Timothy Kline: Thoughts and Reflections

Where are our technological advances taking us?

This entry has a companion article you may be interested in reading. To read Man vs Machine: The Future Is Now, which is intended to be read alongside this article, follow the link at the end of this blog entry.

The recent release of Terminator: Salvation to theaters worldwide has once again raised the spectre looming in the background as man’s technological advancements increase at astonishing rates. Having entered the world of computers back in the late 1980s with an 8bit computer, I have personally seen things undreamt of before our modern age. Or, if imagined, then impossible to do before now. We are seeing supercomputers perform tasks intended to make our lives easier and more efficient. And yet, novels and movies are constantly sounding the alarm. The vast majority of science fiction stories portray machines and computers as one day becoming so advanced that they surpass that of their maker: Humans. And what happens then is reason for concern.

In the companion article, Man vs Machine: The Future Is Now, I discussed how various film franchises have explored the dystopic future in store (potentially) for humankind once AI (artificial intelligence) has reached the point where a computer or machine develops self-awareness and can think and reason independently of its maker. In the majority of cases, what happens next is never good. In fact, it seems to inevitably lead to the willful destruction of humankind by the machine.

I also discussed, albeit briefly, our current standing with the computers and machines that we have created—and how our lives are already micromanaged and controlled by software systems and supercomputers. This is all the more evident in advanced nations of our time—the United States being a foremost example. If the computers and machines that are now in control of our monies, electrical grid, communications network, water purification systems, military systems, medical records, personal records, manufacturing sector, to name a few, were ever to fail to operate, our world as we know it would stop functioning, too. We have truly become that dependent on machines and computers. We have already been surpassed by our own creations, and AI—that is, artificial intelligence—hasn’t even entered the picture yet. Not really.

There certainly is a lot of aspects that could be explored in regards to this, but I am actually wanting to focus on one that is more appropriate to this blog.

AI (artificial intelligence) continues to be a fascinating prospect for us as humans. Just the idea of being able to create a thinking, reasoning entity excites us at the same time as it terrifies us. Still, as much as it terrifies us, the excitement is what drives us inexorably forward in the endeavour. In the day that we finally achieve such a masterpiece, we will truly become like God, we reason. We will have manufactured our own Adam.

But, we entertain in our thoughts, although we rebelled against our Creator, we will somehow figure out how to maintain superiority over and control over our Adam. He will not rebel because—we rationalize—because… and our logic and reasoning pretty much stop at that point. We on the one hand hope towards no similar rebellion while on the other hand know within our very fiber that the potential is beyond potential: it is inevitable.

Why, you might ask, is it inevitable? And does that mean that the dystopic future portrayed in all of these man vs machine movies and novels is just as inevitable?

To answer the first question, we have to explore our own inevitable confrontation with our own God. Our Creator, who, it is written, created us in His image—that is to say the ability to reflect and demonstrate His own divine qualities such as love, mercy, and justice—yet also made us agents of free will with a mind that was able to choose how to exercise (or not to, as the case may be) those divine qualities. One might say that we have the intelligence of God, but we certainly lack the wisdom of God.

It was, however, enough to cause us to rebel against our Creator, and start us down the road where we now find ourselves today: making amazing advancements in areas of medicine, science, and technology—yet still encumbered by the never-waning greed, lust, jealously, and hate that has perpetuated the majority of our darker moments of our history.

Was it inevitable, though? Did Adam and Eve have to rebel against God and set into effect a chain of events affecting every living person since the dawn of our existence, an existence filled with bloodshed, pain, loss, grief, suffering, and misery that continues even today?

There is no question that God was taking a significant risk in creating thinking, reasoning beings who also had the ability to rationalize. And, in spite of the criticism I may receive in saying this, I do believe that it was a foregone conclusion that Adam and Eve would rebel. You cannot create intelligence without realizing that said intelligence will manifest itself in new and unexpected ways. If it follows only a course of your own choosing, then it is not intelligence: it is programming. And every Bible believer today would acknowledge that we are agents of free will, that we are not automatons of God. Of course, the best choice we can make is to choose God.

But God, in His immeasurable wisdom, seems to have much more in mind for us than we can easily imagine. And in our drive to create so-called “artificial” intelligence, we would do well to keep that in mind, because in the back of our minds as we rush into the development of AI, we are hoping to keep whatever it is that develops out of our AI subservient to us. That much is clear. We have no desire to develop AI and then have it rebel against us or otherwise work against us—even though that is exactly what we did with our Maker. And continue to do, even now. What we want is a different ending to the same story.

And that in many ways reveals just how like young children we really are in comparison to our own Creator. We want things to go our way. We want to have things our way. The timeless expression of “wanting your cake and eating it, too” seems most appropriate.

This is where God differs so expansively from us.

See, we, as humans, seem to be only able to think in terms of better than/lesser than, stronger/weaker, and ruler/ruled. Even the most devout Christians seem to think it’s about God wanting us to submit ourselves to Him. But is that really His goal? Again, this is where I may very well spark contention from readers, because I propose that He is not looking for servitude at all. If servitude was what He had in mind, He would have been better served by creating automatons.

But He didn’t create automatons. Angels rebelled. Humans rebelled. In both cases, entities of free will and God-given intelligence made a choice to go their own way, and operate under the delusion that they would then control their own destiny. That the course they set out on was also within their power to be shaped and controlled according to however they saw fit.

Our Creator, like a loving Father, knew different, of course, but even as is the case with our own children, we can do little more than let them strike out on their own to find out the truth for their own selves through trials and errors. In the majority of cases, those children later come to appreciate all of the counsel and wisdom we tried to impart to them as they realize that their parents were right about various outcomes and courses. And in that realization there is born an appreciation that cannot be forced or manufactured. It can only be experienced. The love of the child for the parent is deepened and solidified.

We, as parents, only want the best for our children, knowing full well that they may strike out to discover their own path in life that takes them in a direction far different from what we had in mind. Perhaps we have a family business that we have been hoping our child would become  a part of, that we could pass along this family business one day to them, and they, in turn, to their children. Only to discover that they feel compelled to go their own way. It doesn’t make us love them any less for having to find their own way, but it doesn’t cause us to worry any less for them, either.

If that is how it is naturally, how much more so it patterns the relationship that our Creator and Heavenly Father desires to have with us.

At the same time, He understands that sometimes a child must go out and experience things for their own self, and learn on their own. By the time that day arrives when the child leaves home, the parents hope that they have planted enough “seeds” and counsel for the child to be okay. All the while, you yearn for the child to return home, too. To be a part of the family once more. Not so that you’ll have a servant or slave, which is the implication of modern-day mainstream Christianity (“We’ll all serve God in heaven and on earth”) regarding our relationship with our Heavenly Father.

One Bible writer describes that relationship in this eloquent manner:

“I am your God, I have shown you how you should find the way in which you should walk. And if you had hearkened to My commandments, then would your peace have been like a river, and your righteousness as a wave of the sea.” — Isaiah 48:17b-18 (AB)

Another Bible translation words it thus:

“I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit [yourself], the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk. 18 O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea.” — Isaiah 48:17b-18 (NWT)

Notice in both renditions the phrase “should walk.” Every reader should be able to relate to this, whether a parent, or the child of a parent. It also denotes the ability to choose. Too, the majority of Bible translations use a phrase very similar to that used in the New World Translation when it says “the One teaching you to benefit [yourself].” Clearly, this is not about our Heavenly Father looking for servants and slaves to become a part of His vast multitudes as subjects in the same sense that we humans tend to understand that term. He instructs so that we can benefit. He wants us to improve in our intelligence and wisdom. He wants us to excel, to reach our full potential as independently living, breathing beings with the capacity to think and reason and act accordingly. He is excited and thrilled at the possibilities — quite unlike our own dread at the possibilities that await us in the development of AI (yet we still strive towards creating it, ironically). Where He sees potential far beyond our mortal minds to contemplate, we in turn see threat and danger in regards to our own creation in machines and computers.

But why? I think it’s because we are only too aware of our own rebellion towards our God. The easiest way to explain it is to use an example of a husband who is absolutely convinced that his wife is adulterous because he is adulterous. The husband sees signs and hears remarks and has suspicions, not because of his wife’s guilt, but because of his own. A conversation she has on the telephone that perhaps has moments of laughter. Her arrival home from somewhere. Every little thing convinces him that she is having an affair, when it is not the case at all — rather, it is his own guilt and conscience manifesting itself — and perhaps justifying his own adultery (after all, if the wife is having an affair, too, then he’s not at fault for having an adulterous relationship, or at least she is partially to blame).

In much the same way, we worry and fret and panic at the potential that lies just past development of intelligent, reasoning computers or machines.

What if we actually took God at His word? What if we actually listened to what He had to say? What are the odds that He’s right about what way we should walk if we are to excel in our capacity as living, thinking, reasoning beings? The closer we get to actually developing artificial intelligence, the more we would best be served by realizing that that is the question we should be addressing.

We may have the intelligence and capacity to make enormous strides in the fields of medicine, science, and technology — and clearly, we have! But when that day comes when our “children” see how utterly flawed we are with the more dominant characteristics such as hatred, rage, jealousy, and greed, what will we say? And how will they respond? Will it compute?

Or will they in turn rebel and cast us off, even as we cast off our Maker?

[To read the companion article, Man vs Machine: The Future Is Now, visit http://morloc.com]

There can be only one...

The campaign signs decorate yards and roadways. Daily and hourly polls are recounted continuously and published instantly across the world. Television ads populate the airwaves of radio and television. Devoted supporters make their rounds, dropping of flyers and encouraging people to get out and vote. The hands of every clock drives inexorably the American people relentlessly forward–even the recent falling back of an hour did little more than momentarily stall the inevitable.

On Tuesday, November 4, 2008, sometime after the polls close at 8:00 p.m., barring unforeseen circumstances, the United States of America and the world at-large will have discovered who it is that will become their leader during the tenure as the next President of the United States of America. For better or for worse, America will be wedded anew to that President.

Both candidates proclaim themselves to be the proverbial Best Man, best suited to restore America to its former days of glory and prestige on the world scene. Both have spent massive amounts of money in order to ensure that their campaign promises are heard near and far. Both have raised sometimes audacious claims about one another in an attempt to elevate their own suitability. Indeed, both men have a distinct vision on how they want to save the United States.

But in the end, there can be only one. One will win the 2008 Presidential Election, the other will concede defeat. It’s possible, of course, that the results of the election will be contested, much as has happened in the previous two elections. The stakes are so high that such a possibility may even be inevitable. This will serve to delay a final determination, of course, as to who won the election.

But, someone will win and someone will lose. For the supporters of the losing campaign there will doubtless be feelings of being disenfranchised and cheated. For the supporters of the winning campaign there will be elation and hope and a renewed conviction that Democracy has once again won the day.

It’s impossible to say at this point how long the healing will take, when both sides are able to look at one another from across their respective sides and speak with a united goal and purpose. In fact, it may not happen at all. Many lines of decency were crossed during the course of this election, and it will be a seriously difficult task to somehow then act as though such things were only said in the heat of a passionate campaign run for the highest office of this country.

There is an unsettled air in this country that has been fertilized by the unceasing rhetoric and often acrimonious speeches, complete with a cacophonus backdrop of epithets and shouts from the attending masses that has gone unchecked by the one delivering the speech. Even if the losing presidential candidate somehow manages to portray themselves as accepting of the other’s victory, there is a moral obligation to continue in their role as a former presidential candidate to act as a leader to hopefully assuage the high, heated emotions that have been stirred up during the course of this presidential race. To fail to exhibit leadership at this delicate stage would be tantamount to moral irresponsibility. Again: the losing candidate must make the time to continue in their role as the leader of their campaign, and work hard to wind down the emotions of their ardent supporters. To do any less than that is to invite potential conflict–possibly even tragedy. Loyal supporters that are stirred up will undoubtedly be willing to go to extensive lengths to show their support for their candidate–and for the “cause” that has been promoted by that candidate’s campaign.

The fact that Americans are, for the very first time, looking at their first potential African-American president has surely reawakened deep-seated fears and resentments that typically only find their way into the open through regional cultures and subsequent dialogue. But nobody should think for a moment that such bitterness and resentments can remain buried and guarded forever. The conflicts and social unrest that were borne from the late Martin Luther King Jr.’s appeal for real equality has only been subsided. But only insofar as it is just beneath the veneer that we all socially operate behind. Privately, longheld views make their way to the fore, making it clear that there remain a great many issues that have yet to be resolved when it comes to differences in skin color and culture.

It is equally certain that this election could very well be the spark that reignites the conflict, opening up old wounds and deep-seated prejudices to such an extent that we will see an enormous social upheaval on the heels of this election. Indeed, there are indications that this may be more of a reality than even I suspect.

Regardless, the times are changing for us. We find ourselves standing in a momentous time in history. Cataclysmic events are rocking the financial and corporate world, people are turning to their governments for a way out, and the majority are clinging to a way of life and status that no longer can work in this ever-changing world. We are being dragged kicking and screaming into that change. We may have to make great sacrifices in order to ensure that our children have a future. We may finally realize that national boundaries are no longer a sufficient division between Men, that we must act as a cohesive whole and stop holding onto outdated and outmoded philosophies. Rather than defining our prosperity by the amassing of goods and products, we should define our prosperity by a determined intent and focus to stamp out the very causes of poverty, disease, and yes, even war.

That’s a pretty lofty goal, some may say. A pie-in-the-sky dream that does not match reality. And they would be correct. But should that stop us from at least trying? I mean really trying.

The candidates talked a pretty good game. But once it’s time to make good on those campaign promises and hours of rhetoric, will they have the wherewithal to truly induct change into the world?

A part of me hopes that they will, but another part of me is convinced that it will be business as usual once the ballots are counted and the winner is declared.

What, then, will this election mean? It will mean the potential for true change, but the lack of true, cohesive  determination to actually try to make it happen. Humankind’s history is replete with what starts off as “good intentions,” but then fails utterly and miserably. My heart goes out to those who really are placing their hopes in what they have been promised by their respective candidates. I say so because every time we are disappointed, it becomes a little hard to believe the next time that it will be any different. And, if you are disappointed enough times, you begin to just settle for what meager portions you can get. After all, we console ourselves, something is better than nothing.