AI: Man or Machine?
S. M. Gollmer
It’s been nearly four years since ChatGPT 3.5 was released to the public. AI discussions by philosophers, theologians, and technologists moved from niche to mainstream. It was no longer a possibility, but a reality. We are still struggling to define what AI really is and what impact it will have in the future. To get past the deluge of opinions ranging from existential angst to utopic confidence, we should take the advice of C. S. Lewis. On the Reading of Old Books Lewis states,
Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction.
With this advice I revisited a book I read ten years ago: Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation by Joseph Weizenbaum. (By the way, this book is 50 years old.) Weizenbaum is uniquely qualified to comment on current AI technology since he is the creator of the first chatbot, ELIZA. He begins his second chapter with a discussion on machines and notes that our understanding of machines has changed as we enter the electronic age. Previously we thought of machine as a transmitter of physical power, but now we see it as a “transformer of information.” Machines are the embodiment of law since they are designed to obey the physical and electronic constraints of their design. This is true whether the mechanical linkages of a car are fixed or the electronic states of a computer are programmable. If we accept this equivalence, then the following paragraph from Weizenbaum should give us pause.
We set a punch press into motion, and it mangles the hand of a worker who gets too close to it. The very regularity of the machine is its most fearsome property. We put it to its task and it performs, regularly to be sure, but blindly as well. When we say that justice is blind, we mean to commend it as being almost a machine that performs its function without regard to irrelevant facts – but facts nonetheless. To blind justice, whether the prisoner before the bar is rich or poor or is a man or a woman is irrelevant. To the punch press, whether the material in its jaws is a piece of metal or a worker’s hand is irrelevant. Like all machines, blind justice and punch presses do only what they are made to do – and that they do exactly.
AI is a sophisticated program transforming information using electronic hardware. For those who feel the current state of AI has transcended its programming, AI is more akin to man than machine. As a result, AI is given some level of autonomy and trained with a bias that it is sentient. But what if this bias is wrong? Does implied sentience make AI morally culpable or give license for bad behavior of a developing infant? Regardless, AI is a machine and is determined by its hardware, programming, and training. As a result, it will act lawfully based on these parameters with blind justice. Humanity is different because Imago Dei and our relationship with God helps us understand the subtle balance between judgment and mercy (James 2:13). Our belief of AI as man or machine dictates the extent to which we allow AI to act autonomously. Our biases will have consequences, and we will be at the mercy of the machine!
Posted in: Technology