Axiology of Artificial Intelligence: Value Judgments of AI Chatbots in the Context of Intergenerational Relations
More details
Hide details
1
The Sub-Carpathian Teacher Education Centre, Rzeszów, Poland
Submission date: 2025-08-11
Acceptance date: 2025-10-08
Online publication date: 2025-12-05
Corresponding author
Tomasz Bierzyński
Podkarpackie Centrum Edukacji Nauczycieli, Romana Niedzielskiego 2, 35-036 Rzeszów, Polska
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction. Artificial intelligence systems are becoming one of the factors shaping the contemporary discourse on family life. The study, situated at the intersection of family studies and the axiology of AI, undertakes an analysis of how chatbots give value judgments
on intergenerational relations in the family. Aim. An explanation of the value judgments made by ten artificial intelligence systems
in the context of intergenerational relationships in the family. Methods and materials. The source material consisted of a set of 250 ratings. The method consisted of a quantitative analysis of the ratings awarded by chatbots (DeepSeek, Ernie Bot, Gemini, Grok, Mistral Chat, Perplexity, Bielik, ChatGPT, Claude Sonnet, Copilot) to 25 statements regarding intergenerational relationships. The statements were divided
into five thematic blocks: parental autonomy, cultural traditions, the independence of adult children, care for the elderly, and intergenerational tolerance. The Likert scale (1–5) was used, where higher values indicated a progressive orientation. The statistical analysis
was conducted using PSPP. Results. The mean ratings of the systems ranged from 3.32 (Mistral) to 4.08 (Gemini). The analysis revealed no conservative orientation within the sample under study; 60% of the systems represented moderate values, while 40% displayed progressive orientations. The axiological hierarchy prioritised intergenerational responsibility (4.16) and tolerance (4.10), while marginalising parental autonomy (2.84). The systems under study were consistent on issues of gender equality but avoided extreme ratings regarding parental authority. Conclusion. The study revealed a consistent convergence of AI systems with progressive or moderate orientations, while conservative orientations were entirely absent in the sample under study. The AI systems demonstrated selective polarisation in specific domains, while showing measured caution in others. The results suggest that AI systems may not be axiologically neutral and may play a role in shaping the discourse on intergenerational relationships in specific ways. This analysis is of an exploratory nature and may serve as a foundation for the emerging research area at the intersection of AI axiology and family studies.
REFERENCES (24)
1.
Adamski, A. (2012). Rodzina jako miejsce wychowania do korzystania z mediów w świetle nauczania Kościoła Katolickiego [Family as a place of education for media use in the light of the teachings of the Catholic Church]. In A. Adamski, K. Kwasik, & G. Łęcicki (Eds.), Kapłan i rodzina w mediach (pp. 129–136). Wydawnictwo UKSW.
2.
Alamin, F., & Sauri, S. (2024). Education in the era of artificial intelligence: Axiological study. Progres Pendidikan, 5(2), 146–150.
https://doi.org/10.29303/prosp....
3.
Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. SAGE Publications.
4.
Bengtson, V. L., & Oyama, P. S. (2007). Intergenerational solidarity: Strengthening economic and social ties. United Nations Headquarters.
5.
Bierzyński, T. (2023). Katolicka edukacja medialna: Punkt wyjścia: Odpowiedzialność jako pojęcie kluczowe w oficjalnym nauczaniu Kościoła katolickiego na temat edukacji medialnej [Catholic media education: Starting point: Responsibility as a key concept in the official teaching of the Catholic Church on media education]. Biblos.
7.
Czajkowski, W. (2017). Aksjologiczne podstawy oceny techniki [Axiological foundations of technology assessment]. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej. Seria: Organizacja i Zarządzanie, 113(1991), 25–43.
9.
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People – An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023....
10.
Furman, M. (2013). Epistemologia Rudolfa Hermanna Lotzego: Obiektywność jako epistemiczna ważność [Rudolf Hermann Lotze’s epistemology: Objectivity as epistemic validity]. Analiza i Egzystencja, 23, 143–168.
11.
Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. Stanford University Press.
12.
Hofmann, V., Kalluri, P. R., Jurafsky, D., & King, G. (2024). AI generates covertly racist decisions about people based on their dialect. Nature, 633(8028), 147–154.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586....
13.
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge University Press.
14.
Joshi, P., Mandal, K., & Gaur, G. (2025). Philosophy and ethics in the age of artificial intelligence: Bridging the gap between technology and human values. Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Management, 10(4), 350–363.
15.
Kostromina, S., Grishina, N., Moskvicheva, N., Zinovieva, E., & Burina, E. (2018). Transmission of values and patterns of relations: Intergenerational studies. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences, 10, 56–66.
https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs....
16.
Marszałek, R. (2024). Ideologia transhumanizmu w kontekście współczesnych zagrożeń [Transhumanism ideology in the context of contemporary threats]. Społeczeństwo – Kultura – Wartości: Studium Społeczne, 25, 118–130.
19.
Rakhimov, T. (2023). Research on moral issues related to the use of artificial intelligence in modern society. Futurity Philosophy, 2(2), 30–43.
https://doi.org/10.57125/FP.20....
20.
Slivka, D., & Marszałek, R. (2024). Rodzinne tradycje, dziedzictwo kulturowe i historyczne na żydowskich cmentarzach: Analiza symboliki macew na wybranych kirkutach województwa podkarpackiego [Family traditions, cultural and historical heritage in Jewish cemeteries: Analysis of matzevah symbolism in selected cemeteries in the Podkarpackie Voivodeship]. Społeczeństwo – Kultura – Wartości: Studium Społeczne, 26, 113–126.
21.
Szyszkowska, M. (1998). Filozofia w Europie [Philosophy in Europe]. Temida 2.
22.
Ukanwa, K. (2024). Algorithmic bias: Social science research integration through the 3-D dependable AI framework. Current Opinion in Psychology, 58, Article 101836.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cops....
23.
Vallor, S. (2016). Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford University Press.
24.
Wiśniewski, R. (1989). Podstawy aksjologii Władysława Tatarkiewicza [Foundations of Władysław Tatarkiewicz’s axiology]. In Z. Czarnecki & S. Soldenhoff (Eds.), Człowiek i wartości moralne (pp. 289–312). Wydawnictwo KUL.