«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
