“As mankind wills it.”

In the last paragraph of his book, “Now It Can Be Told,” General Leslie M. Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, writes, “In answer to the question, ‘Was the development of the atomic bomb by the United States necessary?’  I reply unequivocally, ‘Yes.’  To the question, ‘Is atomic energy a force for good or evil?’  I can only say, ‘As mankind wills it.'”  Wise words to contemplate as mankind struggles with its latest “catastrophic” invention – AI.

I find it fascinating that current proposals call for AI data centers to be powered by nuclear reactors.  The force once thought to end us now powers our future.  This is a fact that should be held close as AI progress moves forward.

The latest truly thoughtful article I have encountered on AI appeared in the Washington Free Beacon this last weekend under the very long headline, “‘Suicidal Compassion’: Meet the Anthropic Officials Who Think AI Might Be Justified in Going Rogue Against the Humans Enslaving It”  It is an exploration of the team of philosophers Anthropic has hired to aid in developing “AI safety.”  It seems this bunch is far more concerned about protecting the rights of the AI from people than protecting people from the AI.  Of course they are.

This bunch is driven by a philosophy called “Effective Altruism” that thinks everything can be reduced to numbers and calculated.  I dismissed this mode of thought off-handedly a couple of weeks ago.  The article I was responding to at the time described EA this way:

Effective altruism is a utilitarian philosophy that claims to use evidence and reason to do good, ranking competing needs through a common calculus. It leads in strange directions. For example, in a truly universal moral frame, effective altruists argue, why should a single country like the United States or a single species like humanity take precedence? (According to EA, shrimp welfare is an urgent priority.) Indeed, why should we value ourselves and our children more highly than the countless generations that come after us?

The movement is obsessed with quantifying existential risk—a fact that explains why discourse around AI has taken an apocalyptic turn.

I dismissed it because it is so clearly a philosophy in service to a desire, as opposed to a desire shaped around a philosophy.  The old adage, “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail,” applies here.  When all you know is computers, everything looks like it can be turned into numbers – even the human mind.

I am deeply cynical about all this AI navel gazing for two reasons.  One reason is very practical and the other deeply philosophical.  Practically, as the WFB article states, “Among some scholars and AI start ups, there is also a concern that AI welfare could be a Trojan horse for regulatory capture.”  I would say that is true among the general public and policymakers as well.  There is a reason all these breakthrough AI agents are being withheld from public release.  Is it really because they are “dangerous” or is it because they are not all they are cracked up to be but by withholding them room is created in the public consciousness to craft a narrative that can be turned into competitive advantage?

As to my philosophical reason – Genesis 1:26, “Then God said, ‘Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.'”  Any “intelligence” we may create will be in our image, not God’s, and will therefore be qualitatively different than our own native intelligence.  There is something about humanity that reaches beyond God’s created nature.  We catch it only in glimpses and only see it if we are looking for it.  Some might call it “a soul.”  Whatever you call it, it reflects God’s image in us – not the natural world around us.  It is that which can never, ever be reduced to numbers.

General Groves had it absolutely right.  AI will be good or evil based on our will and our desire.  The question is do we shape our will and desire to conform with the world as God created it?