The Regulation of Automation
I will never forget a conversation that ensued with a family friend nearly 3 decades ago. She implored me to pay my toll using the cashier and boycott using the express lane. Her reason was simple: “humanity is being replaced by automation, and Daren will soon lose many jobs.” Several years later, she was forced out to retirement, toll stations were deconstructed, and new fast pass lanes are now in effect. Fast forward to 2025, her fear has become a reality as automation replaces humanity.
Eve Poole tackles this topic in her book Robot Souls. Poole argues that as automation and AI are becoming dominant forces, developers must assume the rightful responsibility for the decisions of their creative content. As the balance between the two must be carefully weaved, she warns of the consequences if ethical considerations are abandoned and not regulated. Poole references Issac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, Rule 1: A Robot may not injure a human being or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm. [1}
As I think of the technological advancements that have been made, I can also see how Asimov’s Rule 1 has already become compromised through the use of military drones and autonomous weapons developed with AI, sometimes resulting in civilian casualties or unintended harm. Algorithmic bias is also heavy at work, with the spread or lack of information shared based on the circumstance. The AI dominance in predominantly private hands is a concern raised by Poole, “The capitalist system masquerades as a machine programmed by experts, with only economists and governments qualified to tinker with it. [2]
Where I resonated with Poole was in her introduction of what she describes as “the junk code”. In an interview, she defines it as all the things we’ve deliberately left out of our programming in AI because we think it’s redundant. [3] This “junk code” can also lead to potentially harmful outcomes due to oversights made during the development process. She feels the qualities of junk code are an asset to humanity and can be inserted into AI. Her advocacy also calls for ethical design and stringent oversight in the programmatic scheme.
This junk code resonated with me for a different reason, bringing to light a couple of questions:
1) What does a more soulful AI conceivably look like?
2) Once out the gate, what are the ramifications of this upgraded vision?
As the voices are raised and the push to reclaim the ethical responsibility in the digital sphere I reflect on where we have come from and the path to our present. In 1995, the internet transitioned from a tool for researchers and academics to a commercialized platform available to the public. In 1998, Google was founded, beginning a worldwide revolution on information accessed and organization. We have moved from cell phones to smart phones, from Wi-Fi- to Hi speed internet, 4G to 5G and future development is imminent. Growth demands responsibility and humanities response to automation must be intentional. As Ai has been a helpful tool, the unsavory caricature of individuals through false memes, videos, and soundbites has already taken many of us to fact check heaven, spending and wasting time trying to validate credible content – the question arises how can we remain both confident and vigilant against what is to come?
I feel as though Poole brings sensibility and accountability into practice. Her summation that robots are not neutral tools but in turn reflect the values and biases of their creators is spot on. This is something that must be consistently monitored and guarded against. As we rally to improve the aspects of functionality and efficiency when it comes to AI, some synonymous words must also be interjected, such as compassion, morality, and human dignity. [4]
Robot Souls is a great compliment to Poole’s first writing, Leadersmithing. In Leadersmithing, Poole suggests that great leaders are not born but “crafted” through intentional practice and habit formation. In both books, a map is made of being crisis-ready. In Robot Souls, she discusses how AI and robots must be programmed with deliberate care, ensuring a proper reflection of ethical behavior while making decisions aligned with human values. A bridge between humanity and automation is also built when she points out leaders are shaped by their environment and training as machines must be “trained” to act in ways that prioritize morality and compassion.
[1] Eve Poole, Robot Souls; Programming in Humanity (New York: CRC Press, 2024).
[2] Interview: AI and Us: Interview with Dr. Eve Poole about Her New Book, “Robot Souls”
[3] Poole, Eve. Capitalism’s Toxic Assumptions: Redefining Next Generation Economics. London: Bloomsbury, 2015.
[4] Poole, Robot Souls
About the Author
Daren Jaime
14 responses to “The Regulation of Automation”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thank you for this reflection Daren. You conclude, “A bridge between humanity and automation is also built when she points out leaders are shaped by their environment and training as machines must be “trained” to act in ways that prioritize morality and compassion.”
How would you say humans are “trained” to act morally and compassionately? Does it work? Why would it work better or worse with machines and AI?
Hi Debbie, I would emphasize in most settings those of us with some years on us would admit we were introduced well to moral and ethical behavior and worked hard to safeguard it. Many times this has become embedded behavior based on life and lived experience / how we are bought up. This is not inclusive of all but in our humanity this is it.
We can train machines but they are prone to error and while it could work, it could also have detrimental consequences if it goes unchecked or off the rails which is a huge possibility.
Hi Daren, Thanks for a great post. I put the question back to you, how can we remain confident and vigilant for what is to come? What practical steps could be taken now to program ethics?
Julie
Hey Julie i am thinking a couple of things. There, we form a commission to partner with the government sector in creating truly enforceable laws that hold AI developers accountable for ethical violations.
similar to an AI oversight body? I feel this is both reasonable and tangible.
Daren, I appreciate your approach to this week’s material. In my article, I explored how Eve Poole emphasizes the importance of embedding ethical considerations and ‘junk code’ into AI to reflect humanity’s values. However, given that private corporations largely dominate AI development and that profit motives often take precedence over ethical concerns, how realistic do you think it is to enforce accountability and oversight on a global scale? This is especially pertinent in situations where ethical guidelines may conflict with economic or geopolitical interests.
Chad, my brother, you are spot on! As I read your reply, I thought about enforcement and the struggle for total buy-in. It is hard, and I don’t have the answer, although I feel a standard must be set. But answering your question directly would be highly unrealistic.
Hi Daren,
I think many people have an underlying fear of AI, as experienced by your friend who was forced into retirement. You made a point of saying that “Developers must assume the rightful responsibility for the decisions of their creative content.”
I don’t believe you intend to assert that the problems of society should be blamed on the developers of artificial intelligence when we know that people have free will and individual choices. Still, what do you see as the balance between the two, especially given the rapid nature of societal evolution?
Hey Jennifer, I’ve been sick in bed all week, so my writing may still be fuzzy. You are correct, and no, that is not what I meant. The problems of society are society itself. To be clear, knowing the human propensity, what can developers institute as safeguards to help better protect society from those within society using AI negatively.
To your second point ,I was having a conversation with someone in Washington ,and we shared a similar thought that the evaluation of AI development should be akin to human ethical standards, and when this is not found ,perhaps looking to adjust algorithms.
Hi Daren, as robots and AI replace humans in the workforce, what do you think will happen if we get to a point where people don’t have to work anymore? What if governments used robots to provide food/housing/clothing/healthcare for all its citizens and humans just didn’t have to work to survive anymore? Would we find new work or would we spend the time in relationships? Would we waste away because we aren’t fulfilling our God-given mandate to subdue the earth?
Hey Christy! Can you imagine? Somehow, I think we will still be in business because robots will need to be cleaned and maintained, and more- so somebody will still have a job. We will just see more in the field of science and technology.
Our God given mandate could be complimented and supplemented through this for example AI systems could manage and sort waste more efficiently, This could better infuse recycling rates and assist in minimizing landfill use.
Hi Daren, I like your reference to created content as AI needs to be programmed rather than learning independently, at least for now. I think I would like to piggyback on Christy’s comment when she asked what would humans do if they were not needed to work? My further question would be how would people pay their mortgages, taxes, transportation, etc. if they were replace in the workforce by AI Robots. Thx.
Hey Diane, I don’t have the answer to that.one there. Somewhere in Washington D.C. or Silicon Valley someone is creating a plan or an answer to that potential outcome.
I just went to a bank last week and it was a full size branch, but there was only 1 person in there. The rest was automated I was blown away.
Hi Daren, I liked how you compared Leadersmithing with Robot Souls. Do you have any thoughts about what healthy, well-crafted accountability for those developing AI may look like?
Hi Kari, Im going to say I actually just answered this at the bottom of my reply to Jennifer. But to adding on to that point, maybe developers could also be given a ratings system that lets the public know the quality could be an asset,