VALUES AND TECHNOLOGY

 «Saving values in the world of technology»

 

The Irish phenomenologist, Moran,  compares himself with the Pope's message for Communications Day: "Perhaps current philosophical anthropology is not sufficient to understand the challenges of artificial intelligence"

 

- by LUCA MARIA SCARANTINO and GIOVANNI SCARAFILE

 

Pope Francis' recent document for the 58th World Communications Day, Artificial intelligence and the wisdom of the heart: for fully human communication, urgently intervenes in the global debate, also raising a series of fundamental questions regarding the impact of AI on society, underlining the urgent need to carefully evaluate its consequences on human well-being and on the moral fabric of our community. Within this scenario, the importance of a philosophical investigation that is able to offer an incisive analytical perspective rooted in a profound understanding of the human condition clearly emerges. In this sense, the use of phenomenology, the philosophical discipline that is responsible for exploring the structures of lived experience, can prove particularly useful for shedding light on the dynamics underlying technological phenomena, balancing the evaluation of its innovative potential with an acute criticism the dangers it may pose. Dermot Moran, Joseph Professor of Catholic Philosophy at Boston College and Past President of Fisp (Fédération Internationale des Sociétés de Philosophie), is one of the greatest exponents of contemporary phenomenology. In this capacity, he can help us explore the complex terrain outlined by the papal document. In the conversation with him, Moran places the emphasis on ethics, on the protection of human dignity, on the challenges to human freedom, outlining the traits of humanism in the era of artificial intelligence.

 How would you consider Pope Francis' message to interact with current trends in contemporary philosophy, particularly in relation to the development of artificial intelligence?

 This document is extremely timely and welcome and refutes the claim that the Catholic Church is anti-scientific or retrograde. In fact, the Catholic Church is leading the way among world religions in its critical reflection on AI (which I will use as a short term for generative artificial intelligence and the large language models that are currently emerging, offering something like "intelligence" and even “general intelligence”). The Pope's well-thought-out and well-articulated document asks many profound questions (I counted at least eleven questions in the text) to politicians, scientists, philosophers and theologians regarding the challenge of AI in relation to the "meaning of human life, the construction of knowledge, and the ability of the mind to reach the truth." The document begins with a confident endorsement of the ability of the human mind, created in the divine image, to acquire scientific knowledge in all fields, including AI. The project of progressing in scientific rationality is approved: AI is another opportunity for humans to realize their ability to know, although the task of knowing is infinite and we are finite and limited beings. The document then offers a concise overview of the main threats (political, economic, social, psychological, even spiritual) that generative AI poses. It concludes with a prayer that AI will be used to overcome injustice and inequality and not to perpetuate them. Currently, much contemporary philosophy has recognized the need to reflect deeply on how the techno-scientific framework is transforming humanity. Technology is not just a set of tools, as Martin Heidegger pointed out; it is a whole new framework (Gestell) that contains and promotes its implicit values. Social media platforms, for example, are not as neutral as some of their creators (e.g., Mark Zuckerberg) have insisted. We therefore absolutely need ethical and legal oversight. The document rightly adopts a global and universal perspective. Furthermore, AI development cannot be the possession of a few for the benefit of a few. Of course, the Pope, as a spiritual leader, focuses primarily on issues involving moral philosophy and, indeed, philosophical anthropology. Very rightly, he reminds scientists that these new scientific discoveries are situated within the broader framework of human cultural development. In this sense, I believe, he is right to emphasize the centrality of the human against those who, enthusiastically but naively, welcome a post-human or trans-human future! He is also calling on scientists working with these new machine learning models to be critically reflective and to maintain and promote human values. Science has always been under the influence of Prometheus' dream of controlling and dominating all of nature. But we remain mortal, finite, fragile beings, tied to our finite earthly home which is our environment in the deepest sense. The Pope reminds us that human existence is full of values and can never be reduced to a set of algorithms; human values must always guide the sciences. We should never abandon human values regarding justice, fairness, equality, to the calculations of machines, no matter how “intelligent” they appear to sift through data and predict probabilities. Furthermore, the Pope is acutely aware that even the best AI systems embody many hidden values, assumptions and biases, which can be reductive or distorting or discriminatory, precisely reflecting the complexities of our human world and not overcoming them. Machines must remain controlled by humans “in possession of their own universe of values,” as the document states. Philosophers and scientists, therefore, urgently need to examine the values implicit in these AI systems and hold them accountable to our deepest values.

What potential threats to human dignity do you consider particularly relevant in light of Pope Francis' reflections on artificial intelligence?

 The Pope's document clearly lists the dangers of machine learning, "hallucination" (i.e., making things up), uncertain reliability, the capacity for misinformation and distortion, the possibilities (already manifest) of "digital exclusion", threats to privacy, serious issues regarding ownership of data and intellectual property, and the capacity to generate new injustices, for example, AI using selection methods for job candidates that introduce new forms of discrimination and prejudice. The Pope is anxious that scientific advances promote human well-being or “betterment” and not lead to even greater discord and disadvantage. No one should be excluded from this new knowledge. Indeed, there is already considerable evidence of this digital exclusion; Entire regions of the world don't even have access to electricity or clean water, let alone the latest AI tools. There are also many issues regarding the profound distortion of knowledge that can influence political and social affairs, influencing elections or other political discussions. The Pope, therefore, rightly calls for regulations to ensure that these AI advances protect individuals and the social good. There are threats of theft of a person's identity, even their face, voice, DNA, which are removed from the subject's control. The use of AI in selecting humans for jobs etc. it is fraught with dangers involving forms of prejudice and discrimination, both conscious and unconscious. He is aware that humans can be manipulated with false information, illusions, dissimulations, simulacra, a shadowy world of appearances just like Plato's cave. There is a need to preserve human control over all our information systems. There is a need to protect the dignity and integrity of the human person. So, the question is: how do we vet the development of AI to ensure that it meets the highest standards of care and respect for human subjects? This is clearly an ongoing task and one that requires all our intellectual disciplines and resources. Religion and philosophy rightly have a voice.

 How do you view the impact of artificial intelligence on our understanding of human freedom and will?

 It seems to me that we need to go beyond the old opposition between freedom and determinism. Many scientists are naively deterministic about humans and, indeed, about the universe itself. Contemporary science is indeed a manifestation of the will to power over all of nature, including human nature itself. There are already experiments involving the alleged enhancement of intelligence through the implantation (in humans and animals) of microchips that function in the brain itself. There are already concerns that scientists will exploit the vulnerable in these experiments, as there have been experiments on prisoners, orphans and the destitute in the past. But there is also concern that AI will perpetuate inequalities. Certainly, AI systems have the ability to give us more freedom by removing fatigue, but AI has an even greater danger of enslaving humanity through unregulated access and manipulation of human data.

 In what ways does the Pope perceive the role of artificial intelligence in promoting authentically human communication?

 The papal document rightly adopts a universalist perspective and a confidence that the best use of scientific knowledge will actually benefit all humanity. In this sense, the document is optimistic and certainly not apocalyptic. The letter demands that we place these new discoveries at the center of our concerns for human improvement and that we educate ourselves to manage these new realities. New breakthroughs in AI can better assist us in accessing and sharing knowledge, assuming we genuinely want to remove barriers. We must protect ourselves from the exclusivity in the benefits of this knowledge and also from the dangers of self-learning AI systems that function beyond human control to the point of posing an existential threat to the human race. This is no longer the stuff of science fiction. We have two fundamental imperatives: protect all human life and protect our planetary ecological environment. Today we are almost drowning in the flood of information without there being real dialogue and communication. A critical stance is deeply necessary to help us counter misinformation that masquerades as communication.

In your opinion, what challenges and opportunities could artificial intelligence present for the future of society?

 The technological transformations of the last two centuries have been a whirlwind. Modes of transportation have moved very rapidly from the horse and carriage (ubiquitous before the Great War) to the train, automobile, airplane and spacecraft. Mechanization and industrialization have effectively eliminated human toil and freed humans for higher forms of activity. Satellite systems provide communications globally. But technology also produces weapons of mass destruction that cause immense suffering everywhere. The discovery and actual deployment of atomic bombs are a constant reminder of the way scientific discovery can lead to horrendous consequences. Despite our technological advances, our world today still has enormous exploitation and slavery; think about the horror of child labor. AI must be used to improve workers' conditions, but not at the cost of making low-skilled workers permanently unemployable. The greatest challenge, as the Pope rightly underlines, is to preserve human values and bring all humanity with us on this journey. The Pope sees this in terms of fulfilling the divine plan to make the earth a habitable place for human beings. There are significant challenges to how we understand human beings but we must not abandon our efforts to keep the human person at the center of our concerns. We must curb the exuberance of the Promethean technocrats, preserve the sources of human values and human freedom, and continue to exercise our rational control over our lives for the betterment of humanity and our world. A remarkable fact that strikes me as a philosopher and phenomenologist is how AI algorithms and procedures (especially large language models) are actually built upon and reproduce the dense pre-predicative assumptions and network of beliefs and practices that Husserl defined as the “world of life” (Lebenswelt). While AI systems may be infused with the best “moral” perspectives and surrounded by explicit laws and procedures to eliminate bias, etc., it is clear that there is an even larger implicit belief and value system built into platform operating systems themselves. For example, a recruiting agency's AI tool might filter out candidates whose speech patterns don't conform to what the AI considers polite. In this sense, philosophers urgently need to reflect on whether current philosophical anthropology is sufficient to understand the challenges of AI. A radical rethinking of our human existence is necessary to identify and preserve our deepest values.

 www.avvenire.it