Toward a World in which Humans, Nature, and Machines Live Happily Together
Toward a World in which Humans, Nature, and Machines Live Happily Together
Jiro Kokuryo, Keio University
I think my role today is to provide alternative thinking from the east. In that spirit, a suggestion I would like to make today is that perhaps we should aim at building an ecosystem in which humans, nature and machines live happily together, instead of trying to build a world in which humans unilaterally control machines and/or the nature.
Actually, this has been the thinking in 2016 behind naming a Japan Technology Agency's program on AI ethics "Human Information Technology Ecosystem" to which I have been serving as the program supervisor. The message is that society and technology should co-evolve convivially. In other words, social institutions, including ethical standards, should be allowed to evolve as technology advances.
This is not to say that technology should be left alone to evolve without consideration to ethical issues. To be precise, the Japanese government's official policy follows the European lead in support of "human centric" approach to ensure that the technology will be used to uphold human dignity. While the Japanese attitude so far has been adopting a soft-law approach relying on guidelines to ask the industry to voluntarily comply, its thinking has firmly been on the protection of human rights.
Risk-based approach is also agreeable. In fact, one of the key goals of the Human Information Technology Ecosystem program has been to develop better risk assessment capabilities to identify potential risks and give prompt feedback to engineers.
If there is a difference, it probably exists in the animistic tradition of Japan that leads us to accept personas even in machines. Reflective of such sentiments, characterizations of robots in Japanese animation have largely been "friendly," particularly with children. Animism considers humans merely as a part of the cosmos, rather than being at the center or on top of it.
Such a world view, I would like to argue, is useful in a world of increasing complexity. By complex world I mean a world in which various elements are networked and influence each other to make the behavior of the global system increasingly unpredictable. I think that was what Toby was talking about. In such a world, it is impossible to be in complete control. Animism humbly accepts such a vulnerable reality of humans and respects the nature we live in and not be arrogant to think we can control it. This can be contrasted to the process control philosophies of the modern factory that controls the environment to recreate phenomena exactly as intended and theorized. Even before AI, digital networks have been ushering machines to post-modernize and be part of the complex system of the cosmos.
As a conclusion, I guess I am preaching for resilience instead of control. Such an attitude requires constant monitoring of emerging risks and the willingness to adapt to the environment, as opposed to controlling it.
Script of a Talk Delivered at APRU-Heinrich Böll Foundation Forum on May 5, 2022
| 固定リンク