AI AND PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTION: WHY SO LITTLE?
18th March 2024 – by Andrew Dolan
Despite the obvious increase in academic philosophical interest in Artificial Intelligence (AI), I am still somewhat surprised that this subject has failed to generate much more general philosophical speculation, especially amongst the wider public and civic society.
In terms of my own interest, AI and Public Policy, there is no shortage of scope of issues worthy of philosophical interest and more fundamentally, general interest. Who is not curious about the advent of driverless cars, the scope and potential benefit of medical AI, predictions of future mass unemployment or the much-heralded rise of robots?
At the academic level of philosophy, it is possible to pursue some fascinating topics, including the nature of machines in relation to intelligence or consciousness, the ethical underpinning of several AI applications, not to mention epistemological aspects of machine intelligence or the burgeoning field of machine rights. Furthermore, speculation abounds on synthetic approaches to the appreciation of killer robots, AI and human augmentation and the exceedingly challenging field of AI enhanced bioengineering and synthetic biology.
Missing from all of this – it seems to me – is the more fundamental question of why we are pursuing some AI-related applications and to what purpose. Public policy development, of any hue, is usually awash in such debate. Look at the public interest in Covid-related vaccination policies. Consider how society is trying to create carbon neutral futures. Public interest, if the level of advocacy and protest related to these issues are anything to go by, is considerable.
Yet where are the public debates on AI-related concerns such as the future of work, the so-called AI ‘Arms Race’, algorithmic bias or the blurring of lines regarding what image is true or fake and what is the future of ‘truth’?
Much of the informed public debate on AI, which is by no means simply one dimensional, has, however, thrown up some interesting questions about why AI or why certain types of AI, is ripe for deeper exploration. Simply put, the answers to these questions are essential if we are to begin to understand what type of policy and public engagement is necessary going forward. In essence, much more rigorous philosophical investigation allied to informed public discourse if going to be required to assist our politicians, economic, financial and industrial champions and civic leaders to craft future public policy and regulatory frameworks.
It goes without saying, however, that public policy to manage the integration of beneficial AI into society will need to be balanced with policies to protect us from the malicious use of the same, either deliberate or accidental. There is already a superficial public perception that ‘AI’ – in an unnuanced context – is something to be feared. Part of this fear is due to public ignorance. Other parts of the concern lie in the speed of technological transformation. You can see this spectrum of concern in the rise of the specialised NGO, which focus on AI and existential risk. It would be unwise, however, to dismiss such concerns and indeed the philosophical and technical output of several such bodies, contained in pithy reports, merit our attention.
Both general and specific AI concerns have yet to seep through into the public square; there seems to be no AI-equivalent to those bodies that campaigned for nuclear disarmament or climate change or that galvanised opinion on poverty or human rights. Religious communities, for example, have yet to solidify their own perspective on what AI might mean for the future of revealed religion. The more the debate on future AI pushes towards concepts of sentience in machines, the less likely it is that philosophical or theological metaphysical considerations will not be challenged and influence society’s sense and meaning of personhood.
I don’t think I am alone in thinking that we would benefit much more as a society if we were to give AI and Public Policy considerations more philosophical investigation. It should serve us well to not only become much more aware of the issues involved but to also help carve out realistic policy solutions as communities struggle to manage the impact of significant, societal transformations.