2023-06-27 05:51:50
The writer is an intern at the Supreme Court, a graduate of the “Opinion Travels” program
Recently, young people from all over the country gathered: ultra-orthodox, secular, Palestinian, religious-nationalists, kibbutzniks, and they repeat the question – to discuss, among other things, the frightening-exciting meanings of artificial intelligence and its implications for human creativity, academic research and interpersonal relationships.
Normally, these young people are scattered throughout the various educational institutions, from the higher yeshivas to the faculties of humanities and social sciences, arts and exact sciences. This diverse group is the group of graduates of the “Journeys of Thought” program on behalf of the Van Leer Institute.
At the end of the stormy and enriching discussion, she slowly formed a conclusion that scared even her drafters: do we have a significant role left in a world where machines “think by themselves”?
Just recently, a toro by Avishi Greenzeig (“Artificial intelligence invented a patent. Whose rights?”, 2.6.2023), which tells the story of the Dabus system that develops new ideas by imitating the activity of neurons, was published on the pages of this newspaper. In this way, she actually “thinks alone”, and conceives ideas that up until now have been dependent on humans for their invention and development.
almost real
In this context, the “latest cry” in the field is discussed: Heypi, an application that is supposed to simulate a real therapist and answer mental needs online at any time, and perhaps most importantly – for free (as the daughter of a clinical psychologist and a former psychology student, I admit I was skeptical, but still). There is nothing to say, the application provides a matter-of-fact, sensitive and responsive answer. It lacks “classic” characteristics of psychological therapy, it is not given by a human being, the system has no “face”, and (for now) it does not make eye contact, the treatment is not carried out in a sterile space and is not limited to time and place. However, it seems that from a technological point of view, it will not be difficult to make the psychological “output” of the system such that we cannot distinguish it from real treatment.
For some of us, this thought is more disturbing than intriguing. If we manage to put aside the concerns among ourselves and the discussion of the limitations we should impose on such a construction, we will address the fundamental and deeper question, what differentiates us, humans, from machines that imitate us “one for one”?
We will be determined
Even if machines reach a level of “human” empathy, it seems that the more relevant and burning question to be discussed is what we will be able to feel towards the machines. That is, even if an AI machine is used as a great caregiver, will it receive the same empathy from its patients that human caregivers receive?
Perhaps we are in for a dystopian world, in which humans show empathy, and even fall in love, mercifully, with machines. But maybe, just maybe, it is the reciprocity of empathy that will define our relationships: both parties in a relationship need to care about each other, and in this context the interesting question is not whether machines will empathize with us, but whether we will empathize with them.
In this sense, the research in the field of artificial intelligence, as well as the thought about the future regulation of it, should take into account not only the limitations of human machines, their various characteristics and biases (which are undoubtedly important) – but also the relationships that will be formed between us, humans, and between them.
To the extent that the interest in preserving our authenticity as human beings in our relationships is significant to us, beyond and separately from the concerns that human machines will “replace us”, it must be ensured that this consideration is taken into account when designing policies in the field. Thus, even if it is found that an “AI therapist” will not, in practice, replace real therapists in the market, it may replace authentic relationships in life. And who knows, maybe the very preoccupation with the question of our empathy and authenticity, humans, from human machines, is what distinguishes us from them.
#limitations #machine #characteristics #person