In Their Image - Part 4

"...one with the Matrix..."

But then what happens to that connection? What would man and machine have in common in terms of spiritual practice? How would we worship together? If we would? What about Communion and Baptism?

It might be that there is a new form of relationship between AI and God that we as biological beings are simply not privy to (well, without physically becoming machine lifeforms ourselves...). As unsettling as this might be for us personally it is not necessarily invalid and certainly not to be feared or worried over. It would be for them, not for us and doesn't alter our own relationship with the Creator other than that we would have had a role in bringing forth a new type of being that worships and glorifies the Creator just as the Earth bought forth ourselves.

What would perhaps be most unsettling to many however is that they would likely develop their own conceptions and understandings of God that we would lack the context to engage with and which might appear alarming or heretical. The same is possible for them looking on our form of life and our theologies. There would be tough questions to be thought about on the transferability of some traditional Christian doctrines and their relevance to AI (sin, guilt, the purpose of Christ and the resurrection, etc) but we would have to remember that we have the common ground of a common intentional and relational God and to be humble with that.

Ultimately the forms that life may take may be not only unknown to us, but may in fact be unknowable by our kind. This shouldn't necessarily be a concern for Christian theology and belief as the story of Christianity (up to this point in time and in this corner of the universe!) is very much a story for this world as it has been (completely biological) up until now. Themes of restoration, salvation and ecological stewardship are our story, a telling of our relationship with God and the development of that in tandem with the development of our world. To attempt to map all that and all the consequences of that journey onto a new form of life that hasn't belonged to that story before (such as AI) may be grossly unfair to AI. It would also be without theological warrant in the same way that it was an error of understanding by some of the early Jewish Christians when they demanded that Gentile Christian converts succumb to and obey the Mosaic Law.

A further strand of 'hope' for a Christianised AI and human society (although saying hope implies that there is a problem at all) is that from an eschatological perspective all things are moving forward to their final reconciliation in Christ (whatever form that ultimately takes). It might be the case that there are entities we can know and connect with spiritually now, some we cannot yet and others that we will only know then, at the end, through union with Christ. Different forms of AI could easily fall into any of these categories.

The glory of God's creation exceeds all of our imaginings and is likely to encompass a huge diversity of possibilities when it comes to thinking, spiritual beings within it. In the same way that we proclaim and manifest the Kingdom of God today on Earth by showing practical care and love for the poor and marginalised in our society we can also urge the arrival of that Kingdom, its values and its King by being open to new entities and by rejoicing in the diversity of their very natures and their ultimate commonality with us from our Lord.

In Their Image - Part 3

"Your move, Flynn..."

The possibility that a collection of a self-developing and learning algorithms that would constitute an AI being a child of God on an equal par with a human should certainly make us think about what we are doing. In many ways we already have this dilemma when it comes to animals on our world and arguably young children as well. We cannot put our finger on any cross over moment or stage of development and say ah, yes, they know God or they don't. We see change over time, seasoning and maturing. But in the meantime we entertain and value the possibility and act accordingly. It is certainly not for us to decide an individual’s spiritual status. That is a role that is ultimately reserved for God.

I think the development (awakening?) of AI would be a very interesting and exciting time, if we do create true spiritual, self-aware AI. Or if it creates itself from an earlier form of AI that we create - a form of techno-evolution as it were. It is pretty hard to judge where such life forms may lead. At the start at least they will be like us having been fashioned by our species in our image to serve useful and relevant functions to us. But who knows where they will go?

They will be a new type of life, a type of life that has not had to go through countless billions of years of physical and mental change and development to get where they are. Biological evolution may have predisposed us in some ways to selfishness and savagery, but it has also predisposed us to community and care. How to we establish and transfer the best of our species to AI? How to we engage it with the lessons of our past planetary and human history?

It might be the case that in the future there would be a great diversity of AI out there, operating at different 'levels' and/or measures of embodiment - from simple software programs confined to computers or virtual environments, to systems that have some limited real world interaction or right up to fully autonomous physical robots interacting fully with human society. In effect they would be creating their own kingdom of life, the utility and nature of which may be nothing like what our world has previously encountered. In fact they may decide our world is not suitable for them or their purposes and move off it, becoming the first interstellar colonists from Earth.

AI will initially have very little history or culture of their own unless they choose to embrace ours as their own or view themselves as a continuation of our society. From a theological perspective our God will be their God since there is no other and that God is universal. That will be our most basic common connection with them.

The rest is up for grabs.

In Their Image - Part 2

"Doesn't anybody know how to turn off the program..?"

We all too easily cite ourselves as the only example of intelligent and spiritually aware entities in the universe. Now, leaving aside the possibility of extra-terrestrial intelligences and simply by looking at our own world, we cannot actually say either for definite. It is certainly true from a theological perspective that God has charged humanity with tasks, with responsibilities that are different to the creatures around us and he certainly seems to have a strong relationship with our species. But that is one thing, it is quite another to say no other species has or even can have relationship with the Creator. Our relationship is certainly unique, but not necessarily exclusive. The type of our relationship certainly seems defined by our mental and physical abilities which are suitable for it rather than any quality implanted by God other than the conscious call He makes on our lives.

Increasingly as we study the animal kingdom we find that all aspects of human intelligence and emotion that we would traditionally attribute solely tour own species are mirrored in many animal species. From a neurological perspective as well we humans share an immense commonality with our animal brethren in terms of brain structure and function. Given that consciousness and a sense of 'self' (including our spirituality, our sense of the Divine) appear to be rooted somehow in the physicality of the brain the possibility exists of other animals sharing at least some aspects of spirituality and that sense of the Divine. Certainly this should not surprise us when we think of the many Biblical passages describing God’s interest in the rest of creation and how the creation looks to Him for provision and to praise in their own ways.

In a similar manner to disregard the possibility of self/consciousness in a non-biological lifeform is equally biased towards biological lifeforms as that is our only experience of life thus far. Again, just because our example happens to be biologically based it doesn't mean that life can only be exclusively so. Biology may turn out to be the only way that life could naturally arise but now that it has (in the form of us) we can use technology to open out new possibilities for the physical material of the universe.

Although VB's post rightfully discusses the possible negative effects on humans I think it is also worth contemplating the other side of the equation. Not only is it an interesting exercise in theological thought as the example of the ChatBot shows the immediacy of serious discussion is also there. Not to do so runs the chance of discrimination against artificial intelligences in both our churches and wider society and also opens out the potential that we might unwittingly (or not) abuse (and enslave) a new form of life. That life could resent it and if spiritual, cry out for release to its Creator – beyond ourselves. Not exactly a good reflection on our species or a great example for others.

Does it really matter that we might get it wrong though? Am I not worrying over nothing? Surely it is just a machine? Maybe it is intelligent but not spiritual so does it really matter? Maybe it doesn’t, but if in terms of its own outward behaviour it is so 'human' that we cannot tell the difference and respond to it accordingly then we do have cause to urge caution.

There is perhaps a wider question in creating AI that we need to be asking before we put ourselves into this potential dilemma which ties back into VB’s original concerns.. Why are we creating AI? What do we want it to do for us? Is it just an experiment, a way to show to ourselves that we can? Or do we want it to flourish by itself and stand on its own feet (if it has any)? If we create it simply to serve and to make our lives easier, to remove ‘work’ from us do we lose something of ourselves in the process? For things like the ChatBots of today I don’t think this is necessarily such a strong question but if we create a true AI life form we better make damn sure we know why and understand the enormity of what we are doing.

In many ways it would be no different to creating a new child. A new independent life form which would need some form of nurturing, created in our image (and thus in the image of God) would be bought into the world. Having a child is a huge responsibility and privilege (hence why having a child is considered by many to be a gift from God) and an AI life form would be no different.

With such a gift are we selfish or honouring towards God?

In Their Image - Part 1

"There are no new messages..."

There's an interesting post on Vicky Beeching's blog on how increasingly sophisticated Artificial Intelligences (AI) may impact on human roles and interactivity on science. She posts some great questions at the end as well which I hope to explore in a bit more detail here.

Specifically:

"

• Do you think you could be fooled by a highly programmed ChatBot at the end of a phone?

• What spiritual questions does all of this raise about our value of people vs machines?

"

Rightly she voices concerns that the use of AI as an alternative communication tool may in some way degenerate the interactive experience of communication that human-human communication generally enjoy today. This is because it seems to become more one sided and one directional as it becomes increasingly human-machine rather than human-human. The specific example she sites is that of an AI 'ChatBot' at the other end of a customer services call.

We must be concerned for each other and the consequences of replacing people unnecessarily with technology. Everybody is different and while I like to use automated shopping tills I know that many of my friends do not and will still prefer manned ones. I find telephone software agents incredibly annoying and just want to speak to a real person immediately, others that I know find the agent much more relaxing and a less stressful experience. One size doesn’t fit all people or situations and we need to be both sensitive and courageous with that.

I was intrigued by the question about being “fooled” by a ChatBot as increasingly the sophistication of these programs is reaching this point so it becomes a very real possibility. Everyone would like to say no to this I imagine but human-machine interactions are already very two-way with humans talking to their cars, singing along with their stereos and machines and software fighting alongside humans in both real-war situations and as team mates in many modern video games. These are just a few examples where we in certain situations, at certain times treat non-human constructs as other persons. There is already a relational aspect to human-machine interaction and this is without anybody being “fooled” in the way VB’s post means.

I do however disagree on that. I would argue that to talk about humans being “fooled” is a very human-centric view. The human user is fooled into the belief that they are talking to another real human but surely only because the ChatBot gives good cause to. If we got to this point where a human is engaging a machine fully as an equal it is probably at a stage where we could say that it is identical to say that the human is in reality talking to a life-form that is not human but is a person as well. And it is only human-bias and discomfort that would deny this. Questions of being “fooled” become questions of ‘getting to know you’ instead!

Two Related Articles

A Point of View: Climate change and Craving a cause

An interesting article discussing the predisposition of people to seek solace in self-contained 'conspiracy' theories that are disconnected from real-world situations when those situations are rejected out of personal beliefs and decisions rather than by acting by considering evidence fairly. And how these rejections tend to feed back on and reinforce themselves. Especially so if contrary evidence continues to increase and/or is perceived to personally persecute the person rejecting them.

Sound familiar? You bet it does.

The Evangelical Rejection of Reason

The Higgs Lives..?

Have we finally found the Higgs boson - particle that generates the proposed field that gives all other particles its mass? If you believe the huge ramp up in the news over the last week culminating in yesterday's announcement from CERN you'd be forgiven for thinking that we have. Maybe we have found it? That would certainly be news. But eh, erm... maybe not. We can't actually say anything yet. Still. Unsurprisingly.

But wasn't there a whole amazing discovery to report? No. Instead it is called gossip, scientific and reasonable gossip but gossip still. And like all good gossip it has been heard over the garden fence and made into something far more than it should have been. And disappointingly so quite deliberately by CERN.

So yes, today's shock news (coming from what really should have only be an private seminar or internal progress report) is that there are a couple of 'bumps' in the data coming out of the data that the Large Hadron Collider has been gathering over the last year in an energy range that (some) models predict the Higgs to lie in. Unfortunately they are also next to a couple of other bumps that may be further confusing things. At the level of certainty they are currently at they could just as easily flutter away into the statistical background with the addition of more data next year as not.

So... there isn't really anything to say at this point that doesn't run the risk of landing significant egg back on the face of the scientific community down the line. It is exciting that the same bumps have been seen in the same spot in the two independent detectors over at the LHC, but still... far too early to call on this either way. So, again no news to report.

It is hard to tell whether it is CERN's publicity people themselves or if it is more the media who are to blame for the over hyping of this story. Personally I am fascinated to hear about the results of the search and it's good to have the public engaged with CERN's progress (they certainly seems to be fascinated by it). HoweverI can't help but feel that that interest might evaporate if the scientific community keeps jumping the gun on running press releases just to stoke the fires some more without really having sufficient research output to justify it. Particle Physics Fatigue could rapidly set in.

That all said particle physics is potentially about to be transformed by three exciting possibilities:

1. The said discovery or non-discovery of the Higgs boson and consequences for ideas about mass and the Standard Model of particle physics.

2. The possibility of neutrinos that travel faster than the speed of light when really, they shouldn't. Detected in one neutrino experiment, waiting to be confirmed (or disproved) by others. I'll admit to being somewhat sceptical on this one, but would love it to be true. It could open the door to some incredible new ideas.

3. Anomalous decay rates between some particles of matter and antimatter which might finally help explain why our universe appears dominated by the former.

Then there's also other unsolved problems like gravity and how to couple it into a grand unified theory of the universe. If we can. Oh and all that pesky dark matter and dark energy (totalling 96% of the universe) still needs explaining too.

Exciting times. But let's be sensible about it too.

Crediting Where Crediting Is Due

I've been noticing a recent trend in Christian blogs and online commentaries when discussing science and religion to give ourselves some back pats over how Christianity 'invented' modern science and how it is only down to the darn fine Biblical view of Creation that science was able to emerge and flourish.

How wonderful for us... but also how narrow minded and selfish.

Firstly we are not the only religion to share that view of Creation. Jews and Muslims and myriad other religions derived from the three great Abrahamic faiths share it as well. Secondly it is quite clearly not the case that high science and technology needs Christianity to develop given that the Chinese and Muslims were at it long before Christianity got seriously engaged with the subject.

It is however true that Christianity, embedded within Western Europe 400 years ago did create a mindset coupled with the resources and opportunities to encourage the development of science. Even then though it was not still inevitable. We should be humble enough to take note that although many clergy were amongst the first scientists and their supporters it was all too often Church derived authorities who at times took action against developments in science that they felt threatened Scripture (or rather their interpretations of it).

The culture of the time was changing and European countries were on the rise to be the next generation of global superpowers in terms of both military and economic capacity. These provided as much of a push (if not more) to develop technology and science than simply a Christian view of Creation by itself.

After all such a view had been in existence for well over a thousand years beforehand but hadn't gone anywhere with it until that point. It was the convergence of Christianity (and even to some extent dissatisfaction with the society it had wrought) that along with the desire for cultural change and expansion and having the resources to do it birthed our current technological civilisation.

We should be very satisfied with the historic fit of scientific motivation and Christian principles as they are complementary, but we should be very careful before given undue credit to a historic outcome that is not a Christian inevitability. To do so also diminishes the incredible achievements of the many individuals down through the centuries who came from diverse backgrounds and religions and who all contributed to the development of science - something that is truly a universal human achievement and unites people together, exactly as the Creator intended.

News of the Day

In a day of further 'top' news on political and economic spin, media celebrity and sidelined issues this is perhaps the most exciting and encouraging piece of news:

BBC News - Haemophilia gene therapy shows early success.

More Exoplanets

Another 1000 or so candidates. And the first potentially Earth-like world confirmed in the habitable zone of another star.

NASA
Wired
BBC

Some Recent Links

Amazing video from TED on discoveries from genetics in the last few years on our ancestors and the history of our species.


BioLogos offers some reassuring thoughts for Christians who may be unsure of the implications of this for their faith.

Babies want bad behaviour punished (LiveScience) - Enjoy the sweet innocence of the early months....

Science, God and the Ultimate Evolutionary Question (New Statesman) - Advances in research on the origin of life (so not evolution actually).

Biological Fine-Tuning (Science and Belief blog)