Search
Close this search box.

Month: September 2021

3 Effective Ways to Improve AI Ethics Discussions

Let’s face it: the quality of discourse in the blogosphere and social media is dismal! What gets traffic is most often not the best representation of a topic but instead the most outrageous click-bait title. As a recent WSJ report suggests, content creators face the constant temptation (including myself and this portal) to trade well-crafted arguments for divisive pieces that emphasize controversy. When it comes to discussions on AI ethics, the situation is no different. Useless outrageous claims abound while a nuanced conversation that would help improve AI ethics discussions are rare.

It is time to raise the level of discourse on AI impact. While I am encouraged to see this topic get the attention is getting, I fear that it is fraught with hyperboles and misinformation which degrade rather than improve dialogue. Consequently, most pieces lead to precipitated conclusions rather than the thoughtful dialogue the topic requires. In this blog, I put forth three ways to improve the quality of dialogue in this space. By keeping them in mind, you can differentiate what is worth your attention from what can be ignored.

Impact is not the same as Intent

The narrative of big business or government seeking to hurt the small guy is an attractive one. We are hard-wired to choose simple explanations and simple storylines of good and evil fit the bill. Most often, they are a good front for our addiction to escape-goating. By putting all evil in one entity, we are excused from looking at evil among ourselves. Most importantly, they undermine the reality that a lot of evil happens as unintended consequences of well-intended efforts.

When it comes to AI bias, I am concerned that too many stories imply a definite villain without probing further to understand systemic dynamics. Consider this article from TNW, titled “Stop Calling it Bias: AI is Racist.” The click-bait title should you give a reason to pause. Moreover, the author seems to assign a human intent to complex systems without probing further into the causes. This type of hyperbolic rhetoric does more harm than good, assigning blame towards one group while ignoring the technical complexities of the issue at hand.

Photo by Christina @ wocintechchat.com on Unsplash

By implying intent to impact, these pieces miss the opportunity to ask broader questions such as: what environmental factors amplified the harmful impact of this problem? How could other actors such as consumers, users, businesses, and regulators play a part in mitigating risks in the future? What technical limitations helped cause or expand the problem? These are a few questions that can elevate the discussion on AI’s impact. Above all, they help us get past the idea that for every harmful impact lies a morally deficient actor behind it.

Generalizations Do More Harm than Good

Ironically, this is precisely at the root of the problem. What do I mean by that? AI algorithms err because they rely on generalizations of past data. Then, when they see new cases, they tend to, as the adage goes, “jump to conclusions.” While many times this has harmless consequences, such as recommending Strawberry Shortcake for me in my Netflix cue, other times this selection can cause serious harm.

Yet, when it comes to articles on AI, the problem is when the author takes one case and generalizes to all cases. Consider this Forbes article about AI. It takes a few statements by Elon Musk, one study, and a lot of speculation to tell us that AI is dangerous. While some of the points are valid, the article does nothing to help us understand why exactly it is dangerous and what we can do about it. In that sense, it does more harm than good giving the reader reasons for worry without grounding them on evidence or proposing solutions.

Taking anecdotal evidence (one case) devoid of statistical backing and stating it as the norm is very misleading. We often pay attention to these stories because they tend to describe extreme cases of AI adverse impact. Not that we should dismiss them outright but consider them in context. We should also ask how prevalent is the problem? Is it increasing or decreasing? What can be done to ensure such cases remain rare or non-existent? By staying at a general level we miss the opportunity to better understand the problem. Thus, it does very little to improve AI ethics discussions

Show me the Data

This leads me to the third and final recommendation. Discussions on AI ethics must stand on empirical evidence. In fact, given that data is at the foundation of algorithm formation, data is also readily available to evaluate its impact. The accessibility of data is both an advantage and also a reminder that transparency is crucial. This is probably one of the key roles regulators can play, ensuring that companies, government, and NGOs make their data available to the public.

This is not limited to impact but extends into the inputs. That is, understanding the data that algorithms train on is as important as understanding the downstream impact they create. For example, if past data shows that white applicants get higher approval rates for mortgages than people of color, guess what? The models will inevitably replicate this bias in their results. This is certainly a problem that needs to be recognized in the front-end rather than monitored on the outcomes only.

Discussions on AI ethics must include statistical evidence for the issues at hand. That is, when presenting a problem, the claims must be accompanied by numbers. Consider this article from the World Economic Forum. It makes appropriate claims, avoids generalizations, and backs up each claim with research. It not only informs the reader but provides references for further. By doing so, it goes a long way to improve AI ethics discussions.

Conclusion

It is encouraging to see the growing interest in AI. The public must engage with his topic as it affects many aspects of our lives. Expanding dialogue and welcoming new voices to the table is critical to ensure AI will work towards human flourishing. With that said, it is now time to ground AI ethics discussions on real evidence and sober assessments of cause and effect. We must resist the temptation of escape-goating and lazy generalizing. Instead, we must pursue the careful path of relentless probing and examining evidence.

This starts with content creators. As those who frame the topic, we must do a better job to represent the issues clearly. We must avoid misleading statements that attract eyeballs but confuse minds. We must also have a commitment to accurate reporting and transparency with our sources.

Can we take the challenge to improve AI ethics discussions? I hope so.

Theology as the Intelligence of Faith in the Cyberspace

The book Cybertheology: Thinking Christianity in the Era of the Internet (Fordham University Press 2014) by the prominent Vatican theologian Antonio Spadaro SJ, represents an explicit attempt to conceptualize an encounter between Christian theology and contemporary digital culture. It tries to answer questions related not only to the impact of the internet on the church’s self-understanding but also reflects on God’s revelation, grace, liturgy, sacraments, and many other theological topics. Hence, Spadaro’s book serves as a brief but lucid introduction to a whole range of questions emerging in the Internet era.

Defining Cybertheology

From his perspective, the Internet is not a tool to be used. Rather, it is a genuine environment for contemporaries to inhabit as much as they do in the physical landscapes of this world. We would be mistaken if we conceive the Internet just as a kind of parallel reality because it permeates the complex of human dwelling. It is “an anthropological space that is deeply intertwined with our everyday lives.”[1] As such, it represents a new culture – the culture of cyberspace,[2] and in relation to that fact, theology entering the coordinates of this culture becomes Cybertheology.

At the beginning of the 21st century, many authors attempted to define Cybertheology. Some understood it as a theology of new technologies. Others saw it as the study of spirituality appearing within the internet environment. Spadaro’s aim is to reframe these first attempts and offer his own alternative definition: “It is necessary to consider cybertheology as being the intelligence of the faith in the era of the Internet, that is, reflection on the thinkability of the faith in the light of the Web’s logic.”[3] Cybertheology reflects on faith lived “at a time when the Web’s logic marks the way of thinking, knowing, communicating, and living.”[4]

This is an important characteristic because in this sense it would not be appropriate to define cybertheology only as a kind of contextual theology since the internet is a phenomenon that became an integral part of everyday human life, at least for the majority of people living on planet Earth. Cybertheology could be understood as mediation between God’s word (Logos) and digital culture and for Spadaro, it appears as one of the most important vocations for contemporary Christians.[5] Consequently, cyberspace is a new anthropological space, where Christians encode and de-code their digital witnesses about their faith and hope they have in Jesus Christ (cf. 1. Peter 3,15). It is a new eco-system (or extension of the physical eco-system) where theology is done and thought.

Church as the Spiritual Google

Image by Gábor Adonyi from Pixabay

Two ecclesiological relevant topics may be mentioned here to illustrate this. The first one is connectivity, which introduces the Church as a connective environment, i.e., as a communication hub allowing for multiple encounters of people among themselves, with the rest of creation, and with God the Creator. In this relation, the Church can become a connective authority or a kind of Google for the realm of spiritual life.[6] In other words, just as Google enables its users to find what they search for, Church enables people to find and encounter God.

The second example is relationality itself, which receives new meanings in the environment of the internet. Just think of how often we are preoccupied with deciding if our meetings will happen online or offline. According to Spadaro, the Church may understand itself as a network and derive new impulses from the very conception of the internet for the sake of its own self-reflection. This kind of theology does not only react to new trends or technologies. At the same time, it is influenced by them and starts to live inside a milieu shaped by them.

With that said, Spadaro is rather critical to living a Christian life exclusively in the realm of cyberspace. In consonance with his own denomination, he still holds that physical community is essential and indispensable for a genuine Christian life from faith. With respect to this, he argues against tendencies like virtual sacraments received by avatars in cyberspace, which are supposed to mediate grace to physical persons of whom they are extensions.

Teilhard de Chardin’s Noosphere

Even though he holds that from a Christian point of view it is not possible to accept the concept of purely virtual sacraments, he concludes that thanks to God’s grace, religious experience is principally possible also in cyberspace.[7] In any case, it might be said that for Spadaro, the age of the Internet introduces a new and specific phase of the human journey towards God, which requires complex theological reflection stemming from deep immersion in digital culture. Spadaro writes:

Today, one thinks, and one knows the world not only in the traditional manner, through reading and exchange or within the confines of special interest groups (for example, teaching or study groups), but through realizing a vast connection between people. Intelligence is distributed everywhere, and it can be easily interconnected. The Web gives life to a form of collective intelligence. The Church itself recognizes that it has a responsible role in the formation of a human collective culture.[8]

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

Here, Spadaro connects to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who he considers a prophetic theological voice, because Teilhard thought that the development of human culture is directed towards ever more intensive interconnection (complexification), that is into the global network which would be in future the environment for life.

While for philosopher Pierre Levy, the global environment implies the subordination of the individual to the whole, Teilhard turns this conviction upside down and speaks of an individual mind. In the milieu of the intensive, global interconnection, this individual mind is lifted into a higher level of being, into the level of the noosphere. In the sphere of reason, the new intensification of human interconnectedness (including their minds and consciousnesses) occurs.

The interesting fact is that according to Teilhard, machines play an important role in this process,[9] because they help with interconnecting intelligent entities and contribute to the genesis of “the technological, planetary nervous system.”[10] Restlessly complexified, the techno-human network of the world (noosphere) remains evolutionarily connected to the biosphere as well as an ancient lithosphere. This continuously opens up (more and more) to its own transcendence (even more intensive integration and interconnectedness) reaching its final climax in the Omega point – the end of history, in salvation, which comes through Jesus Christ as the very basis of all evolution.

Through Jesus Christ, with Him and in Him, the whole process of evolution is brought towards completion, towards God, who shall be “all in all” (1. Corinthians 15, 28). This final unity, however, does not mean the vanishing of the particular in universal. On the contrary, it becomes preservation of the particularity of all parts and may be compared to a firmly woven net of distinctive beings imbued by God in whom, all particularities meet their unity in diversity because He is all in all. This was clear already to Jennifer Cobb who at the beginning of the 1990s, saw in cyberspace a clear parallel to Teilhard’s noosphere.[11]

We may conclude that in his book, Spadaro shows how theology may help in the contemporary quest for re-thinking new technologies and changes they bring along. In this attempt, he finds the theology of Teilhard extremely inspiring, even though he is aware of all its ambiguities.[12] Spadaro thinks the most important is Teilhard’s emphasis on proposing “an open vision of transcendence that is able to understand an intelligence that is not collective but convergent.”[13] Consequently, we can understand digital culture as a specific phase of the human journey towards God, and, thanks to that, it is also legitimate to think about the internet, in theological terms, as an integral part of the divine milieu.

Cybertheology in COVID Times

Spadaro formulated his ideas (in Italian) already a decade ago. The English translation of his book appeared 7 years ago. At that time Spadaro could have hardly imagined that the theological reflection he proposed will become so important in times of the global pandemic of the Covid-19. Within a very short period, an unprecedented amount of people throughout the world found themselves in social isolation.

Consequently, the vast amount of human social activities was quickly transferred to online mode (or environment as Spadaro would probably say). Including education and religious life. With brute force, the Covid-19 pandemic pointed out the key role of new technologies in the lives of contemporaries, religious people not excluded. Debates on how to be the Church in the digital age intensified in all Christian denominations, and this requires a conscientious theological reflection.

In such context, the return to Spadaro’s 2014 Cybertheology book becomes even more pertinent. The things he envisioned then as faint glimpses of the future became our de facto reality when houses of worship were forced to close. Shifting a faith paradigm from attracting people to people buildings to developing intelligent forms in cyberspace is a good start.

František Štěch is a research fellow at the Protestant Theological Faculty of Charles University. He serves as coordinator of the “Theology & Contemporary Culture” research group. Previously he worked at the Catholic Theological Faculty of Charles University as a research fellow and project PI. His professional interests include Fundamental theology; Ecclesiology; Youth theology; Religious, and Christian identity; Intercultural theology; Public Theology; Theology of Religions; Landscape & Theology.

Get to know our Advisory Board

[1] Antonio SPADARO (2014), Cybertheology: Thinking Christianity in the Era of the Internet. (Translated by Maria Way), New York: Fordham University Press, p. 3.

[2] SPADARO, Cybertheology, p. 14.

[3] SPADARO, Cybertheology, p. 16.

[4] SPADARO, Cybertheology, p. 17.

[5] SPADARO, Cybertheology, p. 18.

[6] See FRIESEN, Dwight, J. Thy Kingdom Connected: What the Church Can Learn from Facebook, the Internet, and Other Networks, 2009, Grand Rapids (MI): Baker Books, p. 80-81.

[7] SPADARO, Cybertheology, p. 75-76.

[8] SPADARO, Cybertheology, p. 94.

[9] TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, Pierre, The Future of Man, 2004, New York: Image Books, 158-161.

[10] SPADARO, Cybertheology, p. 100.

[11] SPADARO, Cybertheology, p. 103.

[12] SPADARO, Cybertheology, p. 105.

[13] SPADARO, Cybertheology, p. 105.

What is Mystical Christian Transhumanism? A Conversation with ICN

Just recently, I had the privilege to talk to Luke Healy and David Pinkston for the Integral Christian Network podcast. The interview was inspired by the 3 essay series I completed at Medium on Mystical Christian Transhumanism.

To listen to the podcast click on the picture

In this casual conversation, we covered a lot of ground from deconstructing evangelical faith to integrating it into all aspects of life. I really enjoyed the conversation and would like to provide a guided summary here for those interested in listening in.

Luke started us off with a short guided meditation, setting the tone for a lively but relaxed conversation. It also helped me engage with the questions less from the head and more from the heart.

The conversation started at 4:00 when Luke asked me to give a short overview of my spiritual journey. I discussed portions of it in previous blogs like this one and this one. In the podcast, I described the path from a Charismatic militant religion to the Mystical Christian Transhumanism where I am today.

Discovering the Mystical

Next at about 7:55, Luke asked about how the mystical fits into this picture. What is the mystical part? I spoke a bit about how the mystical was a thread that was there all along. One that has run through Christian history and even embedded in our current movements. In short, the mystical is about the experience of the divine presence irrespective of how we explain it theologically. It sets a foundation of non-dualistic thinking that enables us to be open to the world.

At around minute 12, Luke asked me to dive deeper into the Christian part. He was particularly interested in the militant part of my faith upbringing. I shared how while having to shed the more combative aspects of my earlier faith, I was also grateful for how it celebrated the experiential. While this was a long a painful road, I would certainly not be who I am today without going through it.

Technology and Transhumanism

This became a good segway into discussing technology at minute 19. He first asked me about the path to integrating my work with technology with the Christian faith. That is how I told the story of how AI Theology started as a desire to integrate the technologist in me with the theologian.

From minute 24 onwards, the conversation shifted towards Transhumanism. I started by providing a brief definition. Next, I talked about engaging this emerging philosophy and its Christian roots. I then proceeded to better define Christian Transhumanism as a way to live out the faith in very practical terms.

At 29:30, Luke asked how the mystical relates to Transhumanism. Are those opposing ideas? I talked about how mystical adds a spiritual dimension to the pursuit of Transhumanism. The remainder of the conversation revolved around our relationship with technology and how it can support and uphold human flourishing. Part of this process is re-thinking how we use church buildings.

This is the first of many conversations to come on this topic. I hope you find the exploration of Mystical Christian Transhumanism helpful for your journey.

Developing an E-Bike Faith: Divine Power with Human Effort

What can technology teach about faith? In a past blog, I spoke of the mystical qubit. Previously I spoke on how AI can expand our view of God. In this blog, I explore a different technology that is now becoming a common fixture of our cities: e-bikes. A few weeks ago I bought a used one and have loved riding it ever since. For those wondering, you still get your exercise minus the heart palpitations in the uphill climbs. But I digress, this is not a blog about the benefits of an e-bike but of how its hybrid nature can teach us about faith and spirituality.

Biking to Seminary

Eight years ago, we moved to sunny Southern California so I could attend seminary. We found a house about 5 miles from the campus which in my mind meant that I could commute by bike. The distance was reasonable and the wonderful weather seem to conspire in my favor. I could finally free myself from the shackles of motorized dependency.

On our first weekend there, I decided to go for a trial bike ride. The way to the campus went by like a breeze. In no more than 15 minutes I was arriving at Fuller seminary beaming in delight. Yet, I had a nagging suspicion the way back home would be different. One thing that did not enter my calculations was that though we were only 5 miles away from campus, our house was at the foothills of Altadena. That meant that the only way home was uphill. The first 2 miles were bearable yet by mile 3, my legs were giving out. I eventually made it back home drenched in sweat and disappointment.

It became clear that this would not be a ride I could take often. My dreams of biking to seminary ended that day. Back to the gasoline cages for the rescue, not as exciting but definitely more practical.

Photo by Federico Beccari on Unsplash

Divine Electricity

We now live in the Atlanta area and often go to Chattanooga for day trips. This charming Tennesee jewel offers a beautiful riverfront with many attractions for families like ours. Like many cities seeking to attract Millenials, they offer a network of public bikes for a small cost. Among them, I noticed they had some e-bikes available. For a while, I was curious to try one but not enough to shell out the thousands of dollars they cost. Timidly, I pick one for a leisure ride in the city.

From the beginning, I could sense the difference. I still had to pedal normally like I would on a normal bike. Yet, as I pedaled it was like I got a little push that made my pedaling more effective. I would dash by other bikers glancing back at them triumphantly. I then decided to test in an uphill. Would the push sustain or eventually fizzle out because of gravity?

To my contentment, that was when the e-bike shined. For those accustomed to biking, you know that right before going uphill you pedal fast to get as much speed as you can. As you start climbing, you switch to lower gears until the bike is barely moving while you pedal intensively. You make up for the weight relief by tripling your pedal rotations. It can be demoralizing to pedal like a maniac but move like a turtle which is why many dismount and walk. It is like all that effort dissipates by the gravitational pull on the bike.

Pedaling uphill in an e-bike is a completely different experience. First, there is no need to maximize your speed coming into it. You pedal normally and as the bike slows down, the electric motor kicks in to propel you forward. You end up keeping the same speed while pedaling at the same rate.

Goodbye frantic-pedaling-slow-going uphill, hello eternal-e-bike-flatlands

It is as if the hand of God is pushing you from behind when your leg muscles can keep the speed. Going up is no longer a drag but a thrill, all thanks to the small electric motor in the back wheel capable of pushing up a grown man and a 50 lbs bike.

Humanity Plus

If I could change one thing in the Western Christian tradition, that would be the persistent and relentless loathing for humanity. From very early on, and at times even expressed in the biblical text, there is a tendency to make humans look bad in order to make God look good. The impetus stems from a desire to curb our constant temptation to hubris. Sure, we all, especially those whom society put on a pedestal, need to remember our puny frailty lest we overestimate our abilities.

Yet, we are mysteriously beautiful and unpredictable. Once I let go of this indoctrinated loathing, I could face this intricate concoction of flesh in a whole new way. Humanity is a spectacular outcome for an insanely long and painful process of evolution. In fact, that is what often leads us back to the belief in God. The lucid beauty of our humanity is what points us to the invisible divine.

This loathing of humanity often translates into the confusing and ineffective grace-versus-work theology. Stretching Pauline letters to ways never intended by the beloved apostle, theologians have produced miles of literature on the topic. While some of it is helpful (maybe 2%, who knows?), most of it devolves into a tendency to deny the role of human effort in spirituality. In an effort to address transactional legalism, many overshoot in emphasizing divine activity in the process. This is unfortunate because removing the role of human effort in spirituality is a grave mistake. We need both.

Photo by Fabrizio Conti on Unsplash

The Two Sides of Spiritual Growth

Human empowerment plays a pivotal role in a healthy spirituality. If pride is a problem so is its passive-aggressive counterpart low self-loathing. To have an inordinately negative view of self does not lead to godliness but it is a sure path to depression. Along with a realistic view of self comes the understanding that human effort is key to accomplishing things on this earth.

Yet, just like pedaling uphill, human effort can only take you so far. Sometimes you need a divine push. For a long time, I thought divine empowerment worked independently from human effort. What if it is less like a car and more like an e-bike? That is, you still need to pedal, tending for this earth and lifting fellow humans from the curse of entropy. Yet, as you faithfully do it, you are propelled by divine power to reach new heights.

Had e-bikes existed 8 years ago, my idea of commuting to seminary would have been viable. I could have conquered those grueling hills of Altadena with elegant pedaling. I would have made it home without breaking a sweat and still kiss my wife and kids without repelling them with my body odor. It would have been glorious.

Conclusion

Human effort without divine inspiration is not much different from trying to bike uphill. It requires initial concentrated effort only to get us to a state of profuse effort with little movement. Engaging the world without sacred imagination can and will often lead to burnout.

As we face mounting challenges with a stubborn pandemic that will relentlessly destroy our plans, let’s hold on to an e-bike faith. One the calls us to action fueled by divine inspiration. One that reminds us of our human limitation but focuses on a limitless God. That is when we can soar to new heights as divine electricity propel us into new beginnings.