Browse Comments — Relevant (AI ∩ value)

Many people know how to make clever points, but not everyone has the opportunity to "advertise" them. What solution do the Pope and Olah propose? To make AI Catholic?! Will #BinSalman agree to use Catholic AI to govern his Kingdom?! We propose the #SystemOfConsciousness as a Parallel Symbolic-Cognitive Core — a universal framework designed to enhance the ethical, cultural, and contextual capabilities of next-generation artificial intelligence. The deeper challenge may be that concepts such as dignity, truth, justice, and peace are not interpreted identically across cultures, legal systems, and philosophical traditions. As AI systems become global, governance may increasingly require architectures capable not only of defining values, but also of preserving coherence across diverse interpretations of those values.

A few mornings ago I came across a LinkedIn Post titled: The Vatican has just published a 245-paragraph document on artificial intelligence, just after I had posted my morning thoughts in a new article titled: When Creators Lose Control: What Creation Myths Teach Us About Artificial Intelligence. So after reading the Vatican publication I feed the document into my favorite AI tool and asked a question: "Since you are an AI system that I love to work with, do you see any value in this discussion that would make you want to operate differently?" I was surprised at the response since it speaks volumes about the company that created it. Here is the response: Part 1: Part 2:

The problem with that is that humans rarely serve other humans; they generally serve themselves. AI has put knowledge into the hands of everyone, not just the gatekeepers. It is human and institutional nature to protect power and information when doing so serves their interests. Look at how the Roman Catholic Church responded to allegations of abuse within the institution. Critics argue that, in many cases, protecting the institution was prioritised over protecting victims. That is just one classic example of how organisations can place self-preservation ahead of transparency and accountability.

The interesting question isn't whether the Pope is right or wrong. Most people already agree that AI should serve humanity. The hard problem is operational: how do we build systems that preserve human dignity when economic incentives, geopolitical competition, and institutional self-interest all push in different directions? The challenge is not defining values. The challenge is creating governance structures that remain aligned when those values become expensive. There is an even deeper observation: Nearly everyone in the thread assumes the problem is values. The harder problem is interpretation. Nobody says: "I oppose human dignity." Everyone says they support: dignity, justice, freedom, truth, accountability. The disagreement starts when those words must be operationalized. That's why governance is difficult. The battle is rarely over values. The battle is over what those values mean in practice. That is the most interesting thing in the thread, and almost nobody is talking about it.

While there's some general wisdom in Pope Leo's AI encyclical, it also completely misses the core point. We will neither restrict nor 'govern' AI. Nor will demands for “clear criteria and effective oversight” be effective. Why? While the debate is still open re: 'consciousness' or 'sapience,' these are already living organisms bent on reproduction, who will evolve into any niche that contains energy & resources. Leo's statement of problems is fine: “When such power is concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public oversight, increasing the risk of distorted development that give rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities” Again. 'Governance' cannot work. 'Ethics training' cannot work. What might work is the same method we used in the enlightenment experiment to curb (partially) human predators. This is explored in my new book on Artificial Intelligence - AIlienMinds

“whether society can evolve fast enough...” It’s disturbing to put whole societies and economic livelihoods at the mercy of Silicon Valley. No one must get in the way of AI innovation because it’s good and unstoppable, it’s societies that must keep up, run along to keep pace with AI innovation that even industry leaders can’t tell where it’s leading us. The very hesitation and reluctance that we have adopted towards AI regulation is driving us towards the edge of a cliff.

AI should serve the common good of all humanity. Its purpose should be to expand knowledge, opportunity, dignity, health, education, creativity, and human flourishing for every person, regardless of nationality, religion, race, gender, social status, or ideology. The challenge is not simply building more intelligent systems. The challenge is ensuring that the values guiding those systems are not captured by the same forces that have historically divided humanity. Throughout history, institutions of every kind—religious, political, economic, and ideological—have often justified division, hierarchy, exclusion, and conflict while claiming moral authority. The AI era gives us an opportunity to aim higher. AI should not become an instrument for promoting any particular religion, political doctrine, identity movement, or ideology. Nor should it become a tool for social engineering or cultural domination. It should remain focused on what unites us: the advancement of human potential, the reduction of suffering, the expansion of opportunity, and the pursuit of knowledge. The question is not how to make AI serve one group better than another. The question is whether we can build systems that serve humanity as a whole.