The Deeper Mysteries of AI and Humanity
In Ex Machina, a programmer named Caleb is chosen to perform a Turing test on a robot to determine the capabilities and consciousness of a female robot. It becomes apparent that the robot is more self-aware and deceptive than anyone could have imagined.
Nathan: Over the next few days you’re going to be the human component in a Turing test.
Caleb: (responds with shock)
Nathan: Yeah, that’s right, Caleb. You got it. Because if the test is passed, you are dead center of the greatest scientific event in the history of man.
Caleb: If you’ve created a conscious machine, it’s not the history of man. That’s the history of gods.[1]
Sci-fi movies, such as Ex Machina, portray the philosophical issues related to artificial intelligence (AI) that Eve Poole addresses eloquently in Robot Souls: Programming in Humanity. Her main argument in the book is that we should make AI more human by programming an element of our humanity that she calls “junk code”. She writes, “Perhaps Junk Code is actually soul; and that it’s not our consciousness that makes us special, but our souls.”[2] In Chapter 7, she delves into the details of human Junk Code. Her categories of Junk Code include emotion, mistakes, storytelling, sixth sense, uncertainty, free will, and meaning. By articulating, nurturing, and protecting these, she believes we can mine these for insight into how they might benefit AI, and how, by not including these, we might be limiting AI.[3] She argues:
All of these lines of ‘junk’ code promote co-operation, and the kind of reciprocal altruism and sense of mattering that creates sustainable communities over time. For humans, existence is not a solitary journey. Even before we knew who we were, we had already benefitted from belonging. We are the inheritors of all the practices and institutions that our forebears created for us: tribe, family, health, education, law. We are designed to be humans in relationship. And given that our design has carefully included and retained all this misunderstood code and perhaps we should take it more seriously?[4]
I must admit that most of what she wrote seemed far-fetched to me. My current thinking about AI involves how to best utilize ChatGPT ethically. Let’s face it: most church denominations haven’t done a lot of thinking about AI beyond whether pastors should be using ChatGPT to write their sermons or if theology students should be using it to write their papers. It seems we are more worried about AI and plagiarism than about human existence.
However, I did find her description of what makes us uniquely human intriguing. Her encouragement to articulate, nurture and protect these to mine for insight also resonated with me. This is as much a book about what makes us human and how we might embrace our humanity as we seek to build a strong community. If these are indeed the elements that create sustainable communities over time, it would benefit church leaders to think about how these seven elements might be recognized and enhanced to build stronger human connections. For the remainder of this blog, I’d like to reflect on just two of the seven elements of Junk Code and how these might be enhanced by leaders of churches.
Emotions
Emotions play a key role in the human experience. Poole writes, “Even more so than the qualitative contribution emotions make to our lives, it is this system of the tagging of useful memories that plays such a crucial role in our future safety and happiness, by the maintenance of an emotional play-list designed to resource us when we are most in need.”[5]
In his book, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, Daniel Goleman examines the indispensable leadership ability to be able to manage one’s own emotions and to recognize emotions in others so that we can handle relationships effectively.[6]
As we seek to build strong communities, the task of creating a positive environment and building positive memories is an important one. One of the ways that we can go about this is to take the time to celebrate how God has met us in the past. The psalmist often rehearses God’s goodness, remembering how God has worked faithfully. I encourage leaders to practice this regularly with boards, with staff teams, during services, and regularly at congregational meetings.
As much as we want to create a positive environment, we must also remember that mistakes play an important role in the human experience.
Mistakes
Leaders often tend to hide failure, choosing instead to focus on success. It’s easy to create a carefully curated life and leadership persona that looks flawless. In fact, congregations often encourage it. After I shared a story of a struggle with anger in church, a congregational member told me that he really didn’t want to know that I struggled with the same issue that he did. It seems that leaders are not allowed to fail. Yet Poole argues, “It is only this capacity to err and the conscience that tries to stop us that drives personal improvement. Arguably it also drives societal improvement, as we try to mend the wrongs we see around us.”[7]
In The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Patrick Lencioni identifies “trust” as the building block of a healthy team. The team only learns to trust through vulnerability by sharing shortcomings, weaknesses, skill deficiencies, interpersonal shortcomings, mistakes and requests for help.[8]
One of the ways that we can encourage vulnerability is to be vulnerable ourselves. Leaders often present a façade of near perfection, creating a false reality for the people we are trying to lead. It’s healthy for leaders to create environments where failures are shared and opportunities for confession and repentance are offered to all.
These are just two of the seven elements of the human “Junk Code” that are indispensable for the building and strengthening of our communities. If I had more time, I would have explored the other five in more detail. However, articulating, nurturing and protecting emotions and mistakes as part of the communities we lead, would go a long way in strengthening the human element of our churches and teams.
Perhaps in modelling what it means to be human and educating others on what it means to be human, we would be more informed on how to better interact with AI.
[1] Garland, Alex, director. Ex Machina, Universal Pictures. 108 minutes.
[2] Poole, Eve, Robot Souls: Programming In Humanity. Boca Ratan, FLA: CRC Press, 2024. Kindle. 120.
[3] Poole, Eve. 119.
[4] Poole, Eve. 150.
[5] Poole, Eve. 125
[6] Goleman, Daniel. Emotional Intelligence: Why it Can Matter More Than IQ. Tenth Anniversary Edition. New York, NY: Bantam Publishers, 2005. 43.
[7] Poole, Eve. Robot Souls: Programming in Humanity. 127.
[8] Lencioni, Patrick. The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2002. 196.
About the Author
Graham English
I was born in Cape Town, South Africa 30 minutes from Table Mountain, the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean. My family immigrated to Vancouver, Canada where I spent my teen years, met Wendy, and got married. We now live on the Canadian prairies in northern Alberta. I think God has a sense of humour. I'm a follower of Jesus, work in leadership and church development, love my family and walk a lot.16 responses to “The Deeper Mysteries of AI and Humanity”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Graham,
I appreciate how you highlight some of the junk code and your anger. I also appreciate the way that you recognize that Christians seem to be more concerned with the ethical aspects of seminary usage of AI rather than the humanity aspect. After reading this book do you feel like there are greater and bigger questions to tackle beyond plagiarism?
Adam, thanks for reading. I have a friend who has a master’s degree in robotics and works as a robotics developer. I asked him about his concerns with AI. His response was that there is definitely a threat to human existence. There are developers in the robotics/AI profession who disregard human life and believe that AI is the natural evolution of humanity, They envision a world that is run by AI with humanity playing a subservient role. So, I think my concern is the development of AI to the point that it destroys humanity. I know that sounds apocalyptic. Even as I respond to your question, I think, “that sounds too far fetched”. However, this person is thoughtful, not alarmist, and deeply involved in the AI community.
Graham,
Thanks for the snow storms this winter so far, always love a good Alberta Clipper. However, can you slow them down a bit, I’d appreciate a little more snow where I Iive, they move through too fast.
I am just the opposite of your church member; I find it very comforting to know that the pastor struggles with some of the same things I do.
I appreciate that you said, “This is as much a book about what makes us human and how we might embrace our humanity as we seek to build a strong community.” If you look at the “junk code” that makes us human and had to rank them in order of importance in their usefulness in building community, how would you rank them? It would be fun to know why you chose the order, but I am not asking you to take the time to write that down.
Jeff, funny enough we never get the Alberta Clipper up here in Alberta. We get the Artic High and the West Coast Low. LOL.
Regarding my favourite aspects of junk code in order, it’s hard to prioritize. They are all important, but here goes:
1. Meaning – because I like to know why
2. Storytelling – because who doesn’t like a good story, even though I’m not a great storyteller
3. Freewill – because I like to do my own thing and believe that people flourish when they have agency
4. Uncertainty – because it keeps life interesting
5. Emotions – because I need to feel something. The moment we stop feeling something we’re dead
6. Sixth Sense – because I need to learn how to listen to this better.
Hi Graham, Nice connection to Lencioni. Seems like not admitting failure could also connect with him as a symptom of lack of accountability. I agree that the direction Poole describes AI heading is far fetched, but I have been wrong before. Do you think what Poole suggests that programming AI with junk code will make them more human like or just programmed to respond as one? My inclination is that latter and it is human programmers who are wanting the former.
Diane, I think that latter as well but now that you’ve asked the question, I’m not sure. She offers some far-out scenarios in the book that make me wonder if she is suggesting that AI could become humanlike without actually being human.
Hi Graham, Adam already mentioned this in his comment, but I appreciate you highlighting how it seems we are more worried about plagiarism than human existence. I believe Deneen mentioned that our primary concern is getting through the loopholes. Essentially, our priorities are backwards. I never thought I would ask myself, “What does a healthy relationship with artificial intelligence look like?” What do you think we need to re-prioritize as Christians before we can have a healthy outlook on using AI?
Elysse, you ask such good questions. Christians should really seek to understand what it means to be fully human. We have a fairly weak anthropology in Christianity and should seek to develop this aspect in our thinking. To be fully human helps us understand what we are and what we are not. I think that as we understand God’s intention for humanity we might gain a healthier perspective of how to interact with AI.
Thanks, Graham. In your reflection on Poole’s concept of ‘junk code,’ you emphasise the importance of nurturing emotions and learning from mistakes to build stronger communities. Specifically, do you think there’s an opportunity to integrate these elements into church leadership development programs?
Glyn, first of all, “Happiest of birthdays to you.” Glad you made it home safe.
As I reflect on your question, I think about nurturing emotions as a healthy and holistic leadership practice.I read a book by Peter Scazzero a few years ago, “Emotionally Healthy Spirituality: It’s Impossible to Be Spiritually Mature, While Remaining Emotionally Immature”. I think the title says it all. So, yes we should be helping leaders nurture this.
Secondly, I think we need to teach leaders to admit failure. We have an unhealthy fascination with success that often drives leaders to overperform and burnout. As well, teaching leaders to fail means that we free people to experiement and innovate. At the end of the day, being able to admit failure is found in a secure identity.
Hi Graham,
According to Poole, how do emotions and mistakes contribute to personal and societal improvement, and what specific strategies can church leaders use to nurture and protect these elements in their communities?
Hi Shela, Here’s what Poole says about these two in an article she wrote on junk code, “For instance, our emotions are there to help us relate better in relationships, because emotions are vital to promote healthy community living. Our accident-prone nature leads us to develop a conscience to avoid making harmful mistakes. This propensity for error makes us seek out others for guidance, counsel and comfort. This homing instinct for community acts as a regulating mechanism, to limit damage and to share learning for the benefit of the whole.”
As I think about this, church leaders can do a few things:
1. Model an emotionally healthy life
2. Develop real relationships with people. I have never believed this but have heard pastors say that they can’t be friends with people in their congregations.
3. Model vulnerability by sharing their mistakes.
4. Encourage people to try even if they fail and then admit their mistakes.
Hi Graham,
According to Poole, how do emotions and mistakes contribute to personal and societal improvement, and what specific strategies can church leaders use to nurture and protect these elements in their communities?
Hey Graham. Thank you for this, your posts encourage me stop, think and ask in a good way! As you speak of vulnerability. How does one overcome the fear and balance of utilizing AI while not feeling like they have lost their soul?
Thanks, Daren. I think the answer to your question would be to go with your conscience and the ethical standards set by your organization. As well, I have found that AI is a good research assistant but it really can’t express my unique voice. It can write a sermon or a blog post but it doesn’t sound like me. My worry is that younger leaders, who have not yet found their voice, will never find it because of an over-reliance on AI.
Graham, if emotions and the ability to make mistakes are indispensable to what makes us human and to building strong communities, how do you envision these traits influencing our ethical engagement with AI? Should AI be programmed to replicate these traits to foster deeper human connection, or would doing so risk blurring the lines between humanity and machines?