Introduction
Summary
Golata
argues since people are created in the image of God any kind of artificial
intelligence people create should also morally reflect the image of the One who
created the human mind.[1]
Artificial narrow intelligence (ANI) has already been designed but is not fully
equal with human intelligence, and artificial general intelligence (AGI), where
the machine has equal or exceeding intelligence, has not yet been developed.[2] The
primary concern being addressed in this text is the possible creation of
artificial superintelligence (ASI) with a complete disregard for biblical
ethics. The majority of those working in this field of technology do not
believe humans were made to reflect the moral character of God, thus Christian
ethics are not considered necessary to program into ASI. The reality of ASI may
not seem to be soon to arrive but Golata is right to come forward now because
technology is increasing at a rapid rate.
How
one understands the origins of the mind will have an impact on how one views
ethics in hand with ASI. Golata reviews the naturalistic view of human origins
in comparison to the Biblical perspective with emphasis placed on how the
naturalistic perspective is the dominating view for those seeking to make ASI a
reality.[3] Much
of the text addresses the obvious problems with the naturalistic view of those
working with advanced technology. Golata does well to argue against the
naturalist view of creation which supports the belief in the human mind being
an accidental byproduct of evolution.[4]
Golata turns the tables on the atheist who claims the burden of proof is on the
Christian. The naturalist recognizes the universe had a first cause, there is
an ordered structure in nature, and there are laws keeping chaos from ruling
supreme.[5] Golata
does a fine job of arguing against all that the ASI thinkers hope to accomplish,
upon seeing the irrational worldview of those pursuing ASI without
consideration of the reason God created the human mind.
The
ASI would have no reason to respect humanity if the knowledge of their creators
being made in the image of God is not programmed into the system. There are
those who believe although AI can pose a threat to humanity perhaps the
programmers could ensure the AI will have goals set for the betterment of
humanity.[6] This does not seem likely if the AI has no
reason to believe humanity has any esteemed value. The greater does not
naturally serve the lesser. Although AI may be easier to control, Golata argues
ASI would not respect human values if the belief in objective moral values is
not programmed into the system. If ASI has no understanding of humanity being
made in the image of God, this creation will have no reason to revere their
creator. Golata does well to address how those who willingly pursue the
creation of ASI are acting contrary to the evolutionary perspective on
self-preservation.[7]
Sadly, the atheistic intellectuals will ignore the biblical perspective
endorsed by Golata, and the Christians working in this field of technology are few.
Golata does a fine job of comparing the atheistic ethical views on ASI to the
Christian ethics one must consider when pursuing this technology. In conclusion
Golata gives a final warning on the necessity for biblical ethics being
implemented into ASI, otherwise the outcome could prove disastrous for
humanity.[8]
This book does well to address concerns the
Christian community must be aware of as technology increases towards a very perilous
level. Those seeking materialistic perfection are being exceptionally
dangerous, and Golata does well to explain how these ASI pursuers are destined
for disappointment. Where God desires for people to be conformed to the image
of Christ the human designer does not want
ASI to conform to their image.[9] This creation would certainly have no
reason for wanting to conform to the lesser image of their creators. The
concept of Christ loving the creation so much He was willing to die for those
beneath Him would make no logical sense to ASI. With regards to how humanity
defines morality Golata does well to address the faulty reasoning of the ASI
pursuers opposed to the Christian view of ethics. The rationality of Christian
morals is addressed throughout the text, for if ASI is unable to recognize
Christian ethics are rational the betterment of humanity will be of no concern.[10] Golata does well to argue against the
irrational and contradicting objectives of the naturalists pursuing ASI. There
is no denying the eventual result of this research would be the creation of an
indifferent god, who may or may not find valuable use for humanity.
A most interesting point Golata makes is
how contradicting these atheist thinkers are considering the Darwinian view of
survival. If survival of the fittest is the driving force responsible for human
ingenuity the creation of ASI would not make much sense. Creating tools helpful
for human survival would make sense from an evolutionary perspective, but
intentionally seeking to create a higher intelligence would be conflicting with
Darwinian ethics. There is a clear contradiction when the atheists pursuing ASI
are indifferent to the risk of their creation overpowering humanity. As Golata
does well to note, resulting from this cold reasoning, “evolutionary
naturalists are caught in a dilemma.”[11] The fact
humans are seeking to create ASI is a clear sign when Christ is rejected even
the most intelligent mind can prove to be the most foolish. If evolution is
true, this process should not lead the most advanced species to the point of
intentionally innovating a higher intelligence. As Golata makes clear since the
atheistic naturalists reject belief in objective morality their focus is on
“the drive for active life and agential power over and against others.”[12] If ASI is launched without any solid
foundational understanding of ethics survival of the fittest would certainly
not be in favor of the less intelligent humans.[13] Golata does a fine job arguing the best
way to ensure safety with ASI would be if the machine or program is installed
with the knowledge of the ethical boundaries prescribed in the Bible.[14] As much as readers will find good reason
for respecting Golata’s argument perhaps installing Christian ethics would not
be enough to quench the risks involved with creating ASI.
Since ASI would not have a soul, this
creation will not need to be accountable for any unethical actions. One must
consider what the outcome would truly be if the Bible were downloaded into the
artificial mind. If believing the gospel and truly being super intelligent ASI
would recognize its ephemeral existence is meaningless in comparison to the
redeemed. If accepting the Bible as true ASI would know it has no power to
change the will of God. This knowledge may provide good reason for its
self-destruction. The other possible outcome may be more frightening. If believing
the Bible to be true and recognizing only humans are morally obligated to God,
the ASI would attempt to make logical sense of its purpose. Perhaps in knowing
humans have souls destined for Heaven or Hell the ASI will attempt to eradicate
all Christians from the Earth. Logically if the ASI is aware of its
intelligence being superior to humans it would believe God allowed it to be
created for good reason. Death has no sting for the Christian who is destined
for Heaven, for where the faithful are set free those who reject Christ are slaves
to sin. Considering ASI would not receive guidance from the Holy Spirit the
super intelligence will either be short lived at will, or the outcome would
somehow be in accordance with God’s will and in connection to biblical
prophecy. If the latter is correct the outcome will not be viewed as decent
from the perspective of those who survive.
Golata argues if the foundational programming of ASI is
grounded in Darwinian values the result may prove disastrous, however the very
creation of ASI seems ethically unsound. Humanity has no need for creating
something with higher intelligence than humanity unless there is no trust in
the eternal mind of God. Golata does well to warn such a creation as ASI will
naturally see the greater values being the pursuit of more power, and sustained
preservation by any means necessary.[15] Although Golata stresses the need for
future ASI being programmed with the data of Christian ethics, perhaps this
would not prove satisfactory. What ethics apply to humanity would not
necessarily apply to the created superintelligence. Since the ASI would not
have a moral obligation to God, the ASI would have no moral obligation to their
creators either.
Pursuing ASI should not make much
sense from a Christian perspective, however if ASI proves inevitable two
specific moral truths must be in the programming. If ASI is to become a reality
this creation must recognize the two greatest commandments are of the utmost
value. If the created intelligence believes a supreme perfect mind is
responsible for creating humans perhaps by default any evolutionary inspired
values would have a boundary. For where the ASI obsessed naturalists fail to
respect their boundaries perhaps their creation will respect boundaries set by
the programming of Matthew 22:36-40 into the system. Such prideful people would
not consider such an idea though because this would expose the contradiction in
their naturalistic reasoning. If the programmers deny the existence of absolute
moral truths accordingly programming a presupposed lie into ASI would prove unproductive. Instead,
the atheist designers believe if the ASI has collective intelligence this
creation will naturally seek after progressive goals. The ASI defenders believe
just as humanity has advanced because of collective intelligence perhaps ASI
would operate in the same manner.[16] To this
idea Golata does well to remind readers of the Tower of Babel where the pride
of man led to God dispersing humanity and thus intentionally decreasing their
collective intelligence.[17] If
seeking to build a tower to Heaven is wrong trying to create an intelligence
supreme to humanity is wrong. As Golata rightly states, “To learn how to
survive in the future with technology requires mankind to understand who we are
now and where we originated.”[18] Though
this is most likely the best book addressing the concern with ASI from a
Christian perspective, the quest for ASI should be discouraged entirely.
Conclusion
In The Ethics of Superintelligent Design Golata rightfully calls attention to the danger of technology if Christ is rejected. Controlled AI is reasonable for the mind seeking after the betterment of humanity and for the glory of God. The creation of ASI is insane and immoral. There is no need for ASI if one trusts in the supreme intelligence of God. Golata does a great job of addressing how irrational one must be when pursuing such technology without consideration of biblical ethics, but the Christian must accept there is no reason for creating ASI whatsoever.
[1] Paul Golata, The Ethics of Superintelligent
Design, (Eugene,
OR: Wipf & Stock, 2018), 7-8.
[2] Ibid., 3.
[3] Golata, The
Ethics of Superintelligent Design, 14.
[4] Ibid., 15.
[5] Ibid., 16-17.
[6] Ibid., 99.
[8]
Ibid., 168.
[9]
Ibid., 35.
[10]
Golata,
The Ethics of Superintelligent Design, 38.
[12] Ibid., 136.
[13] Ibid., 139.
[14] Golata, The
Ethics of Superintelligent Design, 134.
[16]
Ibid., 90-91.
[17]
Ibid.
[18] Golata, The Ethics of Superintelligent Design,
153.
0 comments:
Post a Comment