative approach, a reflective approach in photographing and articulating sharply “artificial intelligence” technology. The double face of the impact of technological disruption will ultimately remind us that “humans” will be the main determinant of all matters of life on this earth.
Keywords: philosophy challenge, era of disruption, 21st centur

., Abustan

., Farhana

Azhar Siregar, Hamdan

Mustomi, Otonom

English

KnE Publishing Platform

INCLAR3rd International Conference on Law Reform (3rd INCLAR)Volume 2022Conference PaperPhilosophical Challenges in the Era ofIndustrial Technology Disruption 4.0Farhana, Abustan*, Hamdan Azhar Siregar, Otonom MustomiIslamic University of Jakarta (UID), IndonesiaORCIDHamdan Azhar Siregar: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1686-0115Abstract.In the development of a world that is experiencing the intensity of technologicaldisruption, which has actually broken down the boundaries of space and time, andhas ceased various developments in the order of daily life. This confirms the needfor a clear mindset that every development or dynamic of technology in the industrialera 4.0 is like a double-edged sword. In a sense, positive and negative impacts.The technological progress of philosophy responds back, that is, one way of doingphilosophy in the midst of increasingly powerful industrial technological advances.At that point, it becomes a challenge for philosophy to carry out its function as acritic and as a contributor of constructive direction. The struggle of the 21st centuryis the progression of industrial technology; therefore, this reality is interesting tostudy/examine in such a way through a comparative approach, a reflective approach inphotographing and articulating sharply “artificial intelligence” technology. The doubleface of the impact of technological disruption will ultimately remind us that “humans”will be the main determinant of all matters of life on this earth.Keywords: philosophy challenge, era of disruption, 21st century1. INTRODUCTIONBasically, it is undeniable that people usually like technology, due to its benefits andpractical uses. Technology contributes tremendous knowledge and helps make it easierfor humans to carry out life activities. However, it is also impossible to close your eyesif there are some people who still question, doubt, and even suspect. Especially whentechnology is judged to be unable to solve the problem, it cannot immediately providea solution or certainty. A contextual example is regarding a lawsuit on technologyThe important and fundamental question that now arises is where is the directionof the dynamics of technological development, and the future of humanity, as well asphilosophy itself ?. Various critical and contextual issues related to this have providedinformation to the public, as a form of confirmation of the latest developments in humanlife on this earth.How to cite this article: Farhana, Abustan*, Hamdan Azhar Siregar, Otonom Mustomi, (2022), “Philosophical Challenges in the Era ofIndustrial Technology Disruption 4.0” in 3rd International Conference on Law Reform (3rd INCLAR), KnE Social Sciences, pages 517–524.DOI 10.18502/kss.v7i15.12126Page 517Corresponding Author: Abustan;email:cakbus.community@gmail.comPublished: 4 October 2022Publishing services provided byKnowledge EFarhana et al. This article isdistributed under the terms ofthe Creative CommonsAttribution License, whichpermits unrestricted use andredistribution provided that theoriginal author and source arecredited.Selection and Peer-review underthe responsibility of the INCLARConference Committee.INCLARIt can be seen that there are twenty researchers from Deep Mind, a technologycompany that is trying to develop artificial intelligence technology, who published areport on the latest developments of what they have been working on so far.In the paper entitled ”A Generalist Agent”, they reported that they had succeeded increating a robotic agent named Gato, who was able to perform many tasks like humans,from playing video games, annotating pictures, chatting, arranging stones, and evenplaying video games. Provide text responses according to context. The creation ofGato is said to be the beginning of the birth of artificial intelligence technology that isable to match the level of human intelligence. Responding to the opinion of people whoare pessimistic about the development of Gato, Nando de Freitas, Research Directorof Deep Mind, even said on his Twitter account: “The game is over ! It’s about makingthese modes bigger, safer, compute efficient, faster at sampling, smarter memory, moremodalities”. [1]This reality triggers our concern about the rise of lawsuits against technology. Iam concerned that the plaintiffs are educated people, whom I consider well-informed.Especially in Indonesia, when technology has not yet become a thinking paradigm. How-ever, conservatism and fanaticism for belief are still quite hegemonic in the discourseof thinking.Therefore, many parties provide an assessment that technology is not experiencingan epistemic crisis so it needs to be questioned. The community in the realm oftechnology is proven to continue to innovate to make new findings and breakthroughs.In addition, technology is also not experiencing a critical attitude deficiency, feeling themost correct, as assumed by its attackers. On the other hand, attacks on technologyhave intensified in the last decade. This condition is reflected in the popularity of the”anti-vaxxer”, ”flat-earth” movement, a mindset, or a conspiratorial and dogmatic way ofthinking through social media platforms. {National Geographic Magazine: March 2015edition).In that context, questioning the epistemology of technology incoherently because ofexperiencing anxiety (uneasy) about certainty is of course clearly wrong.Not only because the theme has been thoroughly discussed by the great minds of histime. However, it is also unethical (proper). The problem is using technology generically,to challenge specific prejudices that are not valid, is like a cliché analogy: hunting downrats by burning barns. So, in turn only dealing with futility (absurdity). Because it is closelyrelated (correlated) with the still underdeveloped technology ecosystem in this country.The reality in Indonesia is that scientists tend to be silent and choose to work in silence.As the saying goes the more dense the rice, the more it bends down.DOI 10.18502/kss.v7i15.12126 Page 518INCLARFrom him, the ethic of thought has given birth to great thoughts in an effort to interpretthe world which gave birth to a number of ”schools” of thought. From rationalism, empiri-cism, idealism, positivism, post-modernism, and others. The great thinkers have beendialectical and contradictory since the beginning of the emergence of the forerunner ofgreat thought. Heraclitus’ thesis of ever-changing reality gets the antithesis Parmenidesof eternal reality, and Plato synthesizes only physical reality changes, the reality of ideasdoes not change.The dialectic of thought continues regarding epistemology, ”howdowe knowwhat weknow about reality”. Between thinkers with paradigms of rationalism (Rene Descartes),empiricism (David Hume), criticism (Immanuel Kant), idealism (Hegel), and positivism(Aguste Comte). Each of them offers a perspective to interpret the world, to gain certaintyand truth. Various matters, related to the matter of ”Philosophical Challenges in theIndustrial Technology Era 4.0” in order to contribute ideas to human civilization that isnow familiar and commonly called ”artificial intelligence” to improve the future prospectsof humanity2. METHODOLOGY/ MATERIALSThe research method used is qualitative descriptive through a comparative and reflec-tive approach in capturing that reality by relating it to the dynamics (advancement) oftechnology.Descriptive is describing phenomena that occur in society, especially artificial intelli-gence programs. And the causal approach that the latest developments in technologypose a challenge to philosophy as a scientific discipline that thinks aboutmany importantaspects of human life.Sources of data in this study include primary data in the form of interviews, obser-vations, and documentation in the districts of Bandung, West Java and North Jakarta.Secondary data were taken from literature studies relevant to this research from journalsand books.3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSThings that are considered the scope or scope of philosophical challenges in the eraof industrial technology 4.0 [2] are:DOI 10.18502/kss.v7i15.12126 Page 519INCLAR3.1. The challenge of seeking the truthIn the article “Paradigms Lost” (Acon:2015), David Barash, an evolutionary biologist,mentions technology is not just a body of knowledge, but a dynamic process of recon-figuring knowledge that is constantly evolving and changing. Silence (rest) is one thingthat technology will not do. Especially in the current humanitarian crisis (Covid-19).It is this basic assumption that understanding reality through technology is an ongoingwork. Unstoppable progress towards understanding how the world works is continu-ously improving its accuracy and validity. [3]Indeed, the dividing line or difference with ideology is very clear. Technology is aflexible thought process to accept changes in line with the development of understand-ing of the world. Thomas Khun in ”The Structure of Scientific Revolution” asserts thatknowledge develops through a technological revolution, as well as a radical paradigmshift. The new paradigm replaces the old paradigm, every paradigm change forms anew understanding. The technological revolution is similar to the social revolution butwithout the shock of war or bloodshed conflicts.Lori Chandler’s article ”Science Doesn’t Find Truth, It Understands Change,” (Bigthink:2015), detects the symptoms of widespread negative sentiment towards technology,including among educated people. Although people generally like the benefits ofscience, confusion often occurs in understanding what technology is. Distrust of sciencespreads because of change or uncertainty. Because, in reality, humans always wanteverything to be certain, if today there is a pandemic, then the human desire for the dayafter tomorrow will have a drug or vaccine available. That’s the side of human naturethat always wants to be fast and sure. [4]In fact, regarding the nature of the virus that causes the Covid-19 pandemic, forexample, the uncertainty regarding the origin of the virus and the uncertainty of itstreatment, some people prefer conspiracy theories over scientific explanations. Thatresearching mutations migration of this virus and its characteristics, including producingvaccines and drugs. It takes time and the process doesn’t happen immediately. So,this situation makes people choose a conspiracy theory explanation that is completelycertain.It must be recognized and understood, after being ”acquainted” with viruses for morethan 100 years until now scientists have not been fully able to understand with certaintythis organism. Not only is the scale very small in size, but also the style of diversity.Viruses can quickly mutate into new types. As far as is known, the cause of Covid-19 isa new virus from the Coronavirus group. [5]DOI 10.18502/kss.v7i15.12126 Page 520INCLARNow, information and knowledge (insight) continue to accumulate, new discoveriescontinue to unravel the existing mysteries. New knowledge and information changepeople’s mindsets and perspectives. It used to be thought that the earth was flat, thesun and stars revolved around the earth, but now we know that is wrong.Karl Popper in his treatise, “Conjectures and Refutations”, deals with the problemsthat distinguish science from pseudo-science. Distinguishing astronomy from astrology:distinguishing the theory of evolution from creationism (intelligent design); or naturalsciences from social sciences (humanities). Through the application of the principle offalsification. Popper makes a clear demarcation line between what is science and whatis not. [6]Popper proposes ”Thesis of Refutability” as a method of testing scientific theories,that is, they can be blamed. A statement or hypothesis is scientific if it is possible torefute it. Popper makes the famous “white swan” analogy. The task of science is not toverify that all swans are white, because the assumption is that swans must be white.The task of science is actually trying to find black swans as a falsification of inductivethinking that swans must be white.The search for truth as a technological challenge, inspired by Popper’s thoughts.Therefore, it is necessary to start by drawing a clear dividing line between subjectiveand objective attitudes. The technology demarcation method, it begins by sorting outthe epistemic (how we know) from the ontological (the existing reality). [7]3.2. Challenges for humanityIt should be noted and underlined that at first glance, the artificial intelligence projectdoes appear to be a ”threat” to the future of humanity. [8] Because, in fact humans donot need to seek the truth, but enough how to live life properly. The truth may not befound because the locus is not clear. However, humans can formulate things right. Truthis ultimately a matter of human consensus, just as the truth of morality, for example,is a probability. Instead of obsessing over the truth, it’s more relevant to make sure tocontinually work on reducing errors. [9]In that context, Richard Rorty in ”The Contingency of Language” states ”truth ismade rather than found”. Truth as a human construction can be constructed and decon-structed. Our imagination soars, for example there are robots who are offended by ourwords or actions because they are not equipped with a moral program to forgive minormistakes, he is then suddenly slapped by robots who are employed as shopkeepersjust because they bid too cheap or other little things that irritate the robot. [1]DOI 10.18502/kss.v7i15.12126 Page 521INCLARThis debate and problematic robot about artificial intelligence from the start was builtwith human standards. The Turing Test, for example, designed by Alan Turing to testmachine intelligence, sets its indistinguishability from humans as the standard. That is,if we are no longer able to provide a distinction between the imitation standards, thenthe human intelligence project can be justified that it is designed as a human ”rivalry”itself. The existence of machines is intended to do many of the same jobs even withbetter quality than that of humans. Thus, you can imagine how many human resources(HR) will be laid off (unemployed) if the wheels of the world economy are mostly drivenby robotic resources (machines). This will be a distortion –disorientation for the futureof the workers.Although on the other hand, it must also be understood and realized that humansare still the owners of technology or in other words stakeholders of technology whichis now a challenge, for humanity in this universe.3.3. A challenge to philosophyInterpreting ontological reality is an attempt to find meaning in life. That in additionto humanity, the latest developments in artificial intelligence also pose challenges forphilosophy as a scientific discipline that thinks about many things. Therefore, in orderto respond to this challenge, a new branch of philosophy has emerged called ”ArtificialIntelligence Philosophy” (Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence). [10]It is at this point in scientific terms, that the development of artificial intelligencetechnology emerges and confirms new questions that have never appeared before inthe span of time in the history of philosophy: what is the essence of intelligence? Whatis the difference between the ontological status of the natural intelligence of the humanspecies and the artificial intelligence of machines?An important and fundamental question now comes to the surface: Can the infor-mation obtained from the work process of artificial intelligence be called knowledge?Whether the decision or whatever its name refers to the results of information by artificialintelligence that contains ethical and polite rules must also be obeyed? Is there astruggle of thought and/or awareness of human beings as or as legal subjects? Thesequestions are some of the new areas that have emerged as a result of the developmentof artificial intelligence that requires elaborative study/study and extensive exploration.In this context, once again, philosophy functions as a critic, and philosophy mustalso be constructive. For example, offering ideas or solving conceptual problems inthe technology development process. Because the existence of technology needsDOI 10.18502/kss.v7i15.12126 Page 522INCLARto be broadcast as a guide to life in uniting humans. Therefore, its existence is notlike ideology, politics, or beliefs that often divide. Through technology in the historyof civilization, humans can unite in one method, one common thought, regardless ofcultural background and identity.For this reason, the philosophical challenge in the technological era termed 5.0technology must be seen as an anchor of belief to realize values, governance, andprosperity in the life of the state. A responsible government will use it as a meansof self-correction, rather than just blaming or confronting fellow citizens in today’s 4.0industrial technology era.4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONFirst, Important and strategic things in dealing with philosophical challenges in the eraof industrial technology disruption 4:0 or often called the 21𝑠𝑡-century era which is theera of the glory of the technology that we live in lately. However, of course, it cannot beseparated from the challenges themselves, namely: 1. The challenge of seeking truth,2. The challenge for humanity, 3. The challenge for philosophy.References[1] . Murtiningsih S. Artificial intelligence and humanity. Kompas Artic; 2022.[2] Ellitan L. “Competing in the era of industrial revolution 4.0 and society5.0.” J. Maksipreneur Manajemen, Koperasi, dan Entrep. 2020 Dec;10(1):1–12.https://doi.org/10.30588/jmp.v10i1.657[3] Abustan. Critical and contextual human rights issues. PT. Raja Grafindo Persada,2021.[4] . Makin. “Important aspects of building in the village”. ILREJ J. 2022;2(1):36.[5] Luwarso L. “Challenges in the era of global diversity and pluralism” Science.2016;(80-.).[6] . Hidayat K. The social role of religion. For the Benefit of the Nation; 2016.[7] Ali F. “Time and people.” The Benefit of the Nation, 2016.[8] Sari JM, Purwanta E. “The implementation of artificial intelligence in STEM-basedcreative learning in the society 5.0 Era.” Tadris J. Kegur. dan Ilmu Tarb. 2021 Dec;6(2): 433–440. https://doi.org/10.24042/tadris.v6i2.10135[9] . Latif Y. Pancasila in the Era of Disruption. Kompas Article; 2022.DOI 10.18502/kss.v7i15.12126 Page 523INCLAR[10] . Reskiantio Pabubung M. EPISTEMOLOGI KECERDASAN BUATAN (AI) DANPENTINGNYA ILMU ETIKA DALAM PENDIDIKAN INTERDISIPLINER. J. FilsafatIndones. 2021 Sep;4(2):152–9.DOI 10.18502/kss.v7i15.12126 Page 524

Philosophical Challenges in the Era of Industrial Technology Disruption 4.0

https://knepublishing.com/index.php/KnE-Social/article/download/12126/19665

Philosophical Challenges in the Era of Industrial Technology Disruption 4.0

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

KnE Publishing Platform