I. Overview of discussions and What We Learned.
[In this, the 6th RLDG discussion of discussion on Artificial Intelligence, JC led us in six major questions aimed at compiling an overview perspective. This then led into a proposed two-stream approach, covering the 'social' and 'technical' sides of AI. The purpose of these discussions is to contribute to developing a Christian and Reformational perspective on AI.
Present: JC, SJ, NB, AB.
In the transcript I have tried to put down the exact words spoken but, when there are falterings, especially which repeats like such as "a little bit ago, a few weeks ago", which add no meaning, I omit some words without indication. However, where I judge they might indicate something meaningful, such as uncertainty in the speaker that it is important to record, I might leave them in.
# JC: So, AB and I chatted a little bit ago, and we've been just discussing. And some of us have looked through, read through, listened to the recent Reith Lecture on AI and its implications.
# So that's kindof what I'm proposing.
# So the first thing I want to do is share this, if it will open.
# AB: You should be able to share screen if you want. # JC: OK, let me know it it opens in your computer so you can see it.
# NB: It wants me to request access. My gmail is [Ed. redacted]. I chose it fifteen years ago when I didn't have a lot of time and that is the word I came up with!
# SJ: I'll send a request. JC: Request granted. Now I'll move on and if at any point it's not clear what I'm asking, you have the words as well. [AB mumble to access the document].
# JC: If at any point it's not clear what I'm asking, you have the words as well.
# JC: Who wants to go first? SJ?
# What have we learned regarding AI and the use of this new way of process information? As a result of these conversations or this lecture?
# JC: Thank you; anything else?
# JC: Thank you very much.
# JC: NB?
# JC: I love that; thank you. Thankful for the philosophical education of ??Grove City??.
# JC: Is that clear statement to you guys? # AB: Yeah. # NB: I think so.
# AB: That's nice, actually, "worship trajectory" is nice.
# JC: NB, do you have any other insights that you would like to share on this question? # NB: Not at this moment.
# JC: AB, what about you?
# AB: "What have we learned regarding AI and the use of this new way of process information?"
[Ed. "GP" = General Purpose, i.e. with knowledge not confined to one domain; I don't know why AB mentions GP there, because on the recording at least it does not seem to have been mentioned before. Maybe it's a reference to an early discussion of it, or maybe zoom just failed to record it clearly; there was a few seconds earlier when JC and AB were speaking together and their voices got mixed up.].
# because it is the knowledge of exceptions. If you ask someone for their knowledge, they will give you the straightforward knowledge, the things that are generally so. and won't give you the exceptions. So you need a way of obtaining the exceptions.
# JC: Thank you, everyone. Can I move onto the next one, because I have nothing to add.
# JC: Ahh!
# AB: That's an aside; let's get back on to AI!
# JC: Well said.
# JC: On the next question I do want to say ...
We are not called primarily or generally to fight against idolatry in the world.
We are called to fight against idolatry among God's people, because they / we represent God - though we do so with love and with rather than for God.
We are called to lovingly warn the rest of humanity about the real dangers of idolatry for their society and culture, and individuals.
[Ed: Maybe SJ was meaning there are several kinds or ways of using AI. So I emailed him and he and NB replied with the following.
Use as direct involvement with the algorithm: An example would be a data scientist wrestling with multiple competing algorithms to find an optimum model.
Use as sem-direct involvement with an algorithm: An example would a robotic nurse in a hospital that learns through human requests and interaction through an interface.
Use as non-direct involvement with an algorithm: An example would be when we sit in the bank clerk's office, and she checks our credit through an AI-enabled application; she lets us know the outcome, and then we decide based on how she interpreted the insight given to her by the algorithm."
NB: "What I think you're describing is a sense of "proximity" to the actual nitty-gritty of the algorithm. In the first case, you have someone working directly with the algorithm itself, whereas in the last case, we have someone who's treating the algorithm as an inscrutable "black box" and just accepts the answers as they come out. ... people accepting the results without any understanding of either the algorithm or the training data."
# JC: Gotcha. Thank you.
# JC: Anything else?
# That's the only reason I'm being more rapid at this stage: I want to respect / [soom multiple voices].
# Kindof like what you are talking about, NB: What if we just see it as a tool?
# Kind of an internal combustion engine of data. So it's just a new tool, right?
# But before I talk any further, NB, do you have any things to say to that?
# JC: Thank you. Thank you, NB, and I know you've got to scurry.
# NB: So I look forward to reading the transcript and anything else you guys come up with. And I will see you around next time. Have a great day, everyone.
# JC: God bless.
# JC: SJ, do you have any reflections on either what NB said, or what there?? or do you want me to repeat anything else, or anything?
# SJ: So, we are looking at the last question, correct?
# AB: Can I ask for clarification? You said, "use our rhetorical pathways"; what do you mean?
# JC: Ahh, that's beautiful!
# JC: AB, what are your thoughts?
# SJ: AB, can you express that again what you just said? How? What is that?
# So, have you got the idea of different aspects of knowledge? # SJ: Yeah.
"X is the Uncle of Y, IF X is the Brother of Z, AND Z is the Parent of Y. [for some X,Y,Z]"
# And, likewise [in reverse], to do items and relationships, entities and relationships and properties, using pure numbers was also clumsy and inappropriate.
# And there was this idea of inappropriateness.
# AB: Now, does that make a bit more sense?
# SJ: Yeah.
# It would need a big team. It's a huge research programme. And I don't know how to start, and I'm doing other things. But if anyone is interested in actually doing this, let's do it.
# ACTION AB: Write an introduction to aspectual modules with a drawing.
# AB: And so numbers (integers) is just a bit pattern interpreted in the normal binary way, where the first bit is 2 to the power 0, the second bit is 2 to the power 1, second [third] bit is 2 to the power 2, up to whatever wordlength it is, 2 to the power 64 or 32 or whatever.
# AB: Got the idea? So it's not just adding and subtracting, it's everything to do with the quantitative [aspect] / with quantities.
# AB: Now, let us go to the spatial aspect.
# I don't know whether you can see me on screen, but all I can see is the document. # JC: No. Can we see you?
Figure 1. Woodland surrounding fields (a), its expansions (b,c).
# But the algorithm for expansion is not simple. [AB: It is not a simple magnification; it is extending the boundary outwards.] If you have a boundary that is a C shape [(a)], then, if you expand it enough, then the expansions of the two ends of the C meet [(c)]. And now you've got a shape with a hole in it.
# Can you envisage what I'm meaning: expand the shape.
# AB: Great!
# I mean, see what happens. # SJ: Yeah.
# ACTION AB: To extract text from book and send it round.
# AB: That would be really good, if you could do that.
# AB: Yeah, OK, thanks.
# AB: Well, will that do for today?
# AB: I'm going to go back to Zoom. Have you saved the document, JC? # JC: Yeah. # AB: / # JC: I'll get it over to you, AB.
# JC: Bye all. # SJ: Bye bye.
