This blog post delves deeply into the effects of AI development on human life, alongside the responsibilities and ethics demanded of scientists, engineers, and users.
Long ago, the Go match between AlphaGo and Lee Sedol captivated the world as the match of the century between artificial intelligence and a human representative. Most experts predicted that the level of AI development had not yet advanced enough to defeat the mind of Lee Sedol, the ‘Go god’. Lee Sedol himself was confident of a clean sweep. However, those who watched the first game were stunned. AlphaGo defied all expectations, displaying terrifying skill that surpassed even the predictions of those who had anticipated its victory. In the subsequent second and third games, AlphaGo showed no weaknesses, securing its wins. Lee Sedol, pouring everything he had into the fourth game, managed to eke out a single victory.
AlphaGo’s overwhelming victory sparked both awe at advanced artificial intelligence and deep concern. This uncertainty stemmed from the realization that AI, once considered in its early stages, could surpass humans not only in Go but in other fields as well. The outcome depends entirely on how AI technology is ‘utilized’. When used positively, it can enhance daily convenience or aid in solving environmental problems. However, if misused, AI could potentially eliminate or dominate humanity, much like in movies.
Thus, science and technology themselves are neither inherently good nor bad, right nor wrong; their value is determined by the direction in which they are applied. This is referred to as the value neutrality of science and technology. The social responsibility of scientists and engineers regarding value neutrality is an issue that has emerged alongside the rapid advancement of science and technology. Positions on this matter are broadly divided into two camps: one argues that those who utilize the technology bear greater responsibility for its adverse effects than the scientists and engineers who develop it; the other maintains that scientists and engineers have a responsibility to anticipate and prevent such adverse effects from the very beginning of development. Neither position can be easily settled, and it is clear that responsibility lies with both developers and users. However, considering the definition of the value neutrality of science and technology, it is also clear that the direction of application significantly influences where the weight of this responsibility lies.
Have you ever heard of the scientist Fritz Haber? He was a German chemist famous for developing the Haber-Bosch process, which synthesizes ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen. This method enabled mass food production, significantly contributing to solving the food problem for the rapidly growing population. On the other hand, Haber also spearheaded the development and deployment of poison gas during World War I, for which he remains a subject of criticism to this day.
Haber’s work on poison gas research represents a case where technology created with malicious intent was used maliciously. However, technology developed with malicious intent is not necessarily used solely for that purpose. The microwave oven, which we find extremely useful for reheating cold food or cooking convenient instant meals, originated from entirely different military radar technology.
In the above case, it is difficult to categorically state that “the Haber ammonia synthesis method is good, while the poison gas research is bad.” The value judgment regarding solving food shortages through the Haber-Bosch process versus producing lethal weapons based on poison gas research is clear. Everyone can see that the former yields positive results, while the latter yields negative ones. However, this judgment about the outcomes should not be equated with judgment about the research that produced them or the scientists and engineers who conducted it. Ammonia can be used as fertilizer for plants but acts as a toxin for humans. Imagine if the Haber-Bosch process had been used to produce weapons instead of fertilizer. Furthermore, what if Haber’s poison gas research had been utilized not for mass destruction but to prevent such devastation? The same applies to the microwave oven. Had it been used as originally intended for war radar, it would have been a technology that claimed countless lives rather than one that brings everyday convenience. Furthermore, the fact that the microwave oven originated from an intention for its current use does not make its application more positively evaluated. Therefore, the evaluation of science and technology is based on where and how it is used; thus, the responsibility lies more in the process of application than in the development process.
However, this does not absolve scientists and engineers of responsibility for the technologies they develop. Even if a technology is created to benefit humanity, if it is used as a weapon threatening even a portion of humanity, the developer cannot escape responsibility. While this may seem harsh, releasing technology into the world is akin to placing a stone in the hands of a monkey troop. Depending on the monkey’s choice, that stone could become a toy, a tool for obtaining food, or a weapon to harm other monkeys. While the monkey bears responsibility for the choices made after grasping the stone, as they are entirely the result of the monkey’s will, the primary responsibility lies with the person who placed the stone in its hand.
So what attitude should scientists and engineers adopt when researching and developing technology? First, they must never pursue research with inherently malicious purposes or intentions. Just as research into poison gas and atomic bombs was conducted during the world wars to kill as many people as possible, as quickly and easily as possible, such research must be avoided. This includes not only weapons that take human lives, but also technologies like creating hacking programs to steal others’ information for personal gain, or using genetic engineering to clone humans or specific organs, thereby violating human dignity. Researching or developing such technologies is akin to crafting a sharp stone and placing it in a monkey’s hand from the outset. The sharper the stone, the greater the risk it poses to other monkeys. Therefore, scientists and engineers must strive to create stones that are as smooth and round as possible.
Another crucial point scientists and engineers must heed when crafting the ‘stone’ of science and technology is that its size must be appropriate. Even if the stone is smooth, if it is too large, it can become a weapon hurled at other monkeys; if it is too small, it becomes utterly useless. Here, the size of the stone represents the universality of science and technology and the scope within which it can be applied. If the scope of application is too narrowly confined, like within a laboratory, the research loses value. Conversely, if the scope is too broad, it becomes difficult to predict the technology’s risks. Just as the principle of mass defect in nuclear fusion led to the invention of the atomic bomb, the most destructive weapon in existence.
Thus, scientists and engineers influence the application of this stone called science and technology, and bear responsibility for it. However, it is the ‘monkey’ who ultimately determines the stone’s fate. No matter how smooth or seemingly harmless a stone may be, if the monkey sharpens it, it becomes a weapon. Or, a skilled monkey might shape a rough stone into something round and smooth. Therefore, while the responsibility of the scientist or engineer who created the technology clearly exists, the influence and responsibility of the person who utilizes it must inevitably be greater.
Scientists and engineers research and develop technologies they judge will benefit humanity. Once they release that technology into the world, people use it in their own ways. Some use it as intended by the scientist or engineer, some develop it further to use it more effectively, and others use it for purposes different from its original intent. Among those who repurpose technology, some may utilize it in ways that, while differing from the scientist’s intent, still benefit humanity, while others may abuse it. To maintain balance within this structure where scientists provide technology and people utilize it in their own ways, both providers and users must bear responsibility. From the perspective of those providing science and technology, they must offer the most refined and safe technology possible—a smooth, round ‘stone’—and recognize that they themselves could become ‘monkeys’ using another scientist’s stone at any time, communicating with them accordingly. And from the perspective of those receiving the technology, the monkeys must use the stone given to them as intended by the monkey who provided it, taking care to ensure that stone is never used as a weapon.
