AI Theology Goes to Brazil Part 4 – Postmodernity and AI

In part 3, I described my learning experience with holistic ministry in Brazil after meeting with local pastors in Caratinga. In this blog, closing the series on my Brazil trip, I describe in more detail the last talk I gave in the university. Unlike previous talks, this time I was there more to listen than to speak. The event consisted of a panel discussion entitled: “AI and Postmodernity.” The plan was for me to give a 15 minute introduction and then pass on the discussion to a panel of professors.

With such a loaded title, I struggled to develop a suitable introduction. Postmodernity is such a broad term which does not lend itself to simple definitions. Moreover, it is not something usually discussed alongside a technology. The task before me was to elucidate points of correlation that would spark fruitful conversation. The preparation forced me to think deeper about some assumptions inherent in AI technology. After some careful thought, I came up with the following:

1. All problems have a technological solution
2. Nature (including humanity) is an algorithm that needs to be decoded
3. Data reveals the truth and shows the way to solutions
4. Every activity can and should be optimized

The more I reflect on these, the more I see them informing the development of Artificial Intelligence. Without these assumptions in place, I don’t see AI attracting the attention, funding and research needed to develop further. This is only happening because business leaders, politicians and investors have bought into these claims.

For Postmodernity, I framed the topic around four key implications that I found to be relevant for the panel discussion. They were the following:

1. What is the socio-cultural dominant narrative in Caratinga?
2. How can AI empower groups in the margins?
3. How can AI foster human flourishing in the local level?
4. Could the development of AI be a sign of a return to Modernity?

The panel consisted of professors in engineering, law, computer science, theology and social service. Their answers stayed mostly around themes of ensuring technology is used to enhance not diminish humanity. For example, the Social Service professor expressed the hope that data collection could improve their work with vulnerable populations. The Computer Science professor emphasized the differences between the human brain and AI. The Theology professor talked about the potential of AI for furthering ministry opportunities and addressing income inequality.

When hearing their answers, I sensed a bit of a disconnect on where I expected the discussion to go and where it actually went. While I set up the stage preparing for a more philosophical discussion of AI and postmodernity, the professors mostly avoided such approaches preferring instead to speak of concrete ways they understood that technology could affect their work. The panel ended up being about impact of AI applications rather than how it could change our view of humanity and the world we live in.

This disconnect only highlighted the importance of context. I noticed how my North-American academic context was dominated by deep specialists while the particular academic context I encountered in Brazil was run by generalists. This was not limited to academia but reflected more how the local society worked. People tended to rely on a broader more general level of knowledge rather than simply consulting the specialist for each field at hand.

I realized that such environment made them more receptive to the message of integration that I was proposing. In a place where people tend to rely on generalized knowledge, they already are doing the integration I suggest between faith, science and technology. They may not be doing directly on those topics but are practicing it in other areas.

On the flip side, reliance on a generalized knowledge can hinder more in-depth reflection on a specific topic. So, while I mostly agreed with the professors that technology should not replace humanity, I hoped to hear more nuanced arguments on how that could be the case in their context. I was hoping for new insights of how technology could integrate with their environment to solve deeply entrenched social problems. I was hoping for more layers of “why” and “how” in their answer. With that said, the panel was still fruitful in that it sparked discussion on how technology is impacting diverse segments of society. That in itself is an important step forward.

I left Caratinga deeply impacted by my time there. As the old adage goes, I came here to teach but ended up learning more. In fact, there were times where I wonder whether my talks were even relevant to their context. This was not just personal insecurity, though there was probably some of it , but it came from accepting that the assumptions that I operate under do not necessarily hold here. In many ways, I found a community where technological change was not as voracious as I have witnessed in the US. Even if many of these AI breakthroughs come to pass, they may not necessarily upend the social order there as it will in my own community. This is not to say that they will be immune from it. Just to realize that technology adoption is not as inevitable as we make it to be. The issue is not just whether something is technically possible but whether people will openly adopt it.

From what I saw, smart phones has become a integral part of their lives. Yet, in many other areas, the way they study, work, eat and relate to each other has remained unchanged. That is not a sign of being “backward” but of resistance. Caratinga show that there isn’t only one way to integrate technology into the fabric of a society. This realization led me reflect on how I can live a life, in a techno-dominant society, that is more in tune with my humanity and of those around me. That is the question I take home with me, hoping to not let the lessons I learned here go into oblivion.