Search

Artificial intelligence (AI) has surpassed humans in a number of specialised intellectual activities—chess and Go being two of many examples. Amongst the many potential consequences of such a development, I focus on how we can utilise cutting edge AI to promote human learning. The purpose of this article is to explore how a specialised AI can be utilised in a manner that promotes human growth by acting as a tutor to our champions. A framework for using AI as a tutor of human champions based on Vygotsky’s theory of human learning is here presented. It is based on a philosophical analysis of AI capabilities, key aspects of Vygotsky’s theory of human learning, and existing research on intelligent tutoring systems. The main method employed is the theoretical development of a generalised framework for AI powered expert learning systems, using chess and Go as examples. In addition to this, data from public interviews with top professionals in the games of chess and Go are used to examine the feasibility and realism of using AI in such a manner. Basing the analysis on Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory of development, I explain how AI operates in the zone of proximal development of our champions and how even non-educational AI systems can perform certain scaffolding functions. I then argue that AI combined with basic modules from intelligent tutoring systems could perform even more scaffolding functions, but that the most interesting constellation right now is scaffolding by a group consisting of AI in combination with human peers and instructors.

AI poses both short- and long-term risks, but the AI ethics and regulatory communities are struggling to agree on how to think two thoughts at the same time. While disagreements over the exact probabilities and impacts of risks will remain, fostering a more productive dialogue will be important. This entails, for example, distinguishing between evaluations of particular risks and the politics of risk. Without proper discussions of AI risk, it will be difficult to properly manage them, and we could end up in a situation where neither short- nor long-term risks are managed and mitigated.

This article discusses ethics in the context of artificial intelligence and how an AI ethicist navigates several dilemmas in this area. The ethicist’s choice examined in this article is to either work within the system to improve ethics in AI or work from the outside. To work inside of the system would involve one or more of the major companies in the information technology industry known commonly as Big Tech or the Big Five, which includes Google. The article suggests a role for government in balancing the power of Big Tech to allow for ethical artificial intelligence.

Robots are today made not only to assist us in menial tasks and routine labour but also provide companionship and love. This has generated much academic and public interest, and people have asked whether robots can love, whether human–robot relationships are possible, and whether humans can develop loving affection for robots. These are all important questions, but I approach the issues from another perspective: can robots made for love change our very understanding of love? By treating love as a cultural and malleable phenomenon, I explore the possibility of it being changed a) to accommodate robots, and b) as a consequence of how robots love us. The first regards the quest to understand what love is and our current tendency to understand phenomena in light of the computer or computational metaphor of human beings. The second involves an examination of how robots are produced to love, and what this form of love might lead to in the wild. Rather than asking if robots can live up to human ideals, I ask if humans will live down – or it might be up – to robot ideals. Using Abraham Maslow’s distinction between being love and deficiency love as an example, I argue that love robots might take us to a place where deficiency love and a growing expectancy of one-sided worship changes the content of love as a cultural phenomenon.