Culture & Entertainment Archives

Travelers Theology: Wrestling With a Powerful AI God

Recently, I was browsing through new shows on Netlflix when I stumbled upon Travelers. The premise seemed interesting enough to to make me want to check it out. From the very first episode, I was hooked. Soon after, my wife watched the first episode and it became a family affair. Starring Erick McCormack (Will & Grace) and directed by Brad Wright (Stargate), Travelers is a show about people from a distant future that come to the 21st century in an effort to change history to re-write their present.

You may wonder “Nothing new here, many shows and movies have explored this premise.” That is true. What makes Travelers unique is how they arrive in the present and how they explore emerging technologies in a thoughtful and plausible way. They travel back to time by sending the consciousness of people from the future into the bodies of those who are about to die in the 21st century. Having the benefit of knowing history allows them to pintpoint the exact time for arrival which makes for some pretty interesting situations (a wife about to be killed by her husband’s abuse, a mentally-challenged woman about to be attacked by robbers and a heroin-addict about to be overdose). The travelers then continue the life of their “host” making those around belief that they are still the same person that died.

Spoiler alert – the next paragraphs will openly discuss plots from the show

By the end of first season, we learn about the pivotal role AI plays in the plot. Throughout the first episodes, the travelers keep talking about “the director” who has a “grand plan.” That becomes their explanation for carrying out missions when they cannot understand why they are doing what they are told. They also follow 6 rules to ensure their behavior limits their interference in the past. At first, the viewers think they are talking about a person who is leading the effort. In the last episode of season 1, we learn that “the Director” is actually a Super Computer (a Quantum Frame) who is able to consider millions of possible scenarios and therefore direct travelers to their assign missions. We are really dealing with AI God, who is quasi-omniscient and demands human’s trust and devotion.

Exploring Rich Religious Imagery

While the show explores religious imagery throughout, this aspect comes to the forefront in episode 8 of Season two. In it, one of the travelers (aptly and ironically named Grace), is to be judged by three judges (programmers). The setting for that: a church. As they gathered in the sanctuary, the “Trinity” of programmers initiates proceedings under the watchful eye of the Director (through a tiny camera that records the event). Grace, an obnoxious traveler who is devoid of social skills, is charged with the crime of treason for taking action on her own initiative in direct challenge to the grand plan.

As the judgement unfolds, scenes that juxtapose the programmer judges with an empty cross in the background reinforce the explicit religious connection the writers are making here. Throughout the hearings, Grace insists that her actions, even if unorthodox, were only to save the Director. Yet, she is surprised to learn that the Director itself had summoned her judgment. She seems disappointed at that, wondering how would the Director judge her if it knew her intentions. This is an interesting assertion because it implies that the director actually knew her thoughts, raising it to the level of a god.

Grace is found guilty by the programmer trinity and is handed over to the director for her sentencing. They speculate that she will be overwritten. That is the worse punishment, which means she would not only die in the 21st century but her consciousness would cease to exist. It is the theological equivalent to eternal death or annihilation.

The next scene is probably one of the most profound and provocative of the whole show so far. Grace goes to a small room where she faces three large screens from where the Director will speak directly to her. This is the first time in the show where the audience gets to see the Director in action by itself rather than through messengers.

While she is no longer in the sanctuary, the room still has an empty cross in the background and evokes the idea of a confessional booth. At that point, I was really curious to know how they would portray the director. What kind of images would she see? Would it be of the machine itself or something else?

No machine but human faces show up in the screen. They are all older and seem to be in some type of life support. At times, they seem to represent Grace’s parents but that was not clear. In this climatic scene, Grace finds forgiveness from the Director and is not overwritten. The machine communicate divine qualities through human faces. Grace finds peace and absolution and re-affirms her trust and devotion to the Director. In short, she experiences a theophany: a watershed personal moment that reveals a new facet of the divine being to a human receiver.

Photo by Bruno van der Kraan on Unsplash

A New Perspective on Omniscience

What to make of this? I must say that when I first learned of Levandowski’s efforts to create an AI religion, I discounted as sensational journalism. Surely there is a fringe of techno-enthusiasts that would follow that path. Yet, I could no see how such idea could be appealing to a wider audience. Seeing Traveler’s religious treatment of AI have made me re-think. Maybe an AI religion is not as far-fetched as I originally thought. An advanced AI bolstered by powerful hardware and connected to a vast digital history of information could indeed do a great job in optimizing timelines. That is, it could consider a vast amount of scenarios in ways that are unfathomable to the human mind. This could make it quasi-omniscient in a way that could elicit a god-like trust from humans. One could say such arrangement would be the triumph of secular science replacing a mythical god with a technological one.

From a Judeo-Christian perspective, an AI god would be the epitome of human idolatry. People worshiping idols except that for calf images are replaced by silicon superstructures that actually can hear, speak and think faster than any human. This would be an example of idols in steroids. As a firm believer in the benefits of AI, I do worry about human inclination towards idolizing tools. As a Christian, I owe my allegiance to a transcendent God. AI can only be formidable tool but nothing more.

Yet, the prospect of an AI god is still interesting in that it may helps us understand a transcendent God better. How so, you may ask? Religion is often defined by powerful metaphors. For some monotheistic faiths, God is a father. Such metaphor has obvious benefits as it elicits image of authority, provision and comfort. I wonder if using a powerful AI as a metaphor could reveal part of divinity that we have not explored before.

In a previous blog, I suggested that AI offered a paradigm of partnership for religion as opposed to blind obedience. Reflecting on Travelers’ portrayal of an AI God sheds light into the aspect of God’s omniscience and wisdom. A timeless being with infinite “processing capacity” could very well consider all the possible alternatives and come up with the best one that leads to the best outcome (to whatever that best is defined). In computer science terms, the best is defined by an objective function – basically the goal you are trying to achieve.

How is that different from previous views of omniscience and wisdom? In the past, omniscience was seen as the idea that God knows what decision we will make and therefor ultimately knows the future. In some traditions, this idea was amplified into the concept of Predestination. The problem with such approach is that it limits God to one outcome and makes humans “automatons.” In other words, there is really no choice or risk – everything is pre-determined from the beginning. I suspect this view of God was heavily based on our own human mind that cannot consider more than 1 scenario for the future at a time.

What if God’s omniscience was more like the Super AI knowledge that is able to simultaneously consider multiple outcomes and then guide towards the better one or correct it when that path is undermined? Wouldn’t that be a fuller view of omniscience? This scenario allows for human choice while still attributing superior knowledge and control to God. Furthermore, this metaphor reveals a “smarter” God that is not bound by the one-track linear thinking of humans. Humanity realizes that their choices matter and can create alternative futures. Even so, they still have the comfort of a God who can see through all this, and guide it from a perspective that can consider manifold outcomes.

Such God would certainly be worthy of human obedience, awe and praise.

“Do You Trust This Computer?”: A Wake Up Call on Superintelligence

It is not everyday that Elon Musk endorses and partially funds a documentary. Needless to say, when that happens, anyone tracking the tech industry takes notice. In “Do you Trust Your Computer?“, Chris Paine brings together experts, journalists and CEOs from the tech industry and academia, to make a compelling point about the dangers of Superintelligence for humanity’s future. In this blog, I will review the documentary and offer some thoughts on how we respond to the issues raised by it.

In an age of misguided attention, I welcome any effort to raise awareness of the social impacts of AI. While AI has gained notoriety recently, there has been little thoughtful discussion of its impacts. I believe this documentary does exactly that and for that reason alone, I encourage everyone to watch it.

Surprisingly, the documentary did not uncover any new information. Most of the examples cited have been mentioned in other media discussing AI. The documentary contributes to the discussion not because of its content per say but because how it frames the issue of Superintelligence. Many of us have heard of singularity, the rise of killer AI, the death of privacy through Big Data and the dangers of automated weapons. Chris Paine’s genius was to bring those issues together to construct a cohesive argument that shows the plausability and the danger of the rise of superintelligence. The viewer comes away with greater clarity and awareness on the subject.

Compelling but Incomplete

In short, Paine argues that if we develop AI without proper safeguards, it could literally destroy us as a species. It wouldn’t do that intentionally but in the way to maximizing its goal. The example he gives is of how we humans have no qualms of removing an ant mound in the way to build a path. Superintelligent entities would look at us with the same regard we look at ants and therefore lack any human-centered ethical norms. Beyond that, he also touched on other topics like: the impending job elimination, Big Data’s impact in our lives and the danger of automated weapons. While the documentary was not overly alarmist it does challenge us to take these matter seriously and encouraging conversation at multiple levels of society.

In spite of its compelling argument, I found the treatment of the topic to be lacking in some aspects. For one, the film could have explored more how AI can lead to human flourishing and economic advancement. While at times it touched on the potential of AI, these bits were overshadowed by the parts that focused on its dangers. I wish they had discussed how, just like previous emerging technologies, AI will not only eliminate jobs but also create new industries and economic ecosystems. Surely its impact is bound to create winners and losers. However, to overlook its potential for job creation does a disservice to the goal of an honest dialogue about our AI future.

Moreover, the rise of artificial Superintelligence, though likely, it far from being a certainty. At one point, one of the experts talked about how we have become numb to the dangers of AI primarily because of all the Hollywood’s exhaustive exploitation of this theme. That was a great point, however, that skepticism may not be completely unfounded. AI hype happened before and so did an AI winter. In the early 60’s, many already predicted a take over of robots as AI technology had just entered the scene. It turned out that technical challenges and hardware limitations slowed AI development enough so that government and business leaders lost interest in it. This was the first AI winter from the mid-70s to the mid-90’s. This historical lesson is worth remembering because AI is not the only emerging technology competing for funding and attention at this moment.

Exposing The Subtle Impact of AI

I certainly hope that leaders in business and politics are heeding to Chris Paine’s warnings. My critique above does not diminish the importance of the threat posed by Superintelligence. However, most of us will not be involved in this decision process. We may be involved in choosing who will be at the table but not at the decision-making process directly. So, while this issue is very important, we as individual citizens will have little agency in setting the direction of Superintelligence development.

With that said, the documentary did a good job in discussing the more subtle impacts of AI in our daily lives. That to me, turned out to be the best contribution to the AI dialogue because it helped expose how many of us are unwilling participants in the process. Because AI lives and dies on data, data collection practices are fairly consequential to the future of its development. China is leaping ahead in the AI race primarily because of its government ability to collect personal data with little to no restrictions. More recently, the Facebook-Cambridge-Analytica scandal exposed how data collection done by large corporations can also be unethical and harmful to our democracy.

Both examples show that centralized data collection efforts are ripe for abuse. The most consequential act we can take in the development of AI is to be more selective on how and to who we give personal data to. Moreover, as consumers and citizens, we must ensure we are sharing in the benefits our data creates. This process of data democratization is the only way to keep effective controls on how data is collected and used. As data collection decentralizes, the risk of an intelligence monopoly decreases and the benefits of AI can be more equitably shared among humanity.

Moreover, it is time we start questioning the imperative of digitization. Should everything be tracked through electronic devices? Some aspects of our analog earth are not meant to be digitized and processed by machines. The challenges is to define these boundaries and ensure they are kept out of reach from intelligent machines. This is an important question to ask as we increasingly use our smart phones to record every aspect of our lives. In this environment, writing a journal by hand, having unrecorded face-to-face conversations and taking a technology sabbatical can all be effective acts of resistance.

Black Panther: A Powerful Postcolonial, African-Futurist Manifesto

Black Panther is more than a movie, it is a manifesto of possibilities and a vivid expression of Postcolonial imagination. Much has been said about the importance of having an African super-hero. I want to discuss why Black Panther matters to all of us, Western white people included. I never thought I would be able to address Postcolonialism, Theology and Technology in one blog. Black Panther allows me to do just that. I encourage everyone to see it and will do my best to keep this piece free of spoilers.

Back in Seminary, I did an independent study on Theology and Postcolonialism (you can check one of my papers from that class here). In the middle of the last century, as most colonies had gained their independence, Majority World scholars realized that political freedom was not enough to undo the shackles of Colonialism. They realized that colonial paradigms still persisted in the very sources of knowledge of Modernity. Therefore, what was needed was a full deconstruction of knowledge as it was handed to them by Euro-centric scholars. Inspired by Foucault’s idea that speech is power, this movement started first in Literature and then moved to the Social Sciences. This project of deconstruction continues till this day. In my view, Black Panther represents the next step in this progression. If the first Postcolonial authors were there to identify and de-construct Western biases embedded in literature, the writers of Black Panther start the re-construction in the creation of a Postcolonial imagination.

How is that so? First, it is important to say what Black Panther is not. It is not a depiction of African suffering under the White oppressor like 12 Years a Slave. As necessary as this type of movie is, it is still enclosed in a Colonial paradigm that albeit critically still puts the White man at the center of the story. It is also not a depiction of African harsh social realities like Moonlight and City of God. While such narratives are also important and represent progress from the previous category (here minorities are at the center of the story), they lack a prophetic imagination of how things could change.

Black Panther represents a new category of its own. It paints an alternative hopeful image, grounded in the Sci-Fi genre, of what these societies could be if they were to realize their God-given potential independent of Western Colonialism. What impress me most is that the writers went to great lengths to imagine a future that was authentically African even as it become technologically advanced. Therefore, this African Futurism not only portrays a future of what it could be for Majority World but also challenges our current Western ideals of technology. It portrays a technology that is not there to replace but to merge with nature. This sustainable picture is maybe the best gift of African Futurism to the world.

Moreover, I thought that it was important that not only the hero but also the anti-hero was of African descent. Here there is some controversy and push back as Christopher Lebron’s essay brings up. Fair enough, yet a movie that depicted an African hero against a White villain would have missed the opportunity to re-imagine a postcolonial future by re-enforcing the colonial past. I cannot speak for those of African descent. Yet, as one born in the Majority World and inevitably linked to its story of struggle, I can say that true postcolonial imagination happens when we are able to see that our main problems are the ones coming from within. This is very difficult task given the burden of oppressive structures that persist even to the present day. Yet, it is only when the problem become our own, and not the Colonizer’s, that we can recover the power taken from us.

It is encouraging to see how this movie has become a catalyst for the African diaspora all over the world to re-think and re-imagine their identify. It is not just a fantasy that imagines a perfect world without problems but one in which good redeems a hopeless present. Here is where Theology comes in. Wakanda is a great picture of what the Jewish writers envisioned as the Kingdom of God coming to Earth. It does not happen through power or violence but through invitation and outreach. This is the type of Christ-like upside-down power that the white Evangelical church in this country has forgotten. When we align ourselves with those who protect guns and against refugees we have failed to understand the very heart of the gospel. I could say much more but for now, let those who have ears hear.

Black Panther is an invitation for new Postcolonial imaginations to emerge. I call on Latin Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders to give us their version of a hopeful future. Our world will be richer for it. Let the forgotten find their voice, not only of pain but also of creativity, joy and transformation.

___________________________________//______________________________________

A year after I posted this, I wrote a blog going more into the actual architecture of Wakanda. To read that blog, click here.

Reflections on the 2018 LAMP Symposium on the Future of Life

Last Saturday I attended the 2018 LAMP (Leadership and Multi-faith Program) symposium, a collaborative endeavor between Emory University and Georgia Tech. The topic for this year was “Religious and Scientific Perspectives in the Future of Life.” The event was sub-divided in three parts, starting with life in the body and mind (religion meets science in deciphering the soul), life in our planet (warnings about Global Warning inaction) and life in outer-space (an introduction to Astrobiology). For lunch, we also learned about a AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) initiative to build bridges between seminary students and scientists.

Unfortunately, I was not able to stay for the last session and therefore cannot speak to it in detail. Yet, the very idea that there is an academic discipline studying the possibility of life in other planets is fascinating. I am encouraging my 8 year-old daughter to look into that for a college major. It sounds like a truly exciting field.

The symposium opened with Dr. Arri Eisen describing his experience of teaching science to Buddhist monks in Tibet. Apart from some entertaining stories, the main gist followed along the lines of “we have much to learn from each other if we are open” theme. While this is not earth-shattering, it was refreshing to see a Scientist affirm that his craft is not immune to personal and/or cultural biases. Of all the speakers that followed, the most interesting was Dr. Mascaro’s description of her work to test the health impacts of meditation. She first showed the overwhelming evidence for the correlation between social connection and health. That is, the more lonely we are the more physically sick we become. Hence, any activity that can increase our sense of connection with others should also have health benefits which proved to be the case. This is an important finding that hopefully with time will move us to look at physical health from a more holistic perspective.

I was particularly unimpressed by the contribution of the speakers from the religious side to the dialogue. To be fair, each of them had little time to fully state their case but their observations really added little to the debate. For example, the Muslim scholar’s main point was to question the reliability of the mind without fully describing how that really differs from the soul. I think what he meant was a suspicion of the Western cult of objectivity and rationality yet that was not clearly stated. The Jewish Scholar spoke of her research on ritual bath without really making clear connections as to how that contributes to the dialogue between Religion and Science or the connection between mind and soul.

The lunch talk was informative and hopeful as I learned about how Columbia Seminary students were being exposed to Scientific knowledge though a speaker series. The hope here is that as they become pastors they will become more engaged with Science and this engagement will makes it way to the pulpit and Sunday school classes. However, such initiative would have been much more consequential in conservative evangelical seminaries where Science is often seen as the enemy of faith. It is an encouraging beginning nevertheless.

The after-lunch session turned out to be a call to action for engaging religious community with Global Warming activism. Of the speakers in this session, I was impressed by Rabbi Kornblau’s holistic approach to the Torah that included a commitment to caring for the environment. I was disappointed by the Christian Theologian’s exploration of Eschatology and Ecology. While he brought a valid point that his generation was less concerned about a shift in worldview to moving to action, there was a missed opportunity in developing this many connections of the these two topics. Moreover, while I will second their concern with Global Warming, I was looking for discussion on the current scientific developments in life extension. I was also hoping for an acknowledgement of the role of technology in their research.

I realize that the tone of my review is rather negative. I was expecting much more from a discussion on the future of life. As someone keenly interested in the dialogue between Technology and Religion, I am rather impatient with the slow pace of the dialogue between Religion and Science in academic circles. The latter lays the groundwork for the former. Yet, given its slow pace, we may be years away from a robust dialogue between on the role of Religion in emerging technologies. I see a lot of preliminary discussion but very little in the way of actionable insights. I understand that this stems in part from the academic focus on research and theory. Even so, I find that unacceptable given the pace of change brought forth by emerging technologies (AI, VR and CRISP to name a few) on our humanity. While there are some institutions in the forefront of this dialogue (i.e.: Pittsburg Seminary and University of Durham), I was hoping the leading academic institutions of a growing metropolis like Atlanta would be making inroads in this area.

This leads me to believe that most insights and breakthroughs in this area will not come from Academia but from practitioners (pastors and technologists). Academic institutions will find themselves having to catch up with the new knowledge being uncovered by innovators in the field. This is unfortunate given academic institutions’ wealth of resources for research. I hope that changes but if what I saw on Saturday is any indication, Academia is a long way from leading in this dialogue.

Altered Carbon and The Eternal Soul: Sci-Fi Gets Religion

In the hit Netflix show Altered Carbon, the people become immortal by making their consciousness portable. They perpetuate their existence by moving into a new body (or “sleeve”) when the old one is no longer useful. Their consciousness live in a device that is inserted into the back of their neck. As long as the device remains intact, the person lives on independent of the body. Yet, Science fiction is not the first genre to discuss our individual essence as something that transcends the body. Religious thought has been reflecting on this for Millennia. Can anything be learned in a dialogue between a religious (in this case Christian) view of the soul and consciousness? In this blog, I want to explore how the Christian vision of the soul can inform the Science-Fiction view of consciousness and vice-versa.

Christian thought has a similar idea about personhood. Instead of a device, it believes the person has a soul, an internal invisible energy that contains the individual’s essence. Once the body dies, the soul lives on eternally in a place of torment or bliss.[note] Early Christians did not share this notion of a soul independent of the body but instead emphasize a full-body resurrection. It was only later, as Christianity Westernized that we got this conception of body-less souls going to live with God eternally. [/note] In that way, Christian thought connects this idea that we transcend our bodies with a notion of justice. The destiny of a soul is tied to how the body lived in its time on Earth. Interestingly enough, in the Altered Carbon series, the Christians (Neo-Catholics) are the main group opposing the idea of transferring the consciousness to different bodies. They believe such practice would condemn one to punishment in the afterlife (if that individual ever reaches it, I guess).

While Religion and Science may have similar ideas of our personhood, the first defines that personhood in a context of an ideal of justice, while the second wants to leave it alone. For the scientist, one’s consciousness destiny is independent of ideas of justice, but instead it just is. Yet, to many humans being with an insatiable search for meaning, such explanation seems insufficient even if descriptively accurate. There has to be more, even if we cannot know for sure what that “more” is. That is where Science-Fiction comes in. If Science is indifferent to the human longings, Sci-Fi takes scientific ideas, speculate on its assumptions and possibilities and places them in a context of human stories. Sci-Fi brings “objective” science into the “subjective” world of human story.

Yet, Sci-Fi, while pursuing similar ends as religion has also a different way of pursuing it. Religions looks at the past to bring lessons to the present. It aims to expose the depravity of the human heart through history in a hope that present humanity can avoid or rectify those mistakes. Sci-Fi reverses this order, teaching moralistic lessons from the future. If Christianity says “look what your ancestors did wrong – don’t do that”, Sci-fi says “look at the future world your children will live in – change now.”

To be fair, Christian tradition has a similar genre to Sci-fi in the prophetic and apocalyptic writings. In them, writers paint a vision, often full of symbolism, to tell people on the present of a future doom. Yet, if in Sci-fi the focus is in how humanity can screw up their future, in the Christian tradition it is God who brings destruction because of human depravity. The aim is the same – to force us to re-think about how we live our lives in the present.

While some Sci-Fi literature can imagine a world where our consciousness lives on this earth by jumping from body to body, it can also envision something akin to a blissful heaven. This is present in the idea of uploading one’s consciousness to the cloud. No, this is not the cloud of angels but the cloud of 1s and 0s of the Internet. A National Geographic Documentary Year Million even explores what would be like for people to abandon their bodies to live in the cloud. What would be like to live a life where individuality disappears and we are absorbed by an universal consciousness? At first glance, this approach to the afterlife has more in common with Buddhism than monotheistic religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The first one sees the unity of all beings as the ultimate goal, while the latter keeps our individuality intact in relationship to a personal God.

Where does this comparison leave us? What I described above demonstrated how the dialogue between Science-Fiction and Christianity can enrich both disciplines. Sci-Fi could benefit from a more defined vision of justice offered by religious imagery while religion (in this case Christian tradition) could take it more seriously the role of human action in the future. Christian tradition does a good job in teasing out personal sins of immorality while not giving enough attention to corporate sins of environmental destruction. Sci-Fi, conversely, does a great job in extrapolating our corporate ills into the future while not being so concerned with personal morality. Furthermore, Sci-Fi rarely gives us a positive view of our present and how that can create a harmonious future. Instead, it is mostly concerned in highlighting what could go wrong. Christian tradition offers a robust view of a ideal future in the book of Revelation where all nations will come together as one. It speaks of a city where God’s (the source of all goodness in religious thought) is present at its very center. In this way, it gives something to look forward to, not just something to look away from.

A full conversation between the two can bring a fuller picture of the challenges ahead while also highlighting the promise of what is possible if we dare to change our ways. I would love to see one day the emergence of a religious sci-fi genre that takes both scientific and religious themes seriously while also captivating our imagination in the process. I am encouraged to see how Altered Carbon hints at this conversation by including a religious element to the story. Yet, much more could be done.

Is anyone doing that already? If so, I would love to hear about it.

Test – new block

Ultimate Narratives and Why Trump Is Irrelevant

I have intentionally steered clear from political topics in this blog. Yet, just like many in this season, I found myself needing to say something given the unique political moment the US is undergoing at this point. For starters, as an immigrant and strong believer in international cooperation, it is not too difficult to know where I stand on the current administration. Moreover, as an evangelical Christian, I lament our group’s support for Trump’s person and agenda. Simply put, the gospel that saved me is not compatible with political ideologies that foment fear, division and scapegoating of minorities.

Yet, this blog is NOT another rant against Trump. In fact quite the opposite. My main point here is to demonstrate how, regardless of his bombast and noise, he does not define the future of our nation and the global community. This became clear two weeks ago, when the president decided to leave the Paris Accord. Soon after, large corporations, states and city governments defied the administration’s stance by re-affirming their commitment to the goals put forth in the international agreement. While the president holds remarkable power and influence, his reach has limits.

Centers of Power

Reflecting on this brings me back to my undergraduate studies in Political Science. Then, I remember studying about the dynamic interplay of centers of powers. In this framework, even in the most authoritarian regimes, power is never fully centralized. Instead it is distributed in societies through many centers of power. These are institutions like foundations, think tanks, political parties, business associations and other interest groups. Any political leader, whether they like it or not, depend on these actors to govern. When a politician loses key support, he or she cannot effectively govern. President Trump is no exception to this rule and to understand his actions, one must also understand the interests groups that brought him to power.

While this is true, the limits of this view is that it focuses only in powers that manifest themselves politically. Yet, there are many other actors that may not hold overt political power yet still can exert tremendous influence in a society. Examples of this would be business conglomerates in sectors like communication, energy, technology and education. Our future may very well be decided in boardroom meetings of these companies where new products and services are being discussed.

The Power of Narrative

In our time, an even more formidable power is narrative itself. That is, the ability to control how to explain our world. In 2017, more than ever before, there is a collusion between communication (media) and political powers that are selling the narrative that “the political is the ultimate.” This narrative wants to convince us that the defining events of history are coming from the halls of Washington, DC. The president makes a policy announcement (or send a ridiculous tweet) and the media is all over it either defending it or expressing disgust over it. Either way, the narrative is reinforced that the political takes precedence over all other narratives.

This blog has focused on an alternative narrative. Frankly, in a time where politics offers little hope, it is refreshing to follow the narrative of technological progress. Here you hear stories about possibilities, positive change and improvement. There are also aspects that cause fear, distress and anxiety. Yet, the dominant sentiment (at least to me) is of hope. We are living in a time of unprecedented technological breakthroughs many of which could change life as we know it for the better.

Ultimate Narratives

The train has left the station for technological innovation. This train will not stop unless we experience another “Black Swan” event (a rare catastrophic event that changes everything i.e.: 9/11 Attack on the Twin Towers). For now, the party or person that sits in power will have little effect in the march towards an AI-saturated world. Thus, understanding how to bend this trend towards the good of humanity is to me more consequential than fighting for political change. This does not diminish the work of political activism, just displaces it from a place of ultimate importance.

Finally, for those who pledge allegiance to Christ, there is no ultimate narrative other than the gospel itself. The Christ follower will understand the world through the lens that believes that new life is possible even after death. That is the hope that has driven the faithful for centuries and continues to drive them today. We are certainly living in times of great political uncertainty and unprecedented technological change. Yet, ultimately, for the Christian, none of that is more important than the death and resurrection of Christ. It is on this narrative of hope that we stand and understand everything else. Our job is to uncover how this narrative of death and resurrection is playing out within the current trends we live today. Not an easy task for sure, but one that promises eternal rewards.

Kasparov, Wall-E and AI Hope

The first man to be beaten by a machine is now optimistic about AI.

Gary Kasparov, Russian chess champion, also holds the title of being the first human beaten by a machine. The momentous occasion happened in 1997. He reportedly did not react well to his defeat, once accusing IBM of cheating by using a humans to improve the computer’s gaming strategy. He would later become one of the first voices to warn about the danger of AI. So, it is with great surprise that I read last week his turn-of-heart article where he encourage readers to embrace the AI revolution.

He is describing what I talked about in the blog about augmentation – machines taking over menial tasks leaving us free to pursue occupations that require creativity. That is, since machines are well suited for performing repetitive endeavors with precision, humans are then free to create new products, improve on existing systems and care for each other.

Wall-E: the adorable truth-speaking robot

On Saturday, for our family movie night, we sat down to watch Wall-E. I was excited about the choice and the break from the usual tales of fair princesses. Indeed, I had forgotten how much I enjoyed this animated movie. The robot characters and their romance are as endearing as it could get. It is funny, adorable and in some ways prophetic. Sophia, my seven year-old, turned to me at the end of the movie to inform me that the movie teaches a lesson on how to care of our earth. Even kids get it!

If you have not watched it, please do so in the next few days. Without giving much of the story away, the movie paints a bleak future of an Earth abandoned and trashed. The only remaining survivors are a cute clean-up robot called Wall-E and his companion cockroach. He toils away day after day compacting and piling up trash. Yet, in his spare time he watches old musicals in an old TV set. His world changes when EVE, an adorable female robot, arrives on earth in search for life.

The movie centers on their budding relationship in which humans play only a secondary part. In the movie, people live in a cruise-like spaceship designed by a large multi-national corporation to keep them in space until the clean up effort on Earth was complete. Except, the clean up effort failed and humanity was stuck in this ship where robots catered to all their needs. So much so, that most did not even walk developing morbidly obese bodies. Sounds eerily familiar? Well, it should.

Now what these two stories have in common?

I see the Wall-E modern parable as a cautionary tale of a Kasparov’s vision going terribly wrong. By replacing all labor with robots , humans would be doomed to entertain themselves to death. It raises questions about the recent discussions on technology replacing human employment with basic guaranteed income. The irony of the movie was that while the robots were there to serve humans, humans had actually become enslaved to the machines.

They had built the the perfect convenient life that they lost themselves in the machines meant to make their lives better.

They never pursued the higher endeavors of creativity, art and building new worlds. Their desire atrophied, their vision darkened and their lives became a meaningless distraction from the real work waiting for them on earth.

What then is AI hope?

Kasparov’s point is still well-taken, as long as we balance it with the lessons from Wall-E. Technology created to set us free had many times enslaved to addictive entertainment. I see that in the growing popularity of video games which now is not confined to children anymore but has become a serious hobby for adults.

The future of augmentation, must be built around a telos that goes beyond the perpetual pursuit for novelty. Motherboard released an article titled “people don’t want to leave AI up to corporations“. Raising the question is a good start. Left to their own devices, corporations will continue to feed us with perpetual dreams of novelty. While progress will occur, and quality of life will improve, resources will be channeled to what is profitable not what is good.

AI hope starts by broadening the conversation. It must begin by extending the table and welcoming new stakeholders to the conversation. The purpose of human flourishing must be a guiding principle.

In a micro level, this means expanding the digital opportunities of employment to those usually shut out of them. It starts with movements to teach STEM skills in schools and homes. It begins by de-mystifying computer work from being specialized for the “geeks” to being everybody’s work, especially girls and minorities.

Towards that end, it is encouraging to see companies like Facebook and Apple offering coding camps and other resources that democratize IT knowledge. Yet, the vision of benevolent augmentation, where humanity is free from toil and directed towards creativity, will not come through technologies or even tech companies. It will come by the collective work of multiple stakeholders steering the development of technology towards equal opportunity. In short, it must be primarily concerned with human flourishing.

How can you make your voice heard in the AI conversation? How can you influence the development of technology towards human flourishing? I would love to hear your thoughts.

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

Category: Culture & Entertainment