What Hath God Wrought? Three Questions for the Leaders of AI

Today, aside from some colorful history well told, I'm going to ask some brutally tough questions to those who aspire to or already hold leadership positions in AI. eye.

They would do well to heed the advice of Robert Hunter, the lyricist for the Grateful Dead, when he wrote the Dead song, Ripple.

And he said, you who choose to lead must follow. If you fall, you fall alone.

If you should stand, then who will guide you? If I knew the way, I would take you home.

Today, in that light, we're going to talk about the extreme, the abstract, the absurd.

The future of AI is here, and it has been for a while. Digest that. The future of AI is here, and it has been for a while.

So I guess I can logically start off by saying the future of AI can be found in the past.

When Samuel F. B. Morse, surrounded by a delegation of United States congressmen and senators, sat at a desk in the basement of the Supreme Court chambers at 8.45 a.m. on Friday, May 24th, 1844.

He was about to change civilization, and he knew it.

On the desk was a telegraph, a pad, and a pencil.

Sitting some 30 miles away in Baltimore's Union Station, also before a group of government and observers was Morse's associate, Alfred Vail.

He, too, had a telegraph, a pad, and a pencil.

At the designated time, Morse tapped out a message to Vail. Morse wrote, What hath God wrought?

One of the most profound utterances in human history.

Vail transcribed it for his observers to witness and promptly sent the same message back to Morse who likewise transcribed it for his observers Morse's purpose for the day was to prove the commercial viability of electrical communication over distances instances, and he did just that as the government agreed to fund further work and construction.

Case closed.

But Morse's thoughts were on a much higher level, as his system for messaging made possible the success of one of the greatest transformations in human history, where messages could be sent without having to be physically delivered. Sent without being delivered. That, not email, not fax, not telephone, that was the first telecommunication.

It changed civilization.

The telegraph was already around for about a decade, but no one had systematized the method of communication on that telegraph to make it commercially viable.

In one 10-minute display, that changed.

By attaching it to a higher power, what hath God wrought, Morse fully understood the weight, the scope, and the power of what he was in the process of doing.

The question today, with AI more dominant each day, is can the same be said about the people running or trying to regulate the world of AI?

Further, can we expect the same shouldering of responsibility today as it becomes clear just how much gain there is to be made from AI?

When I first started writing about this, I asked, will that potential wealth and power bulldoze ethics, regulation, and altruism?

We've already seen enough examples, both good and bad, of the enormity of good and evil that can be wrought by AI.

In thinking non-stop about this translation can't get it off my mind here's a suggestion let's put all the leaders of ai companies government regulations agencies and researchers into one room together okay so it's too many for any one room on earth but at least go with me on the symbolism metaphors are very handy things put them all in the same room lock the door and tell them it stays locked until they answer the following three questions successfully and acceptably question number one do you truly recognize and are you willing to go to any length to prove that you do that you're holding in your hands the most awesome invention in history, with the potential to advance humanity or completely destroy it.

Question number two.

Are you willing to abide, provided everyone else in the AI business does also, by Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics as he laid them out in his book, I, Robot, 1950 publication, which he took and furthered from his first statement about the three laws of robots in 1952.

In case you're more familiar with your balance sheet or your machine learning than with this important work, here are those three laws. Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics.

The first law, a robot may not injure a human being or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm.

The second law of robotics, A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the first law and the third law of robotics.

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second law.

How prescient was that?

Years later, 1985 as a matter of fact, Asimov added his fourth law to the first three.

When he realized how fundamental it was, and he already had the first, second, and third law, he called this the zeroth law, Z-E -R-O -T-H, the zeroth law.

And that law took the first law, which stated a robot may not injure a human being, and and change that to a robot may not injure humanity or through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. He changed one word.

And in doing so, he elevated that law, the first and the other two, wouldn't you say?

Question number three for consideration of all ai leaders and regulators stick with me on this friends question number three are you willing to put up your compensation package as collateral against breach of the above two agreements into which you enter willingly and without exception of i'm sorry expectation of fortune or fame.

Again, are you willing to put up your compensation package? Let's pause here for a second and indicate that we know how large a collateral that is.

As collateral against breach of the above two agreements into which you enter willingly and without expectation of fortune or fame.

There we are, dear listeners. You didn't tell me how Pollyanna-ish or off-the-wall this might be. My response comes back to you in three simple conditions, and I've learned them in 50-plus years of business by studying non-business leaders.

Number one, unless you are prepared to deal in the extreme, you cannot take the small steps necessary to get there.

Who said that?

I'm going to give you her name and challenge you to tell yourself who said that before I tell you.

It was Anne Sullivan.

Anne Sullivan was Helen Keller's teacher.

And the extreme was taking a small girl without the ability to communicate and turn her into one of the most influential people on the face of the earth.

It was Helen Keller's teacher, Anne Sullivan.

Number two.

Unless you can deal in the abstract, you cannot deal in practicalities.

That was Albert Einstein. You've heard from him a few times in this podcast, and you continuously will.

Unless you deal in the abstract, you cannot deal in practicalities.

I'm going to resist talking about Albert Einstein for the next hour and a half and tell you that it was the abstract that attracted Einstein.

He said many times that unless you can gaze at a mystery, you are not fulfilling your potential. The greatest thing is to gaze at a mystery. Well, what did he go and do? Aside from relativity, which no one else in the world saw, he saw it, and you can't see it. It's intangible, but he saw it. It's abstract.

And he dealt with so many other things in abstract conditions. Like, for instance, early in the 20th century, Einstein came up with the concept of gravitational waves many people were still having a hard time figuring out what Newton was talking about with gravity and Einstein already figured out that it's not a constant force it took about 105 or 110 years for the rest of the world of physics and astrophysics to catch up with him and say yep he was right all along And the practicalities of dealing with gravitational waves are going to come into play big time as we start to explore more and more space, outer space.

And number three, unless you attempt the absurd, you cannot achieve the impossible.

Still contemplating today.

Sullivan, Einstein, Escher.

The extreme, the abstract, and the absurd. An apt depiction of the situation we're in. We cannot escape it.

So what indeed has God wrought? and who is asking these questions on our behalf.

I'll be right back. Thanks.

Vantage Point is brought to you by Bergen Volunteers. Since 1966, they've been neighbors helping neighbors in 70 towns across Bergen County. They mentor kids who need someone in their corner, and they help seniors stay independent at home. Earlier, Robert Hunter reminded us that you who choose to lead must follow. Through Bergen Leads, they have trained hundreds of people to do exactly that, to lead by serving their own communities. That is critical thinking with its sleeves rolled up. To everyone at Bergen Volunteers, thank you for supporting this show.

You can learn more at bergenvolunteers.org.

And here is a word about another sponsor I am proud to have behind this show.

Kardam Consulting advises the companies that make our medicine.

You heard Asimov's first law of robotics today, a robot may not injure a human being. Medicine has lived by a first law of its own for centuries. First, do no harm. Every decision behind a pill on a pharmacy shelf has to honor it which products to develop, which portfolios to keep, and how a supply chain should run. That is where this firm does its work. My friend George founded it after more than 35 years of global pharmaceutical leadership. If your company makes medicine, they are the counsel you call before the big decisions, not after them.

You will find Einstein and AccardumConsulting.com. My thanks to George and his whole team for supporting Vantage Point.

I'm back. Thanks for listening to our messages.

And today, I want to give you the great minds section and the what if section together.

I would love to get Albert Einstein and M.C. Escher in a room together with one piece of work that Escher did.

That work would be relativity and I'd like to ask Einstein to interpret it I don't know with all the reading and research and visitation to museums that I've done on Escher if he ever considered meeting Einstein ever did meet Einstein don't know No, but Einstein would have a ball looking at the piece by Escher called Relativity.

I can explain it to you now, but I'm not going to. I'm going to give you a chance to go home, get out of your car. I hope you're listening in your car or at home or at work and go look up Relativity by M.C. Escher.

If you take a good close look at it you'll see what I'm talking about there's a very good reason to ask that question I'll get back to that in a future episode and now I want to finish up with my two aphorisms of the day and then I'm going to give you an extra one aphorism number one collectively, we need to do less reasoning and more thinking.

And number two, why is Zoom easier to deal with than most of your co-workers?

Zoom has a mute button.

And now I'm going to give you an extra added feature to today's podcast.

All the aphorisms that I present to you are mine. They're originally mine.

From time to time, maybe two or three times in the forever that we do this, I'll have sourced them from a friend or a coworker, as I'm doing today.

My good friend Joe just a couple of months ago.

My wife and I gave him, aside from other things, a bottle of his very favorite scotch and a couple of nice glasses from which to drink them with some ditties inscribed on them.

Joe recently sent me a thank you note for the Retirement Gift, in which he said, drink whiskey, the nap will do you good.

Thank you, Joe. Long retirement.

And thank you all for listening.

I'm Eli Amdur. See you next time. Until then, keep questioning, keep learning, and keep thinking critically.