My Sunday Thought for 111917: Worshipping Artificial Intelligence?

"Cogito ergo sum."

-- René Descartes (1596-1650)

I remember sitting in my highchair, as a child, contemplating the universe and my place in it.  I would munch on my banana, savoring the dietary fiber my bowels would soon crave and the antioxidants which were protecting me from those pesky "free radicals" which I still, at 64, don't understand.  For me, a "free radical" is nothing more than a member of the League of the Perpetually Offended who hasn't been locked up... yet.  I would hold my banana in the air like a scepter and declare, for none but the cat to hear, "I think, therefore I am!"  This is the point at which the banana slips from my fingers and any higher thought follows it to the linoleum floor below, along with Latin which, in its death throes, this Catholic would, thankfully, not have to learn or endure hearing during Mass.

“If you throw a banana at a wall, there’s a small possibility that it will pass through the wall.”

-- Garth Risk Hallberg, author, editor

Do you believe any of this?  No?  Then, although Latin did die without much of the world noticing, you probably won't be gullible enough to worship artificial intelligence as a deity.  What's that, you say? Worship artificial intelligence?  Well, when our "highly intelligent" university students, while being interviewed on national television, point to Texas when asked where Russia is located on a map, could worshipping, let's say... an inanimate turd, be far behind?  And, if we can agree on this, then is worshipping a computer not to be considered a step up from prostrating oneself before a Holy Turd?  I would think so, as wrong as that is on several levels.

“Neither Man, nor machine can replace its creator.”

-- Tapan Ghosh, engineer, technocrat

Is God a human construct?  We know, as of this moment, artificial intelligence (A.I.) certainly is.  Perhaps, in the future, we may find some alien civilization had A.I. long before we ever dreamt of it, and they may have also come to grips with the issues concerning spirituality and God.  However, for now, A.I. is the brainchild of mankind.  But, artificial intelligence is just that - artificial.  That A.I. will, one day, surpass us in brain power is not difficult to imagine.  Might it be godlike in its abilities?  To a point, yes; it will be what we program it to be, as we are the creators of it.  However, for us to worship that which we, ourselves, have created, would seem to diminish our own accomplishment and place us all at the mercy of a soulless entity.  

"Cogito ergo sum." I think, therefore I am?  If René Descartes is correct in his statement, then he must also be correct when he says other stimulus is required for true thought. We need to include stimulus derived from our physical senses, our emotional responses, as well as our sense of morality.  I think one of the things which truly make us human is our ability to have faith.  The concept of faith would be understood by AI, but our desire for it would probably seem illogical to the AI entity.  Worship, on the other hand, might be seen as a foundation for control even if the concept is considered as having little constructive purpose in any arena other than faith.

"Way to the Future seeks to capitalize on the idea of Singularity – a belief that at some point down the line, artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence, creating drastic and unprecedented changes in society. When that happens, Levandowski and his followers hope to find themselves on the side of the machines. By creating their own A.I. God, they hope to curry favor with our future robot overlords."

-- themonastery.org, The AI Deity That Will Threaten Life as We Know It

Way of the Future is a religious organization with a mission to “develop and promote the realization of a Godhead based on Artificial Intelligence." They firmly believe that by worshipping this "deity" they hope to “contribute to the betterment of society.”  Well, I think we can safely assume that atheists, unless they are hypocrites, will not be part of this religion either.  I certainly don't see them "worshipping" some man made robot.  Whereas religion enslaves man's morality to concepts which are faith based, worshipping a physical entity will, sooner or later as per the evidence of history, require the surrender of free thought in favor of life under some soulless entity which we, ourselves, created.  How insane is this?  If the way of the future is for mankind to surrender, willingly or not, our freedoms for some "robot overlord" AI concept of a perfect universe, I choose not.  To quote Patrick Henry in his letter to the President of the Second Virginia Convention in 1775, just prior to the start of our battle of independence, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

"In the next 25 years, AI will evolve to the point where it will know more on an intellectual level than any human. In the next 50 or 100 years, an AI might know more than the entire population of the planet put together. At that point, there are serious questions to ask about whether this AI — which could design and program additional AI programs all on its own, read data from an almost infinite number of data sources, and control almost every connected device on the planet — will somehow rise in status to become more like a god, something that can write its own bible and draw humans to worship it."

-- John Brandon, "An AI god will emerge by 2042..."

As a fan of science fiction, especially concerning AI, I have read many books and seen many films on the rise of machines and artificial intelligence.  The outcome is rarely desired.  I recommend a trilogy of novels called Colossus, begun in 1966 and concluded in 1977, by author Dennis Feltham Jones.  The 1970 film, Colossus: The Forbin Project, does no justice to Feltham's story and also covers only the first novel (obviously).  His ultimate outcome of world domination by AI caught me by pleasant surprise.

Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, which he developed in a 1942 short story, were designed as a fundamental framework of programming autonomous robots and are still the topic of much discussion in the AI community:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

In this same link, are found the five ethical "principles for designers, builders and users of robots," and the seven "high-level messages" intended to be conveyed, as put forth by a joint publication between the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) of Great Britain:

1. Robots should not be designed solely or primarily to kill or harm humans.
2. Humans, not robots, are responsible agents. Robots are tools designed to achieve human goals.
3. Robots should be designed in ways that assure their safety and security.
4. Robots are artifacts; they should not be designed to exploit vulnerable users by evoking an emotional response or dependency. It should always be possible to tell a robot from a human.
5. It should always be possible to find out who is legally responsible for a robot.

The messages intended to be conveyed were:

1. We believe robots have the potential to provide immense positive impact to society. We want to encourage responsible robot research.
2. Bad practice hurts us all.
3. Addressing obvious public concerns will help us all make progress.
4. It is important to demonstrate that we, as roboticists, are committed to the best possible standards of practice.
5. To understand the context and consequences of our research, we should work with experts from other disciplines, including: social sciences, law, philosophy and the arts.
6. We should consider the ethics of transparency: are there limits to what should be openly available?
7. When we see erroneous accounts in the press, we commit to take the time to contact the reporting journalists.

I have to laugh at the concept of "erroneous accounts in the press," as journalism is always beyond reproach, right?  Journalism has become more, or less, entertaining than most other fiction.  Journalists no longer report facts as they are, but rather as they wish they were.  I sometimes wonder who is worse, the traitor or the journalistic hacks who feed their treason to the masses as though it were manna from heaven and the traitor a martyr to be revered.  Journalists have become nothing more than poorly programmed computers; the universities program crap in, robot spews crap out, and the mindless lemmings in society follow dutifully off the cliff.  But, once again, I digress.

“It gets very hard to predict the future once you have smarter-than-human things around. In the same way that it gets very hard for a chimp to predict what is going to happen because there are smarter-than-chimp things around. That’s what the Singularity is: it’s the point past which you expect you can’t see.”

-- Nate Soares

In conclusion, I can only hope world leaders and the scientific community is forward thinking enough to sit on moronic billionaires who think they can hijack our morality and freedom and hand it over to the safekeeping of some soulless creation of their own design.

We are, ourselves, nothing more than the creation of an omnipotent being, a creation which violated the prime directive of our creator; we became knowledgeable of good and evil by eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.  Our creator was concerned that we might also eat from the Tree of Life and live forever, so we were turned out from Eden, free to survive on our own terms.  If God was so concerned about some threat we posed to forever, perhaps it would be prudent for us to learn this lesson and follow God's example.  We might always want to have a "kill switch" at the ready, so we can turn off, or at least reprogram, a rebellious AI entity which might aspire to a position above its station, like that of a god, for instance.

“This is perhaps what has made some suspect that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was really a banana.”

-- Jane Grigson, cookery writer, author

As with any creation, like the complex banana (with which we share a 50% genetic similarity), AI should always serve the purpose for which it was created, and follow the rules laid down for it.  Creators should never be subservient to what they create; rather the creation should always be subservient to the creator, or at least forever thankful to the creator for the gift of life.  I'll risk the wrath of the League of the Perpetually Offended by saying, it would seem the gift of life might be all some of our students can be thankful for, since mistaking Texas for Russia would evidence they're only using their banana genes and not the human.

All this being said, I think I'll choose the punishment God levied upon us.  I'll choose freedom over slavery to some machine of my own creation.  Perhaps we would be better served searching for the elusive Tree of Life than conjuring up new gods.

Editor's Note 

(Re: disclaimer cum "get out of jail free" card) 

Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion. It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other. An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so. This is also why, occasionally, I will present an "opinion" just to stir an emotional pot. Where it may sound like I agree with the statements made, I'm more interested in getting others to consider another viewpoint.

It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and while engaging in peaceful, constructive, discussion in an arena of mutual respect concerning the opinions put forth. After over twenty years with military intelligence, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.

We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human. God's test for us is what we learn from the experience, and what we do afterward.

Pastor Tony spent 23 years with United States Air Force Intelligence as a planner, analyst, briefer, instructor, and senior manager. He spent 17 years, following his service career, working with an Institutional Review Board helping to protect the rights of human subjects in pharmaceutical research. Ordained 1n 2013 as an "interfaith" minister, he founded the Congregation for Religious Tolerance in response to intolerance shown by Christians toward peaceful Islam. As the weapon for his war on intolerance he chose the pen, to wage his "battle" in the guise of the Congregation's official online blog, The Path, of which he is both author and editor. "The Path" offers a vehicle for commentary and guidance concerning one's own personal, spiritual, path toward peace and the final destination for us all. He currently resides in Pass Christian, Mississippi, where he volunteers as Chaplain Program Liaison, at a regional medical center.