Adela Cortina (Valencia, 77 years old) never imagined that she would write a book about artificial intelligence (AI). “Those of us who work in the field of ethics are very interested in knowledge progressing. “Science and technology, well directed, are extraordinary for humanity,” he shoots to start the conversation with EL PAÍS. “The thing is, sometimes they are and sometimes they aren’t.” That’s what his new work is about, Ethics or ideology of artificial intelligence? (Paidós).
Emeritus Professor of Ethics and Political Philosophy at the University of Valencia and Honorary Doctor from eight national and foreign universities, Cortina is one of the best-known thinkers in Spain. She was the first woman to enter the Royal Academy of Moral and Political Sciences and is the author of more than thirty books, among which stand out Aporophobia, the rejection of the poor (2017) or What is ethics really for? (National Essay Award 2014). On this occasion, the philosopher focuses on the technology that has captured the world’s attention since two years ago, when ChatGPT emerged.
Ask. Why are you concerned about AI?
Answer. I think that (Karl-Otto) Apel and (Jürgen) Habermas were right when they said that there are three interests of knowledge: the technical, the practical and that of emancipation. When the technical interest is governed by the practical interest, that of morality, it leads to a true emancipation of society. AI is scientific-technical knowledge that must be directed in some direction. If those who control it are large companies that want economic power or countries that want geopolitical power, then there is nothing guaranteed that it will be used well. If this technology affects all of humanity, it has to benefit all of humanity.
Q. Do you think the debate around AI is ideological?
R. In the book I focus on the two main positions: that of those fearful of AI, who believe that it will be the source of all evil, and that of the most enthusiastic, transhumanists and posthumanists, who believe that AI will help us. will help you reach an absolutely happy world. There are those who, like Ray Kurzweil (Google’s Chief Technology Officer), put a date on it: he says that in 2048 we will have put an end to death. That would be ideology, in the traditional sense of the term: a distorted vision of reality that is maintained to pursue certain objectives. There you are not acting ethically. It seems extremely dangerous to me to lie, to say that we are going to solve everything with AI. The danger of that position is that it is based on the authority of science, and that makes people take it seriously. I am a follower of the Frankfurt School, which says that science and technology are wonderful, but if they become an ideology, because they are already a productive force, then we have changed the meaning of the matter.
Q. What ethical principles should govern trustworthy AI?
R. The emancipated society is one that is free of ideologies, and for that it must be equipped with ethics. The basic principles are non-maleficence (thou shalt do no harm), beneficence (thou shalt do good), autonomy and justice. In addition to these are the principles of traceability and explainability, a complicated issue when we deal with algorithms, and that of accountability. And then there is the precautionary principle, which we Europeans demonstrate.
Q. Is there good legislation on this matter?
R. We Europeans are often branded as excessively normative, but I think it is not wrong to be cautious, human lives are at stake. That does not have to prevent further investigation. An ethic of responsibility is needed; marking how far we go in research is not easy.
Q. In the book he debates whether AI can be a subject or will always be a tool. Is it time to discuss that?
R. Specialists say that, today, we have not reached general artificial intelligence, which would be comparable to that of human beings. For this it would be necessary for them to have a biological body, because it is the way to have significance, intentionality, etc. What we do have are special artificial intelligences, capable of doing certain tasks very well, even better than us. I think it is very important that we know where we are and that a serious debate be opened about that. Today, it is an instrument, and, therefore, it has to be used for one purpose or another, but it never has to replace human beings. You cannot replace teachers, judges, or doctors with algorithms. Algorithms do not make decisions, but rather provide results. The person who has to be responsible for the final decision is the person. One of the very bad consequences that the use of AI could have is turning machines into the protagonists of life. You have to be very careful because we have a tendency towards comfort, and when a result is given to you, you may be tempted to simply adopt it.
Algorithms do not make decisions, but rather provide results. One of the very bad consequences that the use of AI could have is turning machines into protagonists of life
Q. Does it make sense to talk about roboethicists or machine ethics?
R. For some time now, attempts have been made to create ethical machines that have a series of values incorporated. I find it very interesting that these codes can be assumed in some way, whether in the algorithms that drive vehicles or the robots that care for the elderly, so that they make decisions without having to have a human on them all the time.
Q. He dedicates the last part of the book to discussing the relationship between education and AI. Why do you focus on this activity?
R. Education is the key to our societies, and it is very neglected. In China they are very concerned about applying AI to education, because they say that if we explain to people what happened yesterday, we will lose tomorrow. For me, the key issue of education is justice: there are many people who do not have access to these tools, and that makes the gap widen. I am also concerned about autonomy. One of the great tasks of the Enlightenment is to enhance the autonomy of people, so that they know how to direct their own lives. We must educate so that there is a critical, mature citizenry that moves by itself, by its own convictions; Let him not let himself be carried away as with walkers, as Kant said, but rather be guided by his own reason. And that is very difficult in a world where platforms are trying to get us to spend a lot of time collecting our data. They are superficializing teaching and making people less and less autonomous. I think autonomy is in danger, and that is bad for democracy.
