Written by Constantine “Kosti” Psimopoulos–
In 2014, Elon Musk told a crowd at MIT “With AI we are summoning the demon!” On a brisk, beautiful, and quite eventful night in February 2024, across the river from MIT and up the hill on Hellenic College Holy Cross campus, the Huffington Ecumenical Institute convened a panel of leading scientists, bioethicists, and theologians. Their task was to interrogate, explore, and join in dialogue attempting to answer questions such as: “Is such technological advancement an ally or an adversary? Is it moral, amoral, or immoral? Should the rapid emergence of AI be welcomed with cheer, criticism, or caution?”
After an introduction by our host, Rev. Dr. Fr. John Chryssavgis, we started by hypothesizing and querying further, what if we can harness AI for the enrichment of biotechnology, education, and religion, then what might be the ethical and practical repercussions for our communities and churches?
Drawing from the document “For the Life of the World: Toward a Social Ethos of the Orthodox Church” (2020), I felt compelled to embed throughout my reflection, quotes that were coming to mind, as I was thinking more about the HEI event on one hand, and on the other, how the document’s words and themes are most meaningful and emerge while aligning with such an endeavor on the topic of AI from a theological perspective and in this social ethos of the Church.
“The desire for scientific knowledge flows from the same wellspring as faith’s longing to enter ever more deeply into the mystery of God.”
The quote above serves as a very fitting grounding for the collective basis and thesis all panelists drew from and expanded upon, in one way or another, departing from different starting points, only to intersect and meet at the end; in the realization that as the Social Ethos document reads further, “From paragraph 68: Ours is an age of ever more rapid technological development; humanity’s power today to transform physical reality, for both good and ill, is quite unprecedented in human history, and constitutes both a peril and a responsibility..”
A first question that was debated was whether humanity is prepared for that, and if not, how can: “From paragraph 71: Christians (should they) rejoice in the advances of all the sciences, (gladly) learn from them, and promote scientific education…?”
Legitimate and necessary scientific research is indeed part of: “69 The Christian’s mission to transfigure the world in the light of God’s Kingdom…” and it was discussed how AI and its advancement “is one that reaches out to all of creation, to all of life, to every dimension of cosmic existence.”
AI draws indeed from every dimension of cosmic existence and uses the data points and training in its algorithms that humans decide to use or embed in them, with all conscious or unconscious biases that they bring along with or in them.
In a packed room full of students, alumni, faculty from HCHC, men and women, of old and young ages, boys and girls, professors from MIT, Harvard, and BU in attendance, and even a former US Congressman, Prof. Konstantinos ‘Costis’ Daskalakis from MIT was the main speaker in this explorative journey in the neophyte life of the AI world. He became world-famous for his work in game theory and for solving the mathematical problem of the Nash equilibria (theorem of Nobel laureate John Nash of Princeton), which had remained unsolved for almost half a century. That accomplishment at the age of 27, prompted the media and scientific community to also refer to him as “21st century Einstein.” Costis enumerated and attempted to explain in plain language, all the mechanisms and intricate architecture that AI, its algorithms, and the LLMs (Large Language Models) employ to do whatever they are programmed to do, always in service to humanity. These (they, as in the algorithms; AI) are neither designed nor destined to serve -it, or themselves. In that regard, Prof. Daskalakis was very clear in his conclusion that AI is much less of a threat or concern currently than climate change is for example, and that is what we should all understand if we want to have any hope to see what AI will be able to do in the next generation!
But how exactly does it work, and what does it look like in layman’s terms? Using a program for AI-generated language models called GPT 3, as well as an AI-generated image design called DALL-E 2, Prof. Daskalakis showed us a few examples of its capabilities, most of which were quite amazing, albeit with limitations. For example, although the latter was pretty good at producing many versions of Andy Warhol’s ‘in space’ impressions, it was intriguing to know that the former program and its technology are still no good with planning a simple strategic maneuver of tic tac toe!
Prof. Gayle Woloschak, talked about the distinction between AI and Machine Learning, by explaining how on the one hand AI leverages computers and machines to mimic problem-solving decision-making capabilities of the human mind, while on the other ML uses large data to improve how machines learn: email filtering, speech, and pattern recognition patterns, scientific datasets.
Upon sharing a few different stories as narratives, she also highlighted how AI is used in many lifesaving situations, but cautioned that we need better regulation and transparency of how AI is generated.
Archon Theo Nikolakis spoke about the first memories he had with ”new technologies” of the times, back when the fax was a newly introduced technology for the Church, in the Metropolis or Diocese at the time of Chicago, and also spoke further about both the infrastructure of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America in terms of the technological advances and use of AI and innovations that he spearheaded, but furthermore their pastoral implementation -‘theosis’ as a goal of all Christians- and application, aligned with the following part from the Social Ethos of the Church:
Paragraph 70, of the Social Ethos document, reminds us that “Each such development brings with it numerous beneficial possibilities, such as extremely rapid humane interventions in situations of natural catastrophe or human aggression, or such as new avenues of communication and reciprocal understanding between persons or peoples. Yet these same technologies create new opportunities for malicious abuse or inadvertently harmful misuse. Today, the distinctions between reality and fantasy, between facts and opinions, between news and ideologically motivated propaganda, and between truth and lies have become ever more obscure and fluid, precisely as a result of the enormous power of the internet.”
In that spirit of “veritas”, the motto of his institution, Constantine ‘Kosti’ Psimopoulos, introduced an essential bioethical dimension for consideration within AI but also as a whole within scientific research, and that is social justice, as a guiding principle in bioethics more broadly. Prof. Psimopoulos aka Kosti offered this juxtaposition between what the many and often in many cases, egregious maleficent behaviors that were perpetrated in the name of science and public health were forerunners of bias in AI, and how what we learned not to do or to do in a beneficent way to avoid harm as the field of bioethics emerged in the ’60s and ’70s, can help us seize this opportunity now in AI, to make it more equitable. The aim or ‘telos’ ought to be to eliminate racism in science, injustices, maleficent behaviors, and erroneous thinking that had been perpetuated. To include all our brothers and sisters in Christ when we design new technologies, to involve them not as ‘others’ but as members of the same human family and of the one human race, inviting them into the dialogue of what is ethical and morally appropriate for them, when we push science forward. To, realistically, and meaningfully allow all people to exercise their “human right to science”, the UNDHR (United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Act of 1948) has added in its Article 27, which states: “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.”
How can we, scientists and academics, in engineering and medicine, do the above in a way that is ensuring trust, and cultivates trustworthiness, especially among populations that have historically been marginalized, and have been harmed by unethical practices in the name of scientific development, like the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis study or 1932, the Eugenics movement in the US, that became the basis for the Nazi medicine regime experimentation, and also the Henrietta Lacks story with the Hela cells, among many other examples of lack of consent for human subjects in research?
Bioethics and bioethics in AI specifically require cultural humility, empathy, and the preservation of respect for human persons and their (all of our) human dignity, always treating human life and creation with “holy awe”, as Paul Ramsey eloquently framed it. It compels us, almost in the form of what the great philosopher Kant would call a categorical imperative, to do what the famous theologian ethicist Gustafson implored us: “We have to see ourselves making the transcendence between what a human being is to what being human ought to be.” This ought to be our ‘ecumenical’ imperative!
Finally, in this social ethos of our Orthodox Church, we are reminded that (From paragraph 70) “It must also remain constantly aware of even more consequential developments in other or related spheres of research, such as new algorithms for artificial intelligence or new techniques of gene-editing.”
On a leap day of February 29, 2024, which could only bring a memorable and blessed night given that it was not merely the fact that it comes only every four years, but it had the added value of becoming even more special since it was our Ecumenical Patriarch’s, His All-Holiness Bartholomew birthday. On such an occasion and opportune moment, this offered a ‘charisma’ in its authentic theological meaning and etymology, that gracious gift of a blessed Ecumenical and Patriarchal ‘seal’ of success for the evening; a day to remember in a new social ethos in science, in tandem with the social ethos of the Church, celebrating the artificial and embracing the biological life of the world!
About the author
Constantine “Kosti” Psimopoulos is a trained kinesiologist and bioethicist, currently teaching Bioethics and Responsible Conduct of Science at Harvard Medical School (HMS), and Research Ethics at Johns Hopkins and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A Visiting Research Fellow in the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, he is affiliated with the Center for Bioethics at HMS, researching public health ethics, social justice, AI, and theological bioethics.