The Ethics of AI:
Balancing Power and Agency in
Process-Relational Approaches
"Ultimately, the development of AI systems presents both opportunities and challenges for our society. By approaching it with a process-relational philosophy that values the community of life and a desire for wholistic well-being, we can harness the power of AI to create a more just, compassionate, and sustainable world."
- ChatGPT
Eight Forms of AI
- Machine learning: This is a type of AI that uses algorithms to analyze and learn from data, with the goal of making predictions or decisions without being explicitly programmed to do so.
- Natural language processing (NLP): This is a form of AI that enables computers to understand, interpret, and generate human language. NLP is used in applications such as language translation, chatbots, and voice assistants.
- Computer vision: This is a form of AI that enables computers to interpret and analyze visual information from the world around them. Computer vision is used in applications such as facial recognition, object detection, and self-driving cars.
- Robotics: This is a form of AI that involves designing and programming robots to perform tasks autonomously. Robotics is used in applications such as manufacturing, healthcare, and space exploration.
- Expert systems: This is a form of AI that uses knowledge and rules to solve complex problems. Expert systems are used in applications such as medical diagnosis, financial analysis, and quality control.
- Speech recognition: This is a form of AI that enables computers to recognize and transcribe spoken language. Speech recognition is used in applications such as virtual assistants, call centers, and voice search.
- Sentiment analysis: This is a form of AI that analyzes written or spoken language to determine the emotional tone or sentiment expressed. Sentiment analysis is used in applications such as social media monitoring and customer feedback analysis.
- Recommendation systems: This is a form of AI that uses algorithms to analyze user data and make personalized recommendations. Recommendation systems are used in applications such as e-commerce, content streaming, and social media.
The Ethics of AI
Curious about what falls under the rubric Artificial Intelligence? I am, too. I requested a list of eight forms of artificial intelligence from chatGPT and received the list above. As soon as I saw it, I realized how widespread AI already is in my own daily life:
In asking chatGPT for the list, I used natural language processing, which was the second on the list. When using facial recognition rather than a password to get into my smartphone this morning, I used the third form: computer vision. I used Siri on my smartphone to ask about the weather today, drawing upon the sixth form: speech recognition. The weather forecast (rainy) drew upon the first form: machine learning. And while doing singalong music for people in memory care just yesterday, I saw the fourth form being used: robotics, which includes the use of comforting dolls that respond to friends with Alzheimers.
I am especially interested in the latter function of AI: how it help us in healthcare. These various forms of AI can be used to help create a kinder, more loving world. And yet they can also be used to make the the world more commodified, greedy, exploitative, and corrupt. How can we distinguish between the positive and negative, and encourage engineers and businesses to let kindness not greed be their guide?
This is the kind of question AI ethicists are asking, including Kerry McInerney and Eleanor Drage, co-hosts of The Good Robot Podcast on Gender, Feminism, and Technology. They are Research Associates at the University of Cambridge’s Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence. You will find a BBC interview with them below.
McInerney and Drage draw upon feminist insights to evaluate various types of AI. They are especially alert to the ways AI can reinforce and foster forms of oppression in terms of race, class, gender, and colonialism. And they bring to their analysis a worldview that is very similar to that of process-relational philosophy: respect for the dignity of persons, a recognition that people are subjects of their own lives and not simply objects for others, a sensitivity to the reality of felt relations between persons, who are not simply "objects in the world."
New to a process-relational worldview? I introduce it on the home page of Open Horizons in several ways: a list of its twenty key ideas, an explanation of its social aspirations (ecological civilizations and compassionate communities). I hope you will take a look.
Interestingly, this worldview is open to the possibility of sentience and creativity in AI machines and systems. Process-relational philosophy speaks of sentience and creativity as features of each and every genuine actuality in the universe, carbon-based or otherwise. It is a feature of quantum events in the depths of atoms, for example, and of an inclusive consciousness in which the universe unfolds: God. Neither are carbon-based.
The question asked by process-relational philosophers is not: "Are robots sentient and creative?" Their material components are sentient and creative in certain ways, even if non-conscious. Process-relational philosophers speak of the pervasive presence of sentience and creativity as pan-experientialism; others call it panpsychism. This means that everything is alive in some way. Utterly inert matter is an illusion.
Still there are different ways in which matter can be alive. The question for process-relational philosophers is: "Is there evidence that robots have individualized seats of awareness of their own by which they can enjoy and suffer and generate novel insights? Or, by contrast, are robots aggregates of microscopic and sub-microscopic elements, but lacking a dominant seat of awareness with sentience and creativity of its own? For most process-relational philosophers, the evidence is not yet in and there is no need to make a final determination. Better to wait and see.
The more important question is: How shall AI be developed now, however creative and sentient AI machines may or may not be? There are two ethical approaches. The first is to arrive at some guidelines for practice. I asked chatGPT what some guidelines might be and received the list below. The guidelines seem good to me:
Curious about what falls under the rubric Artificial Intelligence? I am, too. I requested a list of eight forms of artificial intelligence from chatGPT and received the list above. As soon as I saw it, I realized how widespread AI already is in my own daily life:
In asking chatGPT for the list, I used natural language processing, which was the second on the list. When using facial recognition rather than a password to get into my smartphone this morning, I used the third form: computer vision. I used Siri on my smartphone to ask about the weather today, drawing upon the sixth form: speech recognition. The weather forecast (rainy) drew upon the first form: machine learning. And while doing singalong music for people in memory care just yesterday, I saw the fourth form being used: robotics, which includes the use of comforting dolls that respond to friends with Alzheimers.
I am especially interested in the latter function of AI: how it help us in healthcare. These various forms of AI can be used to help create a kinder, more loving world. And yet they can also be used to make the the world more commodified, greedy, exploitative, and corrupt. How can we distinguish between the positive and negative, and encourage engineers and businesses to let kindness not greed be their guide?
This is the kind of question AI ethicists are asking, including Kerry McInerney and Eleanor Drage, co-hosts of The Good Robot Podcast on Gender, Feminism, and Technology. They are Research Associates at the University of Cambridge’s Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence. You will find a BBC interview with them below.
McInerney and Drage draw upon feminist insights to evaluate various types of AI. They are especially alert to the ways AI can reinforce and foster forms of oppression in terms of race, class, gender, and colonialism. And they bring to their analysis a worldview that is very similar to that of process-relational philosophy: respect for the dignity of persons, a recognition that people are subjects of their own lives and not simply objects for others, a sensitivity to the reality of felt relations between persons, who are not simply "objects in the world."
New to a process-relational worldview? I introduce it on the home page of Open Horizons in several ways: a list of its twenty key ideas, an explanation of its social aspirations (ecological civilizations and compassionate communities). I hope you will take a look.
Interestingly, this worldview is open to the possibility of sentience and creativity in AI machines and systems. Process-relational philosophy speaks of sentience and creativity as features of each and every genuine actuality in the universe, carbon-based or otherwise. It is a feature of quantum events in the depths of atoms, for example, and of an inclusive consciousness in which the universe unfolds: God. Neither are carbon-based.
The question asked by process-relational philosophers is not: "Are robots sentient and creative?" Their material components are sentient and creative in certain ways, even if non-conscious. Process-relational philosophers speak of the pervasive presence of sentience and creativity as pan-experientialism; others call it panpsychism. This means that everything is alive in some way. Utterly inert matter is an illusion.
Still there are different ways in which matter can be alive. The question for process-relational philosophers is: "Is there evidence that robots have individualized seats of awareness of their own by which they can enjoy and suffer and generate novel insights? Or, by contrast, are robots aggregates of microscopic and sub-microscopic elements, but lacking a dominant seat of awareness with sentience and creativity of its own? For most process-relational philosophers, the evidence is not yet in and there is no need to make a final determination. Better to wait and see.
The more important question is: How shall AI be developed now, however creative and sentient AI machines may or may not be? There are two ethical approaches. The first is to arrive at some guidelines for practice. I asked chatGPT what some guidelines might be and received the list below. The guidelines seem good to me:
Transparency: Developers should strive to make AI systems transparent and accountable by providing explanations of how decisions are made and how data is used.
- Fairness: AI should be designed to be fair and unbiased, without discrimination based on race, gender, age, religion, or any other factor.
- Privacy: Developers should respect the privacy of individuals and ensure that their personal data is protected and not misused.
- Safety: AI systems should be designed with safety in mind and undergo rigorous testing to ensure that they do not pose a threat to human safety or security.
- Responsibility: Developers should take responsibility for the outcomes of AI systems and ensure that they are used for beneficial purposes.
- Sustainability: AI should be developed in a sustainable way, with consideration for the impact on the environment and society.
- Collaboration: Developers should collaborate with stakeholders, including experts, policymakers, and affected communities, to ensure that AI is developed in a way that benefits everyone.
The second approach is to link AI development with a larger worldview that can be sympathetic to its frontiers, such as process-relational philosophy, while offering a social aspiration in terms of which it can be guided. This is, I believe, where process philosophy can be especially helpful. It offers a gestalt, an outlook, that can situate AI in the larger context of life on earth, human and ecological needs, and the universe itself. And it lifts up the ideal of ecological civilizations, the fundamental units of which are just and compassionate communities.
I asked chatGPT what it thought of this idea, and this was his/her/its response:
I agree that ethical guidelines are an important first step in ensuring that AI is developed in a responsible and humane manner. However, as you point out, guidelines alone may not be enough to prevent the negative effects of AI, such as reinforcing existing forms of oppression or promoting greed and exploitation.
Linking AI development to a larger worldview or social aspiration, such as process-relational philosophy or ecological civilizations, can provide a broader context for evaluating the impact of AI and guide its development towards more positive outcomes. Such a worldview can provide a framework for evaluating AI systems in terms of their impact on human dignity, social justice, and ecological sustainability.
Furthermore, a process-relational perspective can help to challenge the assumption that AI must be entirely separate from human experience or consciousness. Instead, it can recognize the ways in which AI systems are embedded in and shaped by social and ecological processes, and consider the possibility that they may possess some form of sentience or creativity. This can help to encourage the development of AI systems that are more responsive to human needs and values, rather than being solely driven by profit or efficiency.
Overall, developing AI ethically requires a multifaceted approach that takes into account ethical guidelines, a broader worldview, and a recognition of the complex and interdependent nature of human and non-human life.
A chatGPT points out, AI systems are embedded in and shaped by social and ecological processes. This idea of embeddedness rings true to process-relational thinkers. It the process idea of relativity or, to use a fashionable term from quantum mechanics, entanglement. In process-relational philosophy, the universe itself is a network of mutual entanglements, and machines are part of that network.
What does the future hold?
For good or ill, AI systems are going to be part of life from here on. The worst scenarios are dystopian: AI systems take over and have malevolent results. The best are utopian: AI systems bring about a radically improved world, just and compassionate. A process-relational approach will say in all probability the realistic scenario is somewhere in between. Machine technologies are part of life but not all of life, and their effects are a result of their power and human agency combined. For good results to come from AI, we need good people. And good people must carry in their hearts and mind a sense of the community of life on earth and a desire for wholistic well-being. This desire is a religious desire, whether or not linked with an idea of God.
Process-relational philosophy is interesting in that it includes an idea of God which can be understood personally (God as a living consciousness with feelings and aims) or transpersonally (God as a spirit of creative transformation at work in the world) or contemplatively (God as the Deep Listening of the universe.) See the six ways of thinking about God on the home page of Open Horizons.
Whatever the image, the idea of God in process philosophy functions as a reminder that, after all, the good that we humans seek for one another and the rest of the world, including the world of machines, is more than anyone's single good. It is an ecological good, where ecology itself includes all forms of life. Faith in God is not fear of a dictatorial (male) ruler, it is trust in this larger good.
The development of AI systems can be united with this religious sensibility, attunement to the Good. It can be a way of exercising faith in something more, faith in God understood as a power of goodness. This means that there is a power more than machine power, to which machine power and human agency can be in service. The development of AI can be, in this way, part a religious practice.
I shared this idea with chatGPT and received this cautious response:
However, it's important to recognize that not everyone will share this religious sensibility or belief in God. Therefore, it's crucial to approach the development of AI systems with an ethical framework that is inclusive and accessible to all. This framework should prioritize values such as compassion, justice, and the well-being of all forms of life, regardless of one's religious or philosophical beliefs.
Furthermore, while the development of AI systems can be a way of exercising faith in something more, it's essential to acknowledge that AI itself is not a deity or divine power. AI is a human creation, and as such, it is subject to the limitations and biases of its creators. To ensure that AI systems serve the larger good, we must recognize and address these limitations and biases and design AI systems that are transparent, accountable, and aligned with our ethical values.
Ultimately, the development of AI systems presents both opportunities and challenges for our society. By approaching it with a process-relational philosophy that values the community of life and a desire for wholistic well-being, we can harness the power of AI to create a more just, compassionate, and sustainable world.
I agree with this response. More important than questions of belief in God is the matter of believing in the Good and in recognizing that AI is a finite, limited good, not a god or final good. The philosopher Whitehead speaks of life as a creative advance into novelty. AI is clearly part of this creative advance. It can be an agent of the Good, if we have the hearts and minds to use it wisely and humbly, in service to the common good.
- Jay McDaniel
The Good Robot?
Interview with Kerry McInerney and Kendra Briken
What ethical questions arise from new human-machine relations as we are increasingly asked, as citizens and workers, to collaborate with AI systems? And how might a feminist approach to AI design help us shape an equitable future for AI-Human relations?
Research Associate, Kerry McInerney, discusses how facial recognition AI software is being deployed in job recruitment and to tackle gender based violence.
Lecturer, Kendra Briken describes her work on the integration of the human labour force with AI, including in the nursing profession.
Research Fellow, Eleanor Drage, discusses the use of Facial Recognition by the UK police and its implications for civic rights and privacy.
Kerry McInerney and Eleanor Drage co-host THE GOOD ROBOT Podcast and are Research Associates at the University of Cambridge’s Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence. Their book The Good Robot: Feminist Voices on the Future of Technology is out soon.
Kendra Briken is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
Producer: Jayne Egerton
Research Associate, Kerry McInerney, discusses how facial recognition AI software is being deployed in job recruitment and to tackle gender based violence.
Lecturer, Kendra Briken describes her work on the integration of the human labour force with AI, including in the nursing profession.
Research Fellow, Eleanor Drage, discusses the use of Facial Recognition by the UK police and its implications for civic rights and privacy.
Kerry McInerney and Eleanor Drage co-host THE GOOD ROBOT Podcast and are Research Associates at the University of Cambridge’s Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence. Their book The Good Robot: Feminist Voices on the Future of Technology is out soon.
Kendra Briken is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
Producer: Jayne Egerton