Elias Kruger, Author at AI Theology

Ghost in The Shell: Can Cyborgs Feel Hope?

My plan was to convince my wife to go see Ghost In the Shell last weekend. Yet, after reading the scathing reviews, I opted for a different plan. As one interested in the topic of AI, it sounded like the original animated movie (Ghost in the Shell – 1995) directed by Kazunori. A critique of the Hollywood version was its lack of depth compared to the original. Apart from the controversy about white-washing, it seemed like the biggest complaint was the the American version had watered down the content of the original Japanese-British version. This signaled to me that I needed to watch the original. With a few clicks and Amazon prime, I sat down to watch on my laptop on Saturday night.

I didn’t know what to expect but the movie did not disappoint. The quality of the animation along with the music and the rich plot drew me right in. I will not dive into the story to avoid spoiling the experience in case you decide to watch it for yourself. I just want to highlight two main observations. First, I was impressed about how visionary the writers were in painting a plausible vision of the future. They depicted a time in which humans can augment their brains with hardware and cyborgs who can upload human memories. Considering the beginning development of brain interfaces, this scenario is not far-fetched. Secondly, the movie excelled in exploring what it means to be human in a world where technology had become embedded into human bodies. This is the area I want to explore a bit in this blog.

The leading character in the story is a female cyborg who starts asking existential questions. Half-way through the movie, she engages in a dialogue with a male cyborg about the experience of diving in the ocean. She describes what is akin to a transcendent experience as her body emerges from the water. As the conversation develops, she reminisces about her unique experience and how that is similar to humanity. Suddenly, as they are talking, a voice speaks through her (something akin to the Spirit) and quotes I Cor 13:12 (about minute 2:42)

It is difficult to unpack this deep conversation in a blog but I have to say that this scene alone was worth the whole movie. Major (the female cyborg) is yearning for some type wholeness, just as the Apostle in I Corinthians is pointing his readers to the future restoration of all things in Chirst. As the movie ends, Major does experience the wholeness she is looking for (yet, you’ll have to watch the movie to see that for yourself).

Judging from other parts of the movie, it is clear that Major is not purely a cyborg. She has human parts even though she is mostly machine. Without stretching this too far, I wonder if Major is a picture of our future selves. Let me explain. As we move towards further “cyborgization”, with our bodies merging with our technological devices, are we in danger of changing our humanity beyond recognition? In that loss, are we still able to experience transcendence – that is, to move beyond our limited mortality into timeless realm? I am not even talking about religion but simply the ability to reach beyond our programmed and scripted present into a higher purpose.

Even as I write this, I sense the inadequacy of the words I am using. It is as if our vocabulary has not quite caught up with the reality we are about to experience. Yet, in all that, I am heartened to see the movie pointing to hope. In other words, it is possible, even in a body overtaken by electronics, to experience the very human trait of longing, love and expectation. They are the echoes of the restoration to come.

Much more could be said, for now I leave you with an expanded version of the passage quoted by the Major in the video above:

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.For now we see in a mirror, dimly,^b] but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love – I Co 13:11-13

Who gets to decide our future?

Business insider published a provocative article suggesting a transition to come where our devices will progress from being detached to wearable, and eventually to implanted. Elon Musk just launched Neuralink, a company seeking to develop a neural lace that could upload our thoughts. Sweedish startup Epicenter is now implanting microchips in their employees to act as cards so they can open doors and pay for a smoothie. Can this be the beginning of a whole new industry that wants to shape us into cyborgs?

This is not scientific fiction anymore but part of a near future. Technology is basically the outgrowth of humanity’s desire to create tools. Tools are extensions of our bodies so we can perform tasks more proficiently. Yet, these technologies are taking tools to a different level: they are no longer extensions but would become actual parts of our bodies. This is clearly a new frontier we have scarcely considered.

As business titans imagine this cyborg scenario, the question I want to ask is who gets to decide our future? Just look at how our lives now are shaped by the gadgets that surround us. Are ready to accept them as part of our bodies? In a vacuum of vision, the future belongs to the few who dare imagine it now. Maybe it is time we step into these conversations and start imagining alternative futures.

Are you ready to imagine?

Augmentation versus Automation: The True Struggle for AI Success

In the discussion about AI, a lot has been said about the fear of automation. Yet, not enough is said about augmentation. Automation replaces human work while augmentation enhances human work. Just think about mowing your grass without a motorized lawn mower and you get the picture of what augmentation looks like. Without it, you would have to cut all the grass, sweep it into piles and then throw it in the trash. The motorized mower does steps 1 and 2 at once while also diminishing your physical exertion in the process. AI technologies do the same but for work that requires thinking.

AI and Augmentation

Visionaries at Amazon and Google, imagine a future in which digital assistants like Alexa will cut through all the tech fragmentation present in our current devices. How? Think about how many apps exist on your phone. Wouldn’t be easier to have all those apps managed by a digital assistant? In organizing and simplifying our digital life, AI could eliminate the current inefficiencies of keeping up with so many apps giving us time to do other things. This would not only help our personal lives but also greatly simplify our work lives.

Think about how many different software you had to learn just to do your job. What if this software could be simplified through an AI interface? Think about a device that you don’t have to type to get what you need, instead you can simply speak to it in normal conversation.

There lies the promise of AI: its ability to augment our abilities to get things done. It can not only remove repetitive and inefficient tasks but also helps us improve on what we already do well. I certainly would love to have a digital assistant help me write this blog faster. It turned out to be a total failure so I am still waiting for better AI writers. The question becomes, will these Silicon Valley titans achieve their dreamed augmentation.

Photo by Science in HD on Unsplash

The False Promises of Automation

Contrary to augmentation, automation seeks to replace humans with machines that do job faster for cost-saving reasons. Think about the demise of manufacturing in this country, mainly driven by automation in factories. Consider the impact of truck drivers with the introduction of driver-less trucks. While companies could save millions by dispensing drivers, the human cost in lost income and social isolation would also be significant.

Automation does not lead to less work. At the beginning of the last century, some believed that because of the progress of technology, soon we would be working 4 hours a day or less. The thinking was that as machines automated manual work, humans would be free to sit by the pool seeping a margarita while the work gets completed. Needless to say, this scenario did not pan out.

Instead, we witnessed was the emergence of whole new work functions that now were needed to maintain the new technological ecosystem. Did we achieve new levels of productivity? Yes, but it certainly was not a linear process. As we could do more with less, organizations also started expecting workers to do more with their tools.

Above all, there has been an exponential increase in complexity. If automation enthusiasts envisioned a simpler future where work became easier they were woefully mistaken. The implementation of computerized machines added a whole sleuth of new requirements that weren’t there before. Surely that created the need for new occupations to emerge. Yet, as we look back at the 3 previous industrial revolutions, did they foster human flourishing?

A Theology for Machines?

As we approach the 4th industrial revolution, this augmentation vs automation framework allows us to reflect theologically on the role of machines. A theological view of technology, one that puts humanity before profit, will focus on steering tools towards augmentation as opposed to automation. It starts with how we view work. Is it a means to an end or an inherent part of our humanity? A utilitarian view of work will easily lead to the immoral way of automation. On the contrary, seeing work as an expression of our God-given humanity, can therefore see machine as allies rather than competitors for work.

Here we can also reflect on tools (technology) as an extension of the Imago Dei on us. God’s image imprint in us compel us to be creators through tools. On the flip side, the Bible often cautions us about the limitations of humanity. The Judeo-Christian tradition teaches us that there is only one Creator God who is greater than humanity. Any human attempt to usurp God’s place will be fraught with disaster.

Regardless of faith tradition, a theological view of technology will often ask the question: is this tool augmenting a human ability or replacing it? If it is replacing, what is the human loss? If it is augmenting, what are its limits? These questions alone should provide us some much-needed guidance as we step into the uncharted waters of Artificial Intelligence. May we ask them sooner rather than later.

Why AI Theology?

My path here was certainly not intentional or carefully planned. For years, I’ve been asking ‌ how could I marry my work skills with my passion. Becoming a data scientist was not a carefully planned career. I kind of fell into it. Like many people in the workplace, my career arose out of a blend of opportunities, skill sets, curiosity and providence (a word I prefer from luck). I started working for a large bank right out of college. My initial plan was to do that for “a few years” until I would start doing what I was “called” to do. These few years turn into a decade and then more years. Throughout this time, I wondered what in the world I was doing in my job. That is also when I started pursuing a degree in Theology, in the hopes of a career change. For years, I saw these pursuits as separate endeavors, failing to see much connection between them.

As I started studying Theology while still working as a data scientist, I was constantly straddling these two worlds. They tap into different parts of our brain, requiring different skills. As a data professional, I see the world through tables organized in columns and rows. My primary function is to extract meaning out of these tables either by combining them, creating new ones or visualizing their information in clarifying ways. This can happen through summarization or modeling. At times, I am trying to answer questions while others, I am simply exploring the data.

As a Theology student, I see the world through text. We start with sacred text, written two Millennia ago in languages not spoken today. Beyond that, we work with an ungodly (no pun intended) amount of books based on reflection on the sacred text between the time the sacred texts were written and our present day. Beyond that, you reflect on the experience of the believing community and academy that enriches, confuses and at times undermines the sacred text. Yet Theology is not only about books. It is ‌about being human – how we experience the world around us and speak hope into it. Theology also informs and shapes values, morals and ideologies. That is ‌what has drawn me to it from an early age. So, even as the Sacred texts are studied and analyzed, that is a sense of gravitas often missing from most forms of knowledge.

While navigating these two world concurrently, I often saw them as incompatible. It is not that they are opposed to each other but that they seem to talk past each other. They ask different questions, seek other means to pursue answers and arrive at widely different conclusions. At its core, Theology is mostly concerned with how things should be. Data analysis strives to be a detached assessment of how things are. One example of that would be ‌global warming. Theology is mostly concerned with the moral implications of what causes global warming and how people will be affected. It then proposes an alternative way to relate to the environment, inspired by Christian revelation, that will lead to a more just future. A data analysis approach will look at past trends and then make assumptions for future forecast. Scientists gather heaps of data, develop complex models that provide benchmarks that will guide planning for the future (ie: an % increase of CO2 ‌ as the benchmark being discussed in the recent gathering of world leaders). Data analysis will also use test and control methods which determine which one has yielded the best results. A theological approach is not interested in what has worked but what is good.

As I approached the end of my theological education, I found myself longing for integration. In that pursuit, I began to ask what it would look like to interact Theology with technology. This convergence started taking shape as breakthroughs in computing power, big data and promising algorithms ushered Artificial Intelligence to the spotlight. Because data science is an essential part of AI, I saw opportunity in the horizon. As industry titans make their bet on Artificial Intelligence, data science became a promising field for employment. If these investments yield concrete applications, data science will become a regular function of organization across all industries just like finance and accounting is today.

Apart from the impact on data science, the advent of Artificial Intelligence raises profound questions. The idea that machine could act in such human-like manner that we may confuse them with people is mind-boggling. This clearly marks a new era of technological advancement requiring a multi-disciplinary engagement. Simply put, will human-made intelligence mirror our best or our worse? In that question, I believe the Christian tradition has much to contribute.

Yet, I don’t see many voices addressing the intersection of technology and Theology effectively. At best, these topics are discussed separately as if they did not interact. This in turn becomes my personal attempt to integrate the very worlds I live in, with the hopes it may bring insight and wisdom in answering the perennial question: How shall we then live in a world where Artificial Intelligence is a reality?

Here is a list of topics I plan to address in this blog:

What are the ethical implications of the increasing use of AI applications in our world?
What would it look like to do theology with AI and vice-versa – what would a theologically-informed AI look like?
Can AI be used for good and what would that look like?
Who gets to decide how AI will affect our way of life?

These are just a few questions worthy of exploration. Let the conversation begin.

Waiting for the Great Homecoming

Lectionary Reflections for Dec 11, 2016

Vision of a homecoming and vindication for the people of God. Jesus inaugurates this homecoming by fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecies. James calls us to be patient as our redemption is not coming. The homecoming have started yet it is not complete.

This week we witness injustice and tragedy. Corrupt politicians in Brazil trying to change the laws to protect their skins. Young lives wasted in a fire in Oakland. We mourn for lives cut short hoping for the day where death will be no more. We protest for justice, waiting for the time when the powerful will be brought low. We speak up and pray, for the wretched of the earth learn that God is on their side. Yet, we wait patiently as James admonishes us. We strengthen our knees and arms for our salvation at hand inspired by Isaiah. We oscillate between the cry of “how long?” and “not for long.” We wait for the vindication of God’s people.

In the meantime, we invite. People from every nation, ethnicity, race, age – come be part of the people of God. This world is unjust but Salvation is coming. We embody this salvation just like veterans kneeling before native American chiefs to demonstrate in Standing Rock that Jesus came to reconcile us to each other. He calls us to redress past wrongs and build a new future.

Justice, repentance, the kingdom of God is near. In this season of Advent, we wait.

Are we listening?

Author: Elias Kruger