Moral. Code

As the tech tsunami eclipses us, we find ourselves mired in murkiness, grappling with a bigger question. One that is of existential proportions: 

We’ve encoded our software and wired our hardware to absorb, act, and accomplish several tasks. But are we doing the “right” thing? 

As we empower ecosystems like AI to enable our lives… are we slowly killing off the human race? (I mean, we all die, don’t we? Or at least we used to, until we find ourselves at the pearly gates navigating Quantum’s bid to keep a version of us immortal…)

Phew! How does one answer that question? (ask ChatGPT? Or you could watch this video)

But in wrapping my head around that question, I find myself posing several more:

Is a moral code, entrenched in myth and legend passed down for millions of years, relevant in a future-ready tech ecosystem? 

One wonders how Socrates might have confronted Copilot. (Editorial note: this is a hypothetical conversation)

Socrates: Who am I?

Copilot (twirling icon = scratching head): [blank]

Socrates: Come on, now. Think deeper.

Copilot (still twirling, more furiously): [still blank]

Socrates: Well…

Copilot: You know… it’s a Sunday… and I have no data source I can tap into that tells me whether you’re really who you are…

Socrates: It’s a simple question of ethics.

Copilot: Perhaps, but I’m tripping off now, because I’m hallucinating!

When I asked ChatGPT the same question, the black dot pulsed, like a blackhole on the point of implosion (while I waited breathlessly…) 

and then said there was a network error, and that I should try again. (It may as well have said, “I don’t know.”) 

Then I popped the question into Google’s hot new kid on the block. Meet Gemini, a chipper quipper (Incidentally, Gemini was Bard in its previous incarnation, so perhaps it takes a cue from Shakespeare?) because its response was “that’s a fun question!” 

Socrates seems to have succumbed to oblivion. The Greek Classics don’t seem to have featured much in AI training. Besides, what if I don’t subscribe to Aristotle’s ethics or Plato’s views on natural justice? Will AI consult me on my ethical preferences? 

CoPilot: Would you prefer me to refer to Hammurabi’s Code of Laws or Buddha’s Eight Fold Path?

Me: How about DeepMind’s Robot Constitution?

CoPilot: DeepMind is a subset of Google and I’m not conversant with that. Please enquire with Gemini.

The ethical equation between (wo)man and machine is a weighty matter. One that is heavily influenced by cultural, sexual, spiritual and geographical orientation, and machine learning is completely based on the subject matter that it is trained on. Therefore, the likelihood of AI having a “narrow” view is high, because it’s a lean, mean machine and depends purely on the diet that the trainer feeds into it. 

You are what you consume, and AI is easily biased. In fact, AI’s entire premise works on the basis of bias. AI conjectures, based on a very specific pattern of learning. So, basically, it’s a calculated gamble. 

What makes it even more complicated is that it may not only be biased and drawing conclusions from conjecture – it may also be a people-pleaser!

Spoiler alert: a “successful” AI response isn’t one that is factually correct; it’s one that gets high ratings from users. And we’re more likely as humans to like being told we’re right.” (The Guardian)

Where does truth end and vanity take over?

Blockchain, on the other hand, is all about the big picture, assuming that it’s an open blockchain. In a borderless metaverse (suspended in disbelief anyway) which ethical construct should we call upon to skew our view? 

In fact, blockchain is the perfect gambit for this uncomfortable proposition – because a blockchain is impartial, it has no particular point of view. It simply presents the data points along all the blocks in the chain – regardless of culture, race, creed, sexual orientation, colour, nationality, or geopolitical bias.

The interpretation of the data is up to you.

When people raise a moral high brow and point to ecosystems in the Dark Web with disapproval, I ask them to decode the issue, morally and intellectually – to ask whether the technology is at fault, or the human intention behind it?

Your opacity or transparency on a blockchain depends on you. In fact, the beauty of blockchain is that there is no censor, only your preference to share and consume what you choose. From cryptocurrency to NFTs, blockchain passes the buck right back to you. With the power of dissemination, comes the responsibility of discernment. Yes, my digital darlings, you own that choice.

But then again, we can ask ourselves yet another existential question: what is really right or wrong? How much do we know… or don’t know. And are we even equipped to pronounce “right” from “wrong” in a global social context?

Our perspectives change with time and context. What we glorify in one generation, is vilified in the next. Yet, the blockchain has no understanding of this. It simply keeps a timeless record of events, regardless of their moral connotation. Likewise, AI cannot necessarily discern moral high ground from turpitude for you, at an individual level. 

AI has no EQ. Empathy is not infused in its dataset. 

It could, perhaps, be trained to reflect the ethical considerations of a group a.k.a. herd mentality, but it is not hardwired (not even if you’re using GNU Hurd) to interpret your value system or your moral code. 

We live in a world where it’s easy to deflect the onus of responsibility for one’s choices. It’s easy to blame a faceless entity like X or Facebook and pass the buck. 

But in a future-ready tech-verse, you need to stop playing the victim and start playing the game. You make the rules, and you play by them. 

In a future-ready tech-verse the so-called ‘impregnable’ establishment is turned on its head. We’ve already seen what cryptocurrency can do to the financial system. We’ve seen how AI has revolutionized media. And when you put the two together, they turn deeply rooted institutions and industries inside out. 

In a future-ready tech-verse, your perception shapes your outlook. Is the next wave of technology full of opportunities or threats? 

Let’s unravel to our roots to understand the very nature of our existence. Our entire social construct is based on relativity – so can the opportunity exist if there’s no threat? Can we discern good without its evil counterpart? Yin and Yang, without one there is no other. 

(Google seems to have inherently understood this when it rechristened Bard as Gemini.)

In this, the inscrutable mandarin comes nearest to the mark, wherein Weiji, the concept of a crisis in ancient Chinese philosophy, invokes the characters for both danger and opportunity – because ultimately, the choice of whether we harness this for “good” or “evil” in humanity, rests with us and us alone.