Who is driving the bus?
In our understanding of artificial intelligence (AI), the ability to discern between favorable and unfavorable outcomes is paramount. However, the real question is, should we strive to grasp this understanding before we are confronted with a critical outcome that might be too late to rectify?
This is where See-Judge-Act enters into the picture.
As highlighted in various contexts related to AI, the role of philosophers is not just significant; it's paramount. I am using philosophers here broadly, including theologians and historians. As thought leaders such as the Dalai Lama their insights are crucial and enlighten our understanding of AI ethics. The impact of AI can vary significantly based on its application, and the intersection with philosophy plays a significant role in shaping our understanding of good AI versus bad AI. Think historically here about good labor relations and bad labor relations. Think of See-Judge-Act in the context of how Joseph Cardijn saw and experienced labor relations. Think of the technology driving the societal phase change that was being experienced. This leaves us trying to understand the good, bad, and ugly. Now, think of AI ethics and societal impact, just like the technology of the time of Joseph Cardijn and its effect on society. So, from a historian's perspective, we need to bring our philosophical pals into the arena to better understand the change in the societal phase. Now, back to the philosophical considerations, we must focus on how they provide a framework for evaluating the ethical implications and moral responsibilities of developing and deploying AI systems.
Understanding the fundamental questions about human values, morality, and the nature of consciousness is not just essential; it's our responsibility when contemplating the implications of AI technologies on society. This comprehensive approach is crucial; it ensures that AI development and deployment align with ethical principles and respect human dignity.
When considering good AI and bad AI, philosophical perspectives will guide us in determining whether an AI system aligns with ethical principles, respects human dignity, and promotes societal well-being. Think Aristotle here, heck, throw in Viktor Frankl, and why not the Sermon on the Mount? The ability to see, judge, and act is central to Aristotle, Frankl, and Jesus in Sermon on the Mount. Does AI provide for a consistent ethic of life? Why or why not? Who decides the consistent ethic of life? How do we know we have uncovered the root cause of the constraints we find in ethical AI? Can we recognize the systems of bad or ugly AI? How do we overcome unverbalized fear? What thinking tools are employed to grasp and understand the consistent ethic of life?
This way of thinking about AI is not easy, but the issue for you and me is how we do this in a way for the public, and it has to be in the public. The Young Christian Workers (YCW) and Young Christian/Catholic Students (YCS). Christian Family Movement, and all models and organizations promoting Catholic Action/Catholic Social Teaching.
Please do not think of this as an academic issue. It's a complex, multifaceted challenge that we must face head-on, and it's our collective responsibility to find solutions.
For instance, ethical frameworks rooted in philosophy can help address concerns related to algorithm bias, transparency in decision-making processes, and accountability for the consequences of AI actions. By incorporating philosophical insights through See-Judge-Act into AI development and regulation discussions, we can strive to create ethically sound and socially responsible artificial intelligence applications. Where does the path of ethical considerations cross or meet with societal phase change? Which is the driver? Above all, ask who is driving the bus.
Photo: Mercedes-Benz Future Bus with CityPilot. (Via Daimler)