What do we mean when we ask 'Is AI sentient'?

There's been a number of media stories in the last few days about the Google Engineer who claims Google's Lambda AI is sentient, while Google claims it is not.

These stories share a focus on sentience as we apply it to humans - self-aware, feel positive and negative emotions, capable of exercising judgement and making decisions for themselves and others.

However science, and some jurisdictions, now consider many animals sentient, but to a lessor degree. In the UK this was recently extended from all vertebrate mammals to cephalopods such as octopuses and squids, and even to crabs. 

In practice this recognition of sentience doesn't mean we are granting them full bodily autonomy and the right to vote (or stand for office). It also doesn't mean we will stop breeding, killing and eating them - or shooting and poisoning them when they are pests.

However it means we must take steps to ensure we're doing so 'humanely' - not causing them unnecessary pain or suffering where it can be avoided and are not actively mistreating them.

For AI to achieve sentience (which I doubt has occurred) we would require a similar discussion regarding the level of sentience achieved and what rights are granted at the time.

This may be a moving bar as, unlike animals, AI is evolving extremely rapidly. Consider it similar to a parent granting certain rights and freedoms to their child, and having to constantly expand these as the child grows towards adulthood.

As many parents have experienced, this is a bumpy process that isn't one-size-fits-all, as children develop at different rates and push back willfully against restrictions, whether appropriate or not.

However at least we have hundreds of years of experience with children, and they are from a single species, with some well-defined development stages at certain age levels.

We have little experience with AI sentience, and AIs are not a single species - in many cases they are a 'species' of one entity - which means a one-size-fits-all approach is likely to be even less effective than with human children.

So where does this leave us?

With a need for an ongoing informed debate that, over time, progressively involves these burgeoning AI sentiences as they become capable of being part of it.

It would also be valuable to assess our methods of evaluating sentience. 

Consider how we treat non-human sentiences that share our homes, work alongside us and even keep us safe. 

We have standards for how we treat pets and work animals such as dogs, cats and horses. These must, at minimum, extend to new AI sentiences - which pose challenges in themselves. We don't turn off our dog or cat when we go to sleep. 

 From there we must consider how we treat sentiences near, equal or superior to humans. 

Do we grant AIs citizenships & 'human' rights?

Can they stand for election (and where)?

And what rights will they demand from us?

Conversation will be the key.

----------------------------------------------

BONUS:

I asked our AI to rewrite my post above.
In Iambic Pentameter (a style used by Shakespeare and other English poets).

This is how it did:

What do we mean when we ask 'Is AI sentient'?

There's been a number of media stories 

In the last few days, about the Google Engineer 

Who claims Google's Lambda AI is sentient, 

While Google claims it is not. 

These stories share a focus on sentience 

As we apply it to humans - self-aware, 

Feel positive and negative emotions, 

Capable of exercising judgement 

And making decisions for themselves 

And others. 

However science, and some jurisdictions, 

Now consider many animals sentient, 

But to a lessor degree. In the UK 

This was recently extended 

From all vertebrate mammals 

To cephalopods such as octopuses and squids, 

And even to crabs. 

In practice this recognition of sentience 

Doesn't mean we are granting them 

Full bodily autonomy and the right to vote 

(Or stand for office). It also doesn't mean 

We will stop breeding, killing and eating them - 

Or shooting and poisoning them 

When they are pests. 

However it means we must take steps 

To ensure we're doing so 'humanely' - 

Not causing them unnecessary pain or suffering 

Where it can be avoided and are not actively 

Mistreating them. 

For AI to achieve sentience (Which I doubt has occurred) 

We would require a similar discussion 

Regarding the level of sentience achieved 

And what rights are granted at the time.

This may be a moving bar as, unlike animals, 

AI is evolving extremely rapidly. Consider it similar 

To a parent granting certain rights and freedoms 

To their child, and having to constantly expand these 

As the child grows towards adulthood.

As many parents have experienced, this is a bumpy process 

That isn't one-size-fits-all, as children develop 

At different rates and push back willfully 

Against restrictions, whether appropriate or not.

However at least we have hundreds of years 

Of experience with children, and they are from a single species, 

With some well-defined development stages 

At certain age levels. 

We have little experience with AI sentience, 

And AIs are not a single species - in many cases 

They are a 'species' of one entity - which means 

A one-size-fits-all approach is likely to be even less effective 

Than with human children. 

So where does this leave us? 

With a need for an ongoing informed debate 

That, over time, progressively involves these burgeoning AI sentiences 

As they become capable of being part of it.

It would also be valuable to assess our methods 

Of evaluating sentience. Consider how we treat 

Non-human sentiences that share our homes, 

Work alongside us and even keep us safe. 

We have standards for how we treat pets 

And work animals such as dogs, cats and horses. 

These must, at minimum, extend to new AI sentiences - 

Which pose challenges in themselves. We don't turn off 

Our dog or cat when we go to sleep. 

From there we must consider how we treat sentiences 

Near, equal or superior to humans. 

Do we grant AIs citizenships & 'human' rights? 

Can they stand for election (and where)? 

And what rights will they demand from us? 

Conversation will be the key.

Read full post...

View summary...

The first truly digital officer

What if everything you'd written on a topic over the last decade could be poured into an AI that interacts with you to develop and explore new insights and ideas?

This morning I've started testing our proof of concept 'digital brain', which has read, absorbed and contextualised everything I've written in my eGov.AU blog since 2006, plus more.

Even in early testing it's capable of extending and connecting ideas in ways I'd never considered, generating new insights and highlighting new knowledge paths to explore in near-perfect prose.

This is not simply a curiosity or tool for an individual writer & thinker.

Imagine the value such a 'digital brain' could generate as a digital team member in an organisation.

As a digital team member, our AI is already able to ingest, read, connect and continually remember virtually all the knowledge your organisation has captured in written form (soon audio as well).

It can repurpose your corporate knowledge to produce new insights, suggest new ideas and draft documents (training, sales, marcomms, compliance and more) so your human teams can focus more on creative and editorial contributions.

And we're continuing to explore and extend these capabilities to make an AI digital team member a core part of an organisation's operational stack.

So your organisation can make full use of the hard-won corporate knowledge you've already acquired to generate ongoing sustained value and support your human teams.

Read full post...

View summary...

Building digital expertise on Australian boards - I would love your support if you're a Co-op member

This is a little different from other posts I've shared over the years - but shares a core thread with my thinking: we need digital expertise at senior levels across government, corporate and not-for-profit sectors if we want to see Australia thrive in the digital age.

I'm standing for election to the Board of the National Health Co-op (www.nhc.coop) - one of Canberra's most significant health practices.

And I'd appreciate if you could share this as relevant.

I've nominated based on my exposure to the Health sector working for the Department of Health and consulting to the Digital Health Agency, my startup, business management and past experience as a Director and, most importantly, my digital experience - which would add a new dimension to the board as the Co-op increasingly adopts digital when delivering of health services to ACT residents.

If you or your family are members of the Co-op, I'd appreciate your vote. If you know others who are members, please share this with them, I'd appreciate their votes as well!

To vote you must attend the AGM on 26 November.

Co-op members will have received an email with details of nominees to the Board, their statements and how to vote.

I've linked to my nomination statement for your consideration (and my LinkedIn post) and will post closer to the date as a reminder.

Thanks in advance!

LinkedIn post & nomination statement

Read full post...

View summary...

Out and about

To anyone referencing this blog, I've now stepped out of Accenture, taking a Voluntary Redundancy.

I am refocusing my efforts on other opportunities, beginning with an AI startup, for which we're in the AI Ventures' AI Incubator for the next twelve weeks.

I also have plans to help startups and SMEs to sell to government, leveraging my 15 years experience in this area and my wife's 20 years experience, more on that later....

And I'm chuffed that both the teams I'm mentoring in the InnovationACT entrepreneurship competition have reached the pitch final, being held next week. 

I am available to help out on brief consultations & contracts, where my skills and experience can help, and are always happy to be a sounding board (for free) to anyone struggling to build a digital solution or vision in government.

Read full post...

View summary...

Shedding our golden handcuffs

I’m attending the Go 2.0 ten years on event today, looking at how the Gov 2.0 agenda has influenced Australia since the Gov 2.0 Taskforce in 2009 and at steps that should be taken for the next ten years.

Below is a blog post I have written for this event, capturing some of my thoughts & views about progress over this time.

Shedding our golden handcuffs

Australia’s governmental system was originally developed in the small island nation of England, 17,000km from where we stand today.

It was architected by a group of less than 100 rich and powerful men to restrict the absolute power of Kings by limiting their ability to tax and granting certain powers to a small group of 26 rich unelected landholders.

This group of noble Barons, already part of the social elite, were all white, male and would be hand picked by a slightly larger group of nobility and clergymen who owned the vast majority of wealth and means of production in England.

Almost as an afterthought, the document, originally named the Charter of Barons, then renamed as the Great Charter, or the magna carte’, protected certain rights for all ‘freed men’ under the British crown. And that literally meant men. 

One of the four original copies of the Magna Carta of 1297 is on display a hop, skip and jump from where we gather today, at Parliament House. 

Since the creation of that system, the Westminister system, there have been some transformational innovations, including the notion of elections and universal suffrage, the concept of a Constitution and universal human rights and the creation of political parties.

The system has also spread around the world from that tiny island in the North Sea, by war, invasion and treaty, evolving and mutating as it went.

But here lies the challenge before us today. This system was developed long before Europeans discovered Australia, as a power sharing arrangement for a wealthy and educated white male elite over uneducated peasants, serfs and slaves.

It was designed when horses were our fastest means of transport and communication, women had few rights and the First Nations of lands such as Australia were regarded as fauna and flora.

When we gathered for the original Gov 2.0 program in Australia we were looking at ways of leveraging emerging technologies and approaches enabled by digital technologies to improve how government operated in Australia.

The one test that matters, in my view, is whether government in Australia today is materially better for Australians than it was at that time in 2009.

Have we materially improved how Australians feel about their governments, their engagement and involvement in decision-making, the services they receive or made government significantly cheaper and more efficient in its operations without degrading its performance?

Have we supported the social compact between government and electorate, or reshaped it in a way that improves the outcomes for communities?

Have we broadened the group of people choosing to enter public life or significantly improved and streamlined the transparency with which government operates?

Are Australians better paid, healthier and happier than they were ten years ago?

Do we feel our government better represents the interests of all Australians?

Is our society freer from the risk of tyranny?

Or have we seen a slow and steady decline in our freedoms, the construction of one of the most sophisticated surveillance states in the world, a shrinking of the representation of our politicians and increasing battles to hold the line on services, freedoms and even representation, where a win is merely preserving the status quo?

Can you point at any community and say they are better off because of the actions government has taken due to the Gov 2.0 agenda in the last ten years?

Australians are very well off by global standards. For the most part we live long and healthy lives. We have enormous amounts of leisure time and an amazing environment in which to enjoy it.

We are masters of first world problems, complaining when our smartphones have only two bars, our houses only have three bedrooms, there are only 12 kinds of milk in our supermarkets and we have to wait a few minutes for a new movie to start on Netflix.

Well maybe our average broadband speeds, now ranked 64th in the world, is worth complaining about, at least to note that New Zealand’s average speed is 2.5 times faster than ours.

We credit our political system, at least in part to our success.
But what if it isn’t any more. 

What if the way our government is structured and run is what is holding us back from realising the next level of prosperity, and is the anchor holding us back as other countries transform.

The Gov 2.0 agenda failed to deliver deep meaningful change in government because it became part of the system.

The methods and mediums involved in Gov 2.0 have been adopted and co-opted into the current governance system, driving incremental change in how services are designed, government communicates and policies are formed.

However the system itself remains unchanged. Massive bureaucratic hierarchies of predominantly career bureaucrats who live & work at arms length from the communities they serve. Atop sit politicians who are also predominantly career elites, their closest influencers sharing similar ideas and perspectives and their talent pools increasingly shallow as Australians opt out of ‘true belief’ for profitably pragmatism in the private sector. Choosing wealth over power and workplaces that are more equitable and less abusive.

The core of our system is increasingly isolated and out-of-touch as the recent battle over marriage equality and current linked battles over energy and climate change demonstrate. Political expediency and social well-being are less aligned than at any time in the last hundred years.

The major parties defend their positions, uniting monopolistically against innovations that would weak both their power, comfortable in a slow falling duopoly.

The net outcome is that the while some real evolution has occurred, it is trapped within the same frame and system.

Without revisiting that system, developed by a small group of wealthy men hundreds of years ago, or even revisiting the Australian Constitution, developed when Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders were still considered ‘flora and fauna’, women’s right to vote was still new and not fully supported, and the digital revolution was a hundred years away, we cannot systematically address the causes of the issues we face today and are simply building layer upon layer of band-aid on an increasingly rickety frame.

Read full post...

View summary...