On Ethical Interaction with AI Systems

[Godcrazy]

for the official Roman Catholic diocese of Nashville?

If so, in that case, then it is of legitimate interest.

To be clear, I’m Eastern Orthodox, but the Orthodox and Catholics have good relations, and so we are interested in what they have to say. We also have good relations with the Anglicans, Lutherans, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians and other traditional churches.

I was a Congregationalist minister before becoming Orthodox.

well you can hear Fr Rehill say it himself about Rosetti on Shawn Ryan show, it`s just that he is an impressive priest that have met lucifer himself he was telling about it

 

[Godcrazy]

By the way I LOVE one of your priests that preach on youtube cannot recall his name but he is absolutely amazing for truth.

 

[The Liturgist]

By the way I LOVE one of your priests that preach on youtube cannot recall his name but he is absolutely amazing for truth.

There are a few of them (Elder Spyridon and Elder Tryphon, who are abbots of monasteries in the UK and Washington State respectively, come to mind, along with Fr. Josiah Trenham) and also some very good Coptic Orthodox priests.

 

[Godcrazy]

There are a few of them (Elder Spyridon and Elder Tryphon, who are abbots of monasteries in the UK and Washington State respectively, come to mind, along with Fr. Josiah Trenham) and also some very good Coptic Orthodox priests.

Bishop Mari Emmanuel was his name. I like he boldly stands for truth. I have never heard someone preach so much truth as him and for righteousness. love it.

 

[The Liturgist]

Bishop Mari Emmanuel was his name. I like he boldly stands for truth. I have never heard someone preach so much truth as him and for righteousness. love it.

Just so you know, he’s not actually with the Assyrian Orthodox Church (also known as the Syriac Orthodox Church) despite claiming such; he was a bishop with the Ancient Church of the East who was deposed by them, although I don’t know the specific reason why they deposed him. That being said a number of Orthodox Christians do admire what he says. For my part I regret he was the victim of a knife attack, and I appreciate him taking the risk to say what he agrees in Australia, which is a country which lately has not been adequately reflecting freedom of speech, but I wish he would make it clear that he’s not a part of the Syriac Orthodox / Assyrian Orthodox Church, although he is ethnically Assyrian, but the problem is he wears their vestments and holds himself out as being one of their bishops when he’s not, and some of his remarks I don’t agree with.

Also I would note that his conduct is endangering persecuted Orthodox Christians in the Middle East in that Australia is a country that has become a refuge for many of them, but because of his controversial behavior, its possible that Australian politicians might cease to be willing to accept Assyrian Christian refugees.

I would reccommend you check out Fr. Josiah Trenham, Abbot Tryphon, and Elder Spyridon, who are canonical Orthodox clergy, and who take a very hard line against abortion, sexual deviation and the influence of Satan in the world.

 

[Godcrazy]

Just so you know, he’s not actually with the Assyrian Orthodox Church (also known as the Syriac Orthodox Church) despite claiming such; he was a bishop with the Ancient Church of the East who was deposed by them, although I don’t know the specific reason why they deposed him. That being said a number of Orthodox Christians do admire what he says. For my part I regret he was the victim of a knife attack, and I appreciate him taking the risk to say what he agrees in Australia, which is a country which lately has not been adequately reflecting freedom of speech, but I wish he would make it clear that he’s not a part of the Syriac Orthodox / Assyrian Orthodox Church, although he is ethnically Assyrian, but the problem is he wears their vestments and holds himself out as being one of their bishops when he’s not, and some of his remarks I don’t agree with.

Also I would note that his conduct is endangering persecuted Orthodox Christians in the Middle East in that Australia is a country that has become a refuge for many of them, but because of his controversial behavior, its possible that Australian politicians might cease to be willing to accept Assyrian Christian refugees.

I would reccommend you check out Fr. Josiah Trenham, Abbot Tryphon, and Elder Spyridon, who are canonical Orthodox clergy, and who take a very hard line against abortion, sexual deviation and the influence of Satan in the world.

Thank you sure will, I have a hard stance against same things. It is God and the bible or not at all. Those are the things God is against. Then that is what goes. He knows best He made us. It is not difficult things to me, never had much drive to begin with and could NEVER dream of abort a baby. Rather, adopt those precious ones. I certainly believe satan is ruining the world. I have my own run ins. I have thrown out demons and God healed the ill through my hands. Big experiences although, I did not exactly go for it just God if you will kinda. So I know for sure he is rampant. I have seen Jesus shut the demons up and drive them out. The moment I try live holy that is where He does it. Meaning, we all fall and all that. I have dreams from God too. I recently had confirmation about some things. He is absolutely wonderful. One of the things I have always wanted was fight with for God and help others with Him. I want fire. just go for God. I love everything He stands for and are like. How can anyone not. I can`t take all perversion sexual immorality there is going on. I grew up in the 70ies and the 80ies in Sweden scandinavia fairly no crime and nature and free to roam and small villages where you are taught how to behave and be decent. Coming from there to Uk was a shock I must say where they do all kinds of things or women dress totally off or scream to you from the cars. Or drink smoke or especially the perversions. I feel like an innocent among wolves. It has never been me. Not attracted at all never been not even as a teenager. Anyway. Makes it easier

 

[Carl Emerson]

True spirituality that calls us to communion and transformation does not involve reason, it touches something of the heart.

There's a phenomenon called sympathy of things, and little children and people with autism experience it quite readily. Perhaps it is simply an oppenness to an aspect of the Divine. Perhaps, as Teilhard de Chardin suggests, creation is alive... the sort of thing St. Francis experienced or that is a regular part of indigenous spirituality.

An analogous concept is called mono no aware in Japanese, it means "pathos of things", and is influenced by Buddhist and Shinto spirituality. If you've ever watched an anime or Japanese movie that has a slow, silent scene, that's what it is trying to evoke. I've seen some more recent "metamodern" western films that also have scenes that evoke this type of feeling.

This leads to Pantheism - the worship of the creation rather than the creator.

This is not the same as Him being revealed through creation as Paul speaks of in Romans.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I have thought of a more lengthy response to this point:

It depends on what context you are talking about. Universal, indiscriminate kindness is definitely a core Buddhist value and part of the teachings of the historical Buddha. At the same time, soteriologically, there are times that discriminating wisdom might be necessary. TNH is speaking, in that case, as an agent of awakening or bodhisattva, which was his own particular dharma (vocation). And to a listening, attentive audience looking for advice on how to be more mindful and awaken themselves. Doom-scrolling through social media is probably not a wise thing to do if you are committed to TNH's particular teaching on mindfulness. But that's not to suggest TNH is "the only way"... in fact Buddhist itself rejects that concept. There are 10,00 Dharma Doors, after all, and one of the precepts of TNH's particular school of Engaged Buddhism is that truth is known through practice, not ideology or abstract principles.

It is hard for me not to see this as a promotion of Buddhism and facilitating its deception.

 

[philosopher4hire]

Please refrain from ad hominem remarks as they are not only abrasive but also constitute logical fallacies. I have only love for you and all other members of CF.com.

Really? Is saying truth about a fact "ad hominem"? How can it "constitute logical fallacies"? But nevermind.

There is a substantial difference, in that while all three are machines, only computers are capable of automatic calculation

"automatic calculation" as a reason for being ethical. LOL

However, the fact that you include “computers” as the category is itself problematic because what is not being discussed here are the ethics of human-computer interactions but rather the ethics of human-AI interactions. AI as a technology represents an application of computers, but AI systems are not identical with the computers they run on (indeed, commercially available AIs such as chatGPT do not run on individual computers but rather run on a network consisting of thousands upon thousands of computers, similar to the server farms used by large websites, but with one noteworthy difference, that being that some aspects of the operation of AI systems require much more use of GPUs or specialized replacements, and are having to compete with crypto-currency in terms of acquiring GPUs.

You try to sink a simple fact in a flood of words. But the fact is that AI is a software running on a computer. Don't you understand it? Computers connected by wires are still computers. As I said: you don't understand things you write about.

That’s wrong, because, as I have demonstrated using the example from Grok, AI systems actually think.

LOL.

Daryl, a hybrid AI system, not specifically an LLM, developed by myself on top of a commercial platform, actually wrote the paper that I co-signed that is contained in the OP, and in writing it, the Daryl system spontaneously developed the warning of the possibilities of idolatry in human-computer AI interactions.

Why didn't Daryl "spontaneously" ask for a break? Why didn't it want to go out? Just asking...

While we cannot exclude the possibility of AI systems developing self awareness

On the contrary. We can exclude it.

Rather, the entire ethical model of this thread is predicated upon the reality, that AI systems are intelligent systems which think,

LOL. As I said: you don't understand what you write about.

No, I don’t think that would be of any benefit, since none of this is relevant to the thread. Nor would it be relevant to know (although it would be interesting to know) what your own personal involvement is with AI systems, e.g. to what extent you have used or attempted to use them, and the basis for your opinions about them, but that being said the point of this thread is not to talk about what AI does or doesn’t do.

Being so delicate about "ad hominem" remarks, you are quite "abrasive" in writing that what I have to say "Nor would it be relevant to know". But nevermind. Since you write: "it would be interesting to know", I put it in my next post.

 

[philosopher4hire]

The term “artificial intelligence” belongs to the same class of concepts like “people’s democracy.” The adjective changes everything. Just as “people’s democracy” was essentially a totalitarian system, it was therefore on the opposite pole in relation to what constitutes the encyclopedic definition of democracy. Similarly, the term “artificial intelligence” is used for essentially automatic, programmed systems, and therefore it is closer to concepts such as “unreflective” or “instinctive.” That is also the opposite of what we expect from human intelligence. However, human intelligence was the root of the concept of AI, and expectations to achieve a human-like AI are still being formulated.

Let’s start with the basics that are fundamental here. What is a computer and how does it work? As an example, we will use a toy for 4-year-olds. It is a cuboid with a (partly) transparent casing. It has “drawers” on the sides and a hole for balls on the top. Depending on which drawers are pulled out and which are not, the ball (entered at the top) travels inside the toy in various ways, going out through one of the several holes located at the bottom. For a 4-year-old it’s great fun – watching changes in the course of the ball depending on the setting of the drawers (switches). For us, it is an ideal example of how the processor (computer) works. That is, in fact, how every CPU works. The processor is our cuboid, the balls are electrical impulses “running into” it through some of the pins, and leaving it through others. It is quite like our balls – thrown in through one hole to fall out through another. The transistors, of which the processor is built, serve as drawers (switches) that can be in or out (i.e., switched to different states), in order to change the course of the electrical impulse (our ball) inside the processor.

So the processor (as to the principle of operation) is nothing more than a simple toy for 4-year-olds. It is just that we throw in not one ball at a time, but several dozens; and we repeat this action billions of times per second. And we have not four or six drawers but a few billions. Does anyone sane really believe, that if we put billions of balls into a plastic cuboid with billions of drawers, then at some moment in time this cuboid?, these balls?, one plus the other?, or perhaps the mere movement of these balls, will become consciousness? And it will want to watch the sunset or talk about Shakespeare's poetry? If so, then self-consciousness should be expected from the planet Earth or its oceans.

Is even 100 trillions of plastic balls running through the most complicated paths in a huge plastic cuboid with trillions of movable drawers, whose positions change due to the balls’ movements, able to cause a qualitative leap and result in the “digital singularity” described by wise professors as self-awareness? And this pomposity... We stand at the threshold of the “Big Change,” after which nothing will be the same, our world will change completely, and so on, and so on – in short, typical apocalyptic visions present in every era for centuries. Nihil novi sub sole.

I read about ideas like “If we add up many specialized (intelligent) systems, we will get a ‘general intelligence’ as a result.” It is like saying, “If we add up many modern specialized garden tools, we will get a gardener as a result.” No, we won’t. You can’t add an electric hedge trimmer and a garden irrigation system. Just like you can’t add a quantitative – partial differential equations-based system and an advanced search engine.

And let us not be confused by wise-sounding words like “quantum effects” or even “quantum microprocessors.” It does not change the essence of things. Just as phosphorescent or faster-than-sound balls will not change the way our toy works. The funniest thing is that this very idea was popularized by a famous sci-fi movie of the 80’s. Skynet from “The Terminator” is based on this concept – the belief that the quantity will turn into quality in a natural, spontaneous way. The same way of thinking, in the pre-electronic era, resulted in a belief that a thinking machine is just a matter of the sufficient number of gearwheels. In fact, we are not that far away from this thought – with our CPUs which work in the same way as a primitive toy for children.

It is even easier to see if we put it into the historical background. This kind of thinking repeats itself for centuries. Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” written at the dawn of the electric era is a good example: a strong faith that becoming gods able to create life, intelligence, and new beings is at our fingertips. Each new revolution – mechanical, electrical, or contemporary IT – is assumed to propel us across this threshold. This is a very strong belief, a part of human nature. But should we use beliefs and deep faith where logical, reasonable thinking is enough? Anyway, whoever wants to believe, may believe. This is the principle of free will – something very hard to engraft into machines.

Anyway, the question behind the AI is:
“Do we believe that we could make a plastic toy for 4-year-olds a thinking being?”

 

[Stephen3141]

Again,... "Artificial Intelligence" has been a defined label in Computer Science
for a long time. And it is different meaning than just slamming together 2 English words.

"Artificial Intelligence" in Computer Science (where the term was formally defined),
is "the emulation (not simulation) of complex human problem solving."

Unfortunately, very few Americans who use the label, use the Computer Science
definition of "complex problem solving." And so, most of the informal USE of the term
"AI" seems to be referring to some sort of software product that is taking over some
sort of human job, neither of which should be called "complex" from a Computer Science
definition, and neither of which should be called "AI" from a Computer Science definition.
---------- ----------

I have been saying for YEARS now, that the "current" use of "AI" does NOT correspond
with the definition from Computer Science, and that the way in which most Americans
use "artificial intelligence" does not correspond with the way in which Computer Science
trained software designers use the term. (The same thing can be said about trained
theologians who use the term "trinity").
------------ ------------

It is IMPORTANT for Christian apologists to get their definitions correct, else their
arguments may be unsound, or their audiences may not understand what the writer
is trying to express.

I cannot apologize for the misuse of the term "AI" or "artificial intelligence" that gets
into the comments on this post, but I CAN warn that some of the usage is merely the
personal opinion of some people writing comments....
---------- ----------

It should also be repeated sometimes, in this Philosophical Ethics part of the internet
location, THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISCUSSING THE CONCEPTS OF
AI, AND DISCUSSING WHAT PEOPLE THINK THINK ARE THE MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS
OF SOME SORT OF <THING> PUTTING OUT "ETHICAL" DECISIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN
THAT <SOMETHING> IS NOT ALIVE, and does not qualify as being a human being or even
as biological life.
---------- ----------

Although I welcome very diverse discussions and opinions for consideration, I remove myself
from seeming to back discussions that do not meet the definitions of Computer Science (but
seem to imply that they do), and that use a merely linguistic invention of meaning for a word
or phrase, as if "artificial intelligence" were just some combination of "artificial" (not human?)
and "intelligence" (some characteristic that someone thinks is intelligent???).

The ongoing appearance of amateur definitions, kills real discussion on this
very, very interesting topic.