Month: February 2024

Congress has been muddling toward regulation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) even as it’s demonstrated only the vaguest understanding of years old social media. Rather than a fruitless attempt to regulate AI practices, I suggest legislating ethical standards that remain valid even as the technology rapidly changes. Consider, for example, the Hippocratic Oath for physicians that, with modest changes over the centuries, has remained valid for  2,500 years. A similar approach might work for AI.

What might ethical standards for AI look like? We need to start with a theological assertion: humans cannot create something more morally perfect than themselves.  A person, however moral, is always and everywhere beset by prejudices of all kinds, selfishness, greed, jealousy and the like that deny moral perfection.  No matter how self aware AI may be created, it cannot become more morally perfect than its corruptible creators. 

It is not an assertion that denies humanity’s ability to make moral progress, as indeed it has, slowly and reluctantly over the centuries. Progress has been possible only when previously unasked questions were finally asked because some unknown unknown had finally become known by at least a few. Moreover, humanity is hampered by its inability to accurately anticipate the future.  Even the best modeling is based on probabilities that cannot accommodate random contingencies, and there are always random contingencies. Generative AI may develop an ability to estimate probabilities faster, but random, and therefore unknown, contingencies will remain to mess things up. 

Cultural difference is one contingency that is not random.  What is moral in one culture is immoral in another.  Even when there’s general greeting on basic standards, different cultures may interpret them in widely differing ways. It is hard to imagine how AI can avoid having cultural biases no matter how well intentioned its creators might be. And speaking of imagination it seems unlikely that AI, no matter how generative, will be able to intuit or imagine, in say, the way Einstein intuited the Theory of Relativity. Or moved as Wordsworth to wax poetically about the ruins of Tintern Abbey. 

With that in mind, regulatory legislation may have no better foundation than an adaptation of Asimov’s rules for robots:

• The First Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
• The Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
• The Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Asimov later added another rule, known as the fourth or zeroth law, that superseded the others. It stated that “a robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. *Britanica

The portion of a recent William and Mary law School AI conference I attended reflected on existing law protecting intellectual property, criminalizing threatening speech, defamation of character, and truth in advertising. They can be applied to AI as easily as they are applied to human behavior. It’s incumbent on legislators to recognize the tools we now have and use them appropriately. 

“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and has been translated into over 500 languages. The UDHR is widely recognized as having inspired and paved the way for the adoption of more than seventy human rights treaties, applied today on a permanent basis at global and regional levels (all containing references to it in their preambles).” (United Nations) 

The thirty articles of rights are declarative in language and aspirational in practice. They are culturally biased in favor of Western political philosophy and no nation has fully lived up to them. Nevertheless they form a moral framework that can help guide development of AI regulation.

Everything taken together can create something of a moral fence surrounding AI without trying to regulate specific processes and applications. Neither would the fence try to anticipate unforeseen advances.  Would it stop misuse of AI?  Certainly not.  Malevolent actors have always used whatever technology is at hand to commit crimes and damage society.  Like all laws and regulations, AI can only establish generally accepted standards and terms for enforcement.

A final observation. Morality and social norms are not the same thing.  Generations grow up well educated in acceptable social norms that they take to be traditional moral principles, never to be surrendered.  But social norms are transitory, mutating quickly, and differing greatly from tribe to tribe and place to place; often becoming the core for political acts to preserve and defend them at any cost. Theology and moral philosophy attempt to stand apart from social norms  and affiliate with wisdom that has stood the test of time, and for theologians are consistent with revealed truths and godly justice. It’s a never ending tug of war. 

AI has other limitations that prevent it from ever assuming human qualities, except in part.  It cannot experience the world as a human can. It will always be more Spock than Kirk.  It can’t experience the ebb and flow of emotions and reactions that humans have in almost infinite variety and so it cannot learn in the almost infinite ways humans do.  I have no doubt it can be made self aware of its system status and even imitate human emotions. It seems unlikely that it can be made to feel as humans do with literally every nerve and fiber of their bodies.

From a Christian understanding, features and creation are sacred, what humans create cannot be in and not itself sacred. Humanity can not be manufactured.

Country Parson is taking s few days off for rest and reflection. Among other things, we are on Maui near Lahaina where the church we have attended and sometimes served was among the buildings lost to the firee last August. We will be visiting with old friends, the congregation, and other episcopal clergy on Maui .

In the meantime, I’ve been thinking about moral implications of A.I, and will be writing something on it when I get back to my computer..

Finallhy, I have just read David Brook’s new book, “How to zknow a Person,” and recommend it as a primer for mmore effectively addressing so called polarization

Blind Guy Typing

The curious season of Lent is upon us.  It’s one of those seasons beginning on various dates sometime in February or early March. It might be best known for Mardi Gras, the day before Lent begins,  when all eyes turn toward New Orleans with its endless parades, outrageous costumes, and non stop partying.  The rest of us join in with parties of our own featuring costumes, beads, frivolity and King’s Cakes, somehow ushering in Ash Wednesday as the beginning of Lent.  For many Lent is thought to be a time to give up something like eating too much or other bad habits for a few weeks, maybe as penance for having failed to follow through on New Year resolutions. But there must be something more and there is.

For Christians, Lent is quite a different thing altogether.  The word itself simply meant ‘springtime’ in ancient English, but for us it  means a season of six weeks in which to prepare for Easter, the highest holy day in the Christian calendar.  It’s a time observed with a certain solemnity in worship and self examination about what the Christian faith means and how well we live into it. It’s not meant to be a time for sad moping.  In fact it is a time of joyful anticipation for renewal of life and hope. Some Christians find it helpful to refrain from food or drink they otherwise enjoy as a way to help focus on self examination and to discern what is really important in their lives.  Others may spend more time reading scripture and in spiritual reflection.  In truth, many practice the work of Lent more by intention than effort.  It doesn’t make them bad Christians, it only shows they are ordinary people.

Ash Wednesday, the first day in Lent, is when smudges of ashes can be seen on the foreheads of otherwise sensible people. The ashes usually received at an altar rail are a reminder that we came into the world with nothing and will leave with nothing.  We were formed of dust and to dust we will return.  It’s humbling, and leaves no room for hubris.  Lent becomes a time to remember that during our few years on earth we have a moral obligation to make God’s kingdom of peace and justice more present in the places we occupy and to bequeath a better way of life to future generations. 

Denominations stemming from ancient catholic tradition follow liturgical practices reserved only for Lent.  They are a continuation of lenten worship going back to the early church. Episcopalians (Anglicans), Roman Catholics and Lutherans are the most obvious examples.  Other denominations stemming from more recent evangelical sources have their own ways more suited to how they worship.

I am an Episcopal priest, and in my denomination we will be invited to observe Lent with these words:

• Dear People of God: The first Christians observed with great devotion the days of our Lord’s passion and resurrection, and it became the custom of the Church to prepare for them by a season of penitence and fasting. This season of Lent provided a time in which converts to the faith were prepared for Holy Baptism. It was also a time when those who, because of notorious sins, had been separated from the body of the faithful were reconciled by penitence and forgiveness, and restored to the fellowship of the Church. Thereby, the whole congregation was put in mind of the message of pardon and absolution set forth in the Gospel of our Savior, and of the need which all Christians continually have to renew their repentance and faith. I invite you, therefore, in the name of the Church, to the observance of a holy Lent, by self-examination and repentance; by prayer, fasting, and self-denial; and by reading and meditating on God’s holy Word. And, to make a right beginning of repentance, and as a mark of our mortal nature, let us now kneel before the Lord, our maker and redeemer.

The NYT predicts a very close presidential election, too close to guess who will win. It is shamefully humiliating when the United States of America has as one of its principle candidates a man with the morals of Caligula and the political acumen of Nero. His campaign speeches whine about being cheated out of the last election and hounded by law enforcement.  He demeans and defames former friends and allies and any other public voice he fears (he is a fearful man).  He  remembers times that never were, promises what he can’t deliver, and pontificates on what he clearly doesn’t understand.

How on earth can a man convicted of sexual assault, libel, and corporate fraud be thought trustworthy of national leadership?  How can a man who defrauded students with his fake university, and worthy causes with his self serving foundation be trusted to address the needs of the people. How can a man who has abused and vilified every person of color be trusted to represent all Americans without prejudice?  How can a man awaiting trial on 91 felony counts and capable of fomenting an insurrection be trusted to uphold and defend the Constitution?  How can a man who kept and hid top secret files, promiscuously sharing them with others, be trusted to be Commander in Chief?  How can a man whose previous term as president was marked by chaos, cuddling with dictators, self aggrandizement, economic malingering, and wholesale destruction of America’s standing in the world be trusted not too do it again?

Were that not enough, he is a man whose life record is one of duplicity, betrayal, cheating, lying, and mob-boss like intimidation.  He is the sort of person very few would want as a coworker, next door neighbor or in-law.   Yet here he is leading a national political party and its likely nominee for an election political pundits say is too close to guess at the outcome.  How can that be?

He is an old man with the personality of a middle school bully.  Street smart in many ways, he is ignorant of even basic knowledge about domestic and world affairs, history, and lacking any sense of common decency. And yet, there he is.

A significant portion of the voting public believes this man likes them, is like them, is on their side, and will protect their interests. Like the veteran huckster he is, he has said the right things to keep them believing in him while he holds them in contempt, uses them to enrich himself, and has no interest in protecting anyone or anything other than his own self image.  In a truly bizarre moment in American political history, he is up against a primary challenge from a popular member of his party who is admirably qualified in every way but has only the slimmest chance to become the nominee.  She would not be my choice for president, but in her own way she would have the best interests of the nation at heart. 

Perhaps that’s beside the point.  What bothers me is that the nation has come to this point at all.  How can so many people be so thoroughly misled by such an amoral huckster who only wants to be boss of bosses and stay out of jail. 

He is backed by a few dozen men smarter and more calculating than he together with a few dozen more in Congress who appear to want to make the U.S.A into an authoritarian Hungarian style neo-fascist state.  Does a voting majority of Americans really want to abandon all pretense of following our hard fought way of constitutional republican democracy? What about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What about government of the people, by the people, for the people? I am a man of deep faith and hope, and have some hope and a little faith that the American voting public will wake up and not destroy the nation by chasing after his vanity and their illusions.

© Steven E. Woolley