Brave new transhuman world? Ethical questions to consider in the context of advances in AI

Technologically powerful characters like Captain America and Six Million Dollar Man have been staples of science fiction for decades. They’re not all named Steve and they’re not always the good guys. I’ve watched enough “Doctor Who” to know that the Cybermen are not our friends.

What until now was science fiction is becoming reality. Active efforts in computer science and chemistry aim not only to help or even improve humans, but, ultimately, to replace us with something that enthusiasts insist will be better. This movement is called “transhumanism” and, according to Johns Hopkins University political philosopher Francis Fukuyama, it is “the most dangerous idea in the world.”

One concerned commentator observed that “a future in which the boundary between life made from carbon and life made from silicon becomes ever more porous is closing at breakneck speed” and “will profoundly affect the future of humanity.” , including the question of whether we have one.” This warning wasn’t issued at a ComicCon movie launch, the Tinfoil Hat International Conspirators Convention, or some dark corner of Reddit. It was produced by a guest speaker at a symposium on artificial intelligence organized by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Culture. These comments naturally destabilized the public. And reading them opened my eyes to a threat I was completely unaware of.

It was with concern that I discovered the dystopian visions of tech titans like Google co-founder Larry Page, who calls those who fear the displacement of humanity by robots “speciesists,” and CEO of OpenAI (ChatGPT), Sam Altman, who foresees an inevitable “merger” of humans and machines. Already, he writes on his blog, “Our phones control us and tell us what to do and when; social media feeds determine how we feel; search engines decide what we think.” The company Neuralink, once business partner of Altman, Elon Musk, succeeded (according to Musk) in placing an implant directly into a human brain “to redefine the limits of human capabilities” And Musk tellingly named his youngest (and initially secretive) child “Techno Mechanicus.”

Then there’s Peter Thiel, Altman’s billionaire mentor, and Meta/Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, former Trump megadonor, doomsday planner, despiser of women’s suffrage, and, worryingly, a lead investor in Hallow, the popular Catholic prayer app. Thiel insists that democracy and freedom are incompatible and does not care about reducing current poverty. Yet he is keen to advance the transhumanist agenda, insisting that death is simply a disease that must be defeated by technology. Never mind St. Paul’s insistence that Jesus has already destroyed death, “the final enemy” (1 Corinthians 15:26). Thiel has other plans.

Recently, Thiel helped establish an alternative Olympics that allows doping of athletes and the use of “ergogenic aids.” Why should competitors be limited by simple human strength and skill, when these can be surpassed through technology? As the “fight” will be one of the flagship contests of these “Enhanced Games”, we can expect battles between the aspiring Captains America and Six Million Dollar Men, replicating a popular toy from my childhood – the Rock ‘Em robots Sock ‘Em – in which scowling bitten robots punch each other until one of them’s head comes off. Vulgar entertainment worthy of the recently anticipated Musk-Zuckerberg “cage match”.

Thiel might argue that new technologies are already blurring the line between human and machine and integrating us into computing ecosystems: glasses or headsets that distort our vision, scanners that decode our thoughts and monitor our feelings, glasses ” “smart phones” that whisper in our ears and headphones that harvest our brain waves. Given this and what’s on the horizon, a Washington Post cartoonist described the progression from computers on our desks, to computers in our hands, to computers on our heads, to computers in our brains, as menacing, as Pope Francis warns in Fratelli Tuttito make us “prisoners of a virtual reality” who “have lost the taste and flavor of true reality”.

Nothing I have said is intended to diminish the advances that have led to life-changing assistive devices for people with disabilities, like those used by Stephen Hawking, the famous cosmologist, physicist, best-selling author and member of long-standing member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences of the Vatican. His mechanized wheelchair and interactive computers allowed him to continue his scientific activities while living with ALS. He certainly appreciated the benefits of advanced technology. At the same time, he warned that a new technology – AI – could “mean the end of the human race”.

This tragic end could occur, as Francis warns in “Laudato Si’on the care of our common home”, through a “technocracy… which sees no particular value in human beings”. For if Homo sapiens is not understood as created in the image of God and possessing inherent dignity, but dismissed as merely a stepping stone for transition to something better and more powerful, then human beings should not have more rights than a gray parrot, as transhumanist thinking suggests. And in a struggle for limited resources between humans and their successors, humans would likely lose survival of the fittest. , after all.

But while the extinction of humanity is perhaps the greatest threat posed by transhumanism, a more immediate threat is that its underlying inventions will exacerbate existing divisions between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” “How wonderful it would be,” dreams Francis in Fratelli Tutti, “if the growth of scientific and technological innovation could be accompanied by greater equality and social inclusion”. That would be truly wonderful. But advanced technologies are expensive, and the rich will rush to adopt them to maintain their power or simply out of fear of falling behind in brutally competitive societies. After all, as Francis laments about an “economy of exclusion and inequality”: “Such an economy kills.”

Transhumanist and megatech investor Marc Andreessen calls “social responsibility” and “tech ethics” the “enemies” in his chilling “Techno-Optimist Manifesto.” And if such thinking were to prevail, we could soon find ourselves divided between “humans” and “humans plus”: much like the differences between premium streaming services and basic cable. The latter still persists, but is quickly becoming obsolete. And, while today’s wealthy parents favor organized lives, private tutoring, exclusive schools, cosmetic orthodontic care and now even Ozempic for their children, such benefits in the future would be provided by robotic appendages , genetic enhancements and bodily-integrated AI personal assistants – which would make today’s debates. on equality and inclusion seem outdated.

Those who do not have access to these technologies – or who refuse to adopt them – will resign themselves to cleaning the homes of those who do. But wait, didn’t the Jetsons have a house robot? “Rut-roh,” their real dog, Astro, would say. Yet even Astro’s role could be in jeopardy. There are many robot dogs available today, including one equipped with a flamethrower. A company makes robotic cats, available for purchase on drugstore websites, and touts its product’s “revolutionary vibrapurr technology.” Yet my flippancy ignores the fact that these robot felines can benefit older adults suffering from cognitive decline through entertainment and comfort. Real benefits for real people with real needs.

Which raises fundamental ethical questions: When do assistive technologies cross a line and become something else? When will we simply become appendages of machines and extensions of computer systems? What does this imply about human nature, human free will, human dignity, and being created in the image of God? Our faith is incarnational and we profess to believe in the “resurrection of the body,” but how will our tradition respond to the replacement of bodies? Bodily “mutilations” have historically been prohibited, except for “strictly therapeutic medical reasons.” But would bionic or silicon volunteer implants be therapeutic or not? And when, asks Francis in Laudato Si’is technology becoming “considered the main key to the meaning of existence”?

On captchas, I like to smugly click on the box that says, “I’m not a robot.” But will there come a day when some will hesitate to make this assertion? To borrow a derogatory technical metaphor for the human brain, my “meat computer” hurts to think about all this – and it breaks my already heavy heart. That’s why I’m encouraged that the Vatican is taking this issue seriously, emphasizing the need for regulations and technological advancements that “affirm the brilliance of the human race.”

The then Pontifical Council for Culture hosted the 2021 AI conference mentioned above. The current Dicastery of Culture and Education has created a digital culture department. The Pontifical Academy for Life created the RenAIssance Foundation to finance ethical reflection on new technologies and published its “Rome Call for the Ethics of AI”, signed by the CEO of Cisco Systems. And on January 1 of this year, Francis released his World Peace Day message on AI and peace, warning against a “technological dictatorship.”

While the TV scientists building the Six Million Dollar Man insisted, “We have the technology!” we have yet to see a truly bionic man or woman. But there are transhumanists with deep pockets (or big crypto holdings) working hard at it. Will they be able to advance what, in Fukuyama’s words, is “the most dangerous idea in the world?” ” I am not sure. Will they keep trying? You bet. Should the Church – and indeed all people of good will – anticipate this now through moral and social teaching? Absolutely. And in all haste.