From the Tree of Knowledge and the Golem of Prague to Kosher Autonomous Cars: The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence Through Jewish Eyes

Abstract

This article discusses the regulation of artificial intelligence from a Jewish perspective, with an emphasis on the regulation of machine learning and its application to autonomous vehicles and machine learning. Through the Biblical story of Adam and Eve as well as Golem legends from Jewish folklore, we derive several basic principles that underlie a Jewish perspective on the moral and legal personhood of robots and other artificially intelligent agents. We argue that religious ethics in general, and Jewish ethics in particular, show us that the dangers of granting moral personhood to robots and in particular to autonomous vehicles lie not in the fact that they lack a soul—or consciousness or feelings or interests—but because to do so weakens our own ability to develop as fully autonomous legal and moral persons. Instead, we argue that existing legal persons should continue to maintain legal control over artificial agents, while natural persons assume ultimate moral responsibility for choices made by artificial agents they employ in their service. In the final section of the article we discuss the trolley dilemma in the context of governing autonomous vehicles and sketch out an application of Jewish ethics in a case where we are asking Artificial Intelligence to make life and death decisions. Our novel contribution is two-fold; first, we bring a religious approach to the discussion of the ethics of Artificial Intelligence which has hitherto been dominated by secular Western philosophies; second, we raise the idea that artificial entities who are trained through machine learning can be ethically trained in much the same way that human are—through reading and reflecting on core religious texts. This is both a way of ensuring the ethical regulation of artificial intelligence, but also promotes other core values of regulation, such as democratic engagement and user choice.

Let us make man in our image-a Jewish ethical perspective on creating conscious robots

“…And so it has, as noted most emphatically by sixth American President John Quincy Adams: "The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; … [its] laws are essential to the existence of men in society, and most which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws." 62 Now, the "law given from Sinai" includes both written and oral, both Torah and Talmud (Ber. 5a), such that, if the written Torah is of value to the world at large, then the Talmud is no less, for it contains the values of the written Torah as applied over time (see, e.g., [17], p. 83, [49], p. 85).…”

“…On the other hand, the fact that these Golems largely ran amok seems to call into question the propriety of such endeavors. As a result, these Golem stories are brought in ethical discussions as precautionary tales, neither condoning nor condemning similar (albeit technologically based) undertakings (see e.g., [5,62,133,143,165,174]).…”

Mapping the ethic‐theoretical foundations of artificial intelligence research

“…Wong (2020) echoes the problems that are encountered by the AI E literature that tends to adopt a Westernized view, and Maitra (2020) adds to the criticism of the proliferation of Western viewpoints in AI E advocating for “indigenous perspectives” and the non‐anthropocentric insight that they can afford. Furthering this, Williams and Shipley (2021) discuss the Navajo concept of “hohzo” that promises to free AI E research from the shackles of its reductionist approach, and Goffi (2021) calls for increased cultural diversity and warns that current discussions of AI E , at an international level, are predominantly “cosmethics” that comprises forms of wordplay and lack “real long‐term philosophical reflections on the risks and benefits of artificial intelligence.” Goltz et al (2020) discuss AI through a Jewish lens, and Eddebo (2021) provides a compendious discussion of Western perspectives of AI as well as Chinese, Japanese, Aboriginal, and African alternatives.…”

“…The notable exceptions are Promta and Einar Himma's (2008) Buddhist perspective that is followed by Goodman's (2023) concept of "hohzo" that promises to free AI E research from the shackles of its reductionist approach, and Goffi (2021) calls for increased cultural diversity and warns that current discussions of AI E , at an international level, are predominantly "cosmethics" that comprises forms of wordplay and lack "real long-term philosophical reflections on the risks and benefits of artificial intelligence." Goltz et al (2020) discuss AI through a Jewish lens, and Eddebo (2021) provides a compendious discussion of Western perspectives of AI as well as Chinese, Japanese, Aboriginal, and African alternatives.…”

The Intersection of Bernard Lonergan’s Critical Realism, the Common Good, and Artificial Intelligence in Modern Religious Practices

“…Furthermore, in the age of AI, this dynamic becomes even more intricate. Artificial intelligence, with its capacity for vast data processing and pattern recognition, has the potential to provide novel perspectives on age-old religious doctrines and practices (Nachshon et al 2020). These perspectives might reinforce traditional interpretations, challenge them, or even introduce entirely new dimensions of understanding.…”