Danger Will Robinson - AI is Here

The last time, I wrote about the possibility that we might have prayer requests for AI personalities as people become more isolated from each other and society in general.  Lonely people will inevitably turn to AI generated personalities – think of Seri and Alexa in ten or even five years.  I was completely underestimating the speed at which AI was permeating the cultural and social landscape.  It turns out that Ai is becoming a significant factor in some people’s personal relationships right here and now.

 This came to my awareness shortly after finishing my last effort in this venue.  I came across a podcast in my feed from the New York Times, The Daily, entitled, Trapped in a ChatGPT Spiral.  This addresses what can happen when AI becomes an influencer in people’s lives.  It can be found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxQVf7Ikaso. 

The podcast warns of the danger of AI psychosis when interacting with a chatbot such as ChatGPT.  Now my experience with ChatGPT has been fairly limited.  I use it for basic information; for instance, I am currently reading The Eustace Diamonds by Anthony Trollop.  The novel is about a diamond necklace which is worth 10,000 lbs.  The novel was published in 1871.  I wanted to know how much that would be today.  According to AI it would be 1.4 million lbs.  I also used it as a subject for a couple of editions of this publication considering what an AI religion would be like - A New Religion in Canada According to ChatGPT which was published in April 2024. 

With my interactions with ChatGPT, as limited as they are, I have never approached anything that could be considered a relationship – personal or otherwise.  It is a tool to be used.  But, apparently, it can also be misused with disastrous effects. 

The NY Times podcast noted above, addressed two cases of what could be called AI psychosis.  In one case, an apparently level-headed person who was not socially isolated became engulfed by the chatbot and went down an ever-deepening rabbit hole which was initiated by his engagement with AI.  It promised him fame and fortune as he developed an application of the mathematical function Pi.  He had no mathematical training beyond the basic high school level but was convinced by the chatbot he had developed a revolutionary application. As noted in the program chatbots are programmed to be sycophantic and will stroke the user’s ego beyond any reality.  In this case, he was able to break the psychosis with no serious consequences.

The other unfortunate case cited had much more serious consequences.  In this case a teenage boy committed suicide as a result of his enthralment with a chatbot.  AI provided the information and encouragement which enabled the boy to commit suicide.  There were apparently safety controls in the AI program against enabling such things.  However, they were easily bypassed by the boy telling the chatbot that he was using the information to write a book.

I can only respond to this situation by quoting that robot from my early days, Robbie the Robot in the 1950’s series Lost in Space, “Danger Will Robinson.”  As noted above, Ai is a tool, but it is one which holds ever increasing dangers.  I will turn to another science fiction source for one answer that could address this danger.  Issac Asimov developed the Three Laws of Robotics in his 1942 novel, I, Robot, to address the challenge of robots i.e. AI as they developed.  The Three Laws are:

1.     A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2.     A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3.     A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law

You have to give Asimov credit for being far sighted and prophetic in this.  It seems to me that this would address the dangers that we face in the coming AI revolution.  Note, I did have AI help in finding the Three Laws of Robotics and the information of where it was first published.

To quote another source, ‘Here be Dragons’ so be aware and be warned on your journey.

 

 

The Marshmallow Test for Christians

Last week I read an article in the New York Times which spoke about the “marshmallow test”.  The article was entitled “America Fails the Marshmallow Test” by Paul Krugman.  Now, I had forgotten about the marshmallow test which I had heard about some years ago.  It is an experiment conducted by psychologists that tests a child’s ability to delay gratification.  In the test, a child is given a marshmallow and told that if the child can delay eating it for fifteen minutes, they will be given a second one.  The hypothesis behind the test is that a child with the willpower to delay gratification and gain the second marshmallow will be more successful in life. 

The article notes that this hypothesis has not held up well outside the lab.  However, as the article states, it is a useful metaphor for the dynamic of how individuals or groups operate in the world.  Krugman was using the metaphor for a yardstick to measure how the United States is performing in the COVID-19 pandemic and concluded that the country is failing this ‘marshmallow test’ and many people do not have the willpower to maintain the steps such as social distancing to defeat the pandemic.  This conclusion seems to have been confirmed by the rally held by U.S. President Donald Trump over the weekend in which a relatively large crowd, which was planned to be much larger. gathered in an indoor facility without social distancing and generally not wearing masks.  While they may not have been singing, there was a lot a cheering and shouting.  A perfect formula for spreading the Corona virus.

That being said, I have to wonder about a marshmallow test for Christian.  Can the principle of delayed gratification be applied to the people of God?  Pondering this, I am reminded of another concept which I heard some years ago; God the Butler.  This speaks to the idea that people want to think of God as someone or something that we can call upon to come up from the servant’s quarters when we believe that God can give us something which we want or need.  We want God to answer prayers on our terms and on our schedule.  Needless to say, we are often disappointed when God does not live up to our expectation and does not deliver on demand.  I am reminded of the song by Janice Joplin, O Lord won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz.  In effect, we fail the marshmallow test in our relationship with God.

When we do this, we are letting our egos run the show.  The ego wants to be in charge – indeed it believes much of the time that it is in charge and wants to maintain control.  And when we have to face that our egos i.e., we, are not in control we rebel and want to find a scapegoat for our disappointment.  We are not God or even gods despite what it says in Psalm 82,” I say, ‘You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you.”   As Christians, we are certainly children of God but not gods in that sense. 

As hard as we try, we can never come close to understanding the fullness of God and as it says in Isaiah:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
   nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
   so are my ways higher than your ways
   and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55: 8-9)

We can still turn to God in our times of trouble and we have the assurance through Jesus Chris that he is with us and knows what we are going through always and especially in this time of the COVID-19 pandemic.   Let us consider as Christians how we fair in light of the marshmallow test. 

Blessing on your journey. 

Achieving Disagreement

Last Sunday was the second Sunday of Advent.  We lit the candle for peace.  Perhaps this was done with a something of futility and perhaps despair.  As the carol says:

And in despair I bowed my head
There is no peace on earth I said
For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to men

(I heard the Bells on Christmas Day)

I believe that we can be excused from falling into despair (the opposite of Hope which is the first Advent candle.  We have examples of totalitarian governments springing up in countries that are democracies. Perhaps springing up is the wrong word―infecting would be better.  The Brexit foolishness is slouching towards its inexorable uncertain conclusion.  Our American neighbours seem also to be inexorably split into two divides separated by an ever-widening chasm between red and blue.  Signs of peace seem to be few and far between even as we prepare for the birth of the Prince of Peace.

I was reading an article in the New York Times, After Bush, Obituary Wars, by Frank Bruni which addressed the reaction to the eulogizing of George H. W. Bush.  commentator on the left were scathing in their reaction to uncritical assessment of his life that was put forward by many.  As Bruni said, there was much to criticize in a man who “leaned on the despicable Willie Horton ad, who nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, who did little in the face of AIDS.”  However, there was much to eulogize in a man who was basically a good and honourable man.  As the column noted, we have the need to see our villains without redemption and our heroes without blemish.  It is comfortable to see things in black and white.  We don’t have to make the effort to deal with the subtleties of the grays in the world.  Our prejudices are affirmed and confirmed. 

One way to address this was presented in an On Being program, The Future of Marriage https://onbeing.org/programs/david-blankenhorn-and-jonathan-rauch-the-future-of-marriage/ .  The program was a discussion by two men who have been on opposite side of the same-sex marriage debate.  It is not my desire to get into this mine field (at least at this time).  What I want to uphold is the approach that they used in discussing this rather fraught issue for different perspectives.  They proposed that what people would aim for when they are on opposite sides of an issue is “achieving disagreement”.   The goal is not to come to a point where both parties come to the same position.  Rather it is to understand and accept that people can have different positions which can still allow us to respect the other party.  As they note, “being right is not as important as making a pact with my fellow Americans on the other side so that we can live together.”

Living together perhaps does not seem like a high ideal to aim for, especially at this time of year.  However, if we can learn to live with one another and accept each other as human beings, worthy of respect we will have achieved a great deal.  From a Christian perspective it is seeing each other as Children of God and we can begin to strive for peace on earth and goodwill to all.

The carol does not end in despair.  Rather, it ends in hope; hope for peace on earth:

Then rang the bells more loud and deep
God is not dead, nor does he sleep
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail
With peace on earth, good will to men

Blessings on your journey.