 ethics in the age of AI when we worry about the ethical implications of new technology. In our familiar debates we worry about there are four main worries. First, our robots coming for our jobs. Second, will algorithmic prediction and decision-making in hiring and lending and criminal justice freeze in place unfairness embedded in past practices. Third, will surveillance capitalism essentially mean that privacy is over? And fourth, will misinformation and deep fakes in the polarizing effect of social media undermine democracy. So jobs, fairness, privacy, and democracy, these are consequential considerations. What I would like to explore with you today, however, is an even deeper worry, a more fundamental question about the ethics of AI and new technologies. And the question is this, will technology change what it means to be human? To begin to think about this question, let's start with AI in the movies. Harrison Ford, he's 81 years old, but in the recent remake of the Indiana Jones series, they needed him for part of the movie to be younger, 40 years younger. Now, they couldn't do it very effectively with makeup, so they used AI-enabled digital de-aging. Let's just see what people think about digital de-aging. Harrison Ford appearing for part of the film, thanks to the AI technology, as 40 rather than 81 as a moviegoer. How many find this troubling? And how many think it's fine, just like the use of makeup in times past? Raise your hand if you find it objectionable or troubling. Digital de-aging. A handful of people do. How many don't? How many think it's just like makeup? You think you may need it. Maybe it should be applied beyond the movies. Now, digital de-aging is only the beginning of the question posed by AI in moviemaking and in the arts because the same technologies that enable the filmmakers to de-age Harrison Ford could be used in a more ambitious way. Harrison Ford is still with us. But what about great actors of the past, great stars, whom we would love to see in a new role, wouldn't you like to see Humphrey Bogart, for example, not in a rerun of Casablanca, but in a new movie? Bringing him back, so to speak, for a virtual comeback performance. Now, let's take a vote on this one. How many would find that prospect cool, appealing, attractive? And how many would find it troubling or objectionable? Let's see what people think about that. How many are okay with it? How many think it might be cool even to bring back actors from the dead to play in a new role? Only a handful. You're not big Humphrey Bogart fans. All right, how many object? Most people object. But why would you object? Who will we have microphones? Who will tell us what's objectionable? Yes. Well, wait, wait, tell the microphone gets to you. Yeah, go ahead. That he did not have agency to decide his role. Yeah, so he wouldn't have given his consent. He's long past. And what if he had signed a waiver before he passed? Then would that remove your objection? Then it would be okay. He had created the parameters of which where his image could be used. Yes. So so long as he agreed, as long as he has agency specific, though, around the parameters, his agency, you're not a lawyer by any chance. I am not. You're not. Okay. Now, let's all right. Let's push forward with that question. Now suppose he had given a waiver, maybe actors that is part of their wills just as we have living wills could, if they chose, agree to be to star in a new role in a virtual comeback performance. In that case, is there still anyone who objects? Is there a remaining objection? A number of people do still object. And who will who will tell us why? What would be troubling? Go ahead, retail. Let's get you a microphone. I think the question is for the rest of us. Did we consent to them coming back? Do we know that we're watching an AI generated image of the past? And if we lost something about human dignity in the process of taking humans post death, recreating them based on their essence and their identity and projecting them forward in time in some digitally recreated way. So you want truth in advertising. You want there to be a disclaimer that might be easy enough. But the second point that you've raised is about dignity. The dignity of the actor, even an actor who has agreed in advance, we're seeing a performance that, well, is it his or her performance or is it something else? And is human dignity somehow implicated? I put this question about the virtual comeback performance. To a young actor and director, Michael B. Jordan, rising Hollywood star, he starred in the Creed boxing series. He's the successor to Rocky and a number of other films, just Mercy among them. Here's what he had to say about the virtual comeback performance. Let me ask an extreme version of this as the technology gets even better. Suppose there were an actor from the past, a long ago actor whom you admired, and though they're no longer living, you say to yourself, it would be my dream to be able to cast them in this movie. I mean to come to mind in the Sydney Portia and Heath Ledger. Can you even imagine what it would be like as a director, but also in human terms, to be able to cast Sydney Portia today in one of your movies and to have that virtual actor act the new role with the same look and stance and gesture and tone of voice and bearing as he brought to his earlier role. I will be a fool not to entertain it, but there's something unsettling about it from where I stand today. All right, that's what I want to get at. What's unsettling about it is what exactly? That's not his free will. That's not the man's free will. I'm making that decision for him. So it's unsettling because Sydney Plotchy did not consent in advance. I get that. And that's an important moral consideration. But suppose he had, he'd written you a letter saying, I'm willing, I trust you, then it would still be unsettling all that. I think so. Okay. So there must be another reason beyond his consent. What would that other reason be? And I see where you're getting at and I love it. And I'm trying to articulate it. It's just a feeling of authenticity that's just not there. I can't explain it. Authenticity. And you've spoken about presence, human presence. And even the best virtual come back. Yeah. Can't capture human authenticity or human presence. I don't think so. The certain people that they walk in the room, you feel them. I've been in rooms, certain people walk in, you feel them in there. I can't describe it. I don't think digitally created thing can have that. See, as Michael B. Jordan thinks it through in a very reflective way, in some ways replicating the discussion we had about this question. He began as we began with consent and agency. But then as the discussion unfolded, he identified a value beyond consent that seemed to be at stake. And in our discussion, Rita mentioned human dignity. Michael B. Jordan described it as authenticity and human presence. It's, as he pointed out, it's not easy to explain exactly what that means. But there is something, it seems, a deep human value at stake here beyond consent, beyond choice, beyond the waiver form signed in advance. Now, let's continue to explore what's at stake in human terms for our use of new technologies by shifting from the movies, from art, filmmaking, to matchmaking. A growing number of young people meet their mates, their life partners online through the use of dating apps. Suppose those apps could get good enough, accurate enough, drawing on a big enough pool of data so that they could generate a list of the three best life partners for you or for your son or daughter. Here's the question. If that were possible, would you rely, I'd like especially to hear from those who are still updating age, or you can answer on behalf, that's right, you never know, or you can answer on behalf of your kids. Who would you trust more to generate that short list? The app or, thinking now of young people, your mom. Now, the mom's in the room, you may have a stake in this, a special state, but you can vote out of your conviction. So how many would rely more on the app to come up with the short list? Only a handful of people. How many would rely more on your mom? In this group, in this group, mom beats the app. Now, I put this question, I put this question to a discussion with a group of young people in their 20s and 30s from various European countries, and some from North America, who we gathered for a Socratic style discussion for a Dutch television program in an ancient amphitheater in Greece, to discuss some of the fundamental ethical questions of our time, including AI, matchmaking, and the marriage prediction app. You go with the app. Yes, because he knows every character, perspective of yourself, he knows you well. Yes, yes. So I think he can search for a better match than my parents who would see me at home or when I'm visiting them, even though they raised me up, there was a time that I left home and created my own life. There's a life at home and a life outside of home. So I don't think they are totally capable of searching somebody who fits me in both situations. But the app doesn't have that God feeling, and I want to connect with a woman on a spiritual level, and the app can't feel that. So we can trust me, my mama. Trust me. My mama knows this type of thing. She knows me from the inside out. So if I come home with a girl, she would, she would notice her like two seconds. No, no, no, no. It's not good for you. But I think the question is, and being a mama boy as well, I think the question is, is there any space for a mistake, even in choosing a partner to marry? Is there any space for imperfection? Because this thing works very well. It's not the algorithms that we have now. It finds the exact perfect match. But don't we want to leave something out of that perfection for something as big as marriage? Well, I don't know if you've ever been in a relationship, but if you have a perfect match, then the mistakes start happening, right? So there's plenty of room for mistakes if you have a good connection. And that's what I'm saying. I'm married, and I don't know if a perfect robot would have found exactly my wife. She would have landed top three. Well, I think if it helps you find, this is going to sound very clinical, but a list of potential partners that have a good match, it helps it because it takes away a lot of the clutter of finding somebody who you have a good connection with. Is that actual clutter or that's part of what we call love dating? What about the sexual part? How will the machine know if that's a click? How will your parents know? No, no, but what I mean is there's got to be a personal connection, I guess, or some kind of thing, because the machine will never know. But I think Sergio's question underlies, if you take away all the forging and the surging, you take away a lot of human experience because you miss all the mistakes and wrong dates and the wrong things. So I might have actually switched back. But there's something Sergio said, I don't know whether this app would have my partner in that top three. So it makes me doubting right now with go for that machine. You're changing your mind. I don't know. I'm really, because of his arguments, because I'm thinking I'm married. Would that machine pick this guy that I'm married to? I don't know. Now, Socrates never had it so good in those amphitheaters or in the ecclesia. But what do people think of the arguments you heard back and forth about whether an app, even with big data, even with machine learning as sophisticated as it will become, whether a machine, a smart machine, can outthink in the domain of matchmaking and love human judgment. What's your sense of it now? On that philosophical question, how many think that in principle, as machine learning becomes more sophisticated, that in principle it can do better than it will be able to supplant, even in matchmaking human judgment. How many think so? Raise your hand. A handful of people do. And how many don't think so? Now, the majority do not think so. Why not? Why are you skeptical? Yes? Let's get the microphone. People are not a fixed moment that a machine can test you. People get older. They change. Things happen. And the feeling that a young gentleman expressed can predict better than a machine. That's my opinion. Because people change, you say. And the machine can never even in principle keep up with the way we evolve as human beings. And that, of course, makes a difference on who the best match will be. Those who think in principle a machine, a smart app, will be able to do better than your mom or your friend or perhaps you yourself in identifying the best match. What would be your answer to the arguments you heard from the young people and from the argument just now that we change? Who has a reply? Who has faith in the app and has a reply? Yes? I think it's not about the change because the app could adapt and evolve. I think it's more about the memory and the emotion that you won't get. And I'm surrounded by young people. They are using all this app and I'm playing with it because I'm too late for me. But they're coming back from this app because they are missing this memory, the creation of the moment, to create the love ending moment. So I think this is about that, where the app cannot make it. So you think the app cannot make it? No. Cannot do better than human judgment. And if it can bring the change of a person, but it cannot create the memory and the emotion? The memory and the emotion. And what did you think about the participants in the discussion who spoke about the clammy hands, the clumsiness, the missteps, the false starts, the imperfection, the vulnerability that are constitutive, as he saw it, of what learning to love is about. Do you agree with that? Yes, totally. I think this is the moment needed that the app does not bring. The key moments for me. I don't know if this is my opinion. I think it's key moment to bridge the love and bring this emotion. The app, you are keeping so many steps. I mean, you're killing so many steps. Killing so many steps. Even if those steps seem inconvenient, but keep the microphone there. Even if those steps seem inconvenient and difficult, and on the face of it, the steps or experiences to be overcome. But it's exactly what I think Seville was saying. It's a way to know. It's a learning curve. So the app is killing this learning curve. You're skipping them, and perhaps you're going too fast. So I feel you have to have this moment. And again, I have young kids, and they're talking about the moment where we were seducing in a bar, in the dance floor. I mean, they're missing that part. And they said, you are in a good period of time in the 80s, 90s. I don't know. Some people can relate here. Right, right. So it's easier to swipe into scroll than it is to have these encounters and missteps. In the contrary, I think it's better to have this encounter moment that's Yes, yes, better than scrolling. So here, let's get this. I know a lot of marriages that I would say are relationships that would say opposites attract. My daughter's very intense. She found the guy was totally laid back. Because if they'd both been that intense, can the app do that? But I know a lot of marriages where you say, boy, those people are opposites attract. And also in any good marriage, people grow together. Can the app actually predict that these are two people who can grow together? Right. The opposites attract point, I was going to ask, whether in principle, you could program the app to take account of that. But the second point about the way in which people grow together in companionship and love, that seems hard to imagine an app being able to capture. Well, now thank you for deepening this discussion, which turns out, is not really about the technology as much as it is about what it means to seek friendship and companionship and love. I'd like to turn to another human experience where technology is offering to make really possibly faithful change in the way we live and in the way we die. There are even now companies that will enable you to create a digital avatar of yourself based on all of your social media posts, your emails, your personal data. And when you die, you will be able to bequeath access to that data, to that avatar, to whomever you want, to your loved ones, to your friends, or for that matter, to the public, enabling them to engage in ongoing conversations with you. So that, let's say, your great-great grandchild could introduce you to his or her prospective mate and ask you what you would think. This would not be simply a digital avatar that would enable you as a kind of chatbot to reminisce about your past, but also to give your characteristic reactions to novel events, whether in the news, whether in the world, or whether in your family. Virtual immortality, virtual immortality. Let's see what people think about virtual immortality. How many would be tempted by it to use that facility, a digital avatar? Just a couple. How many would not? Most people would not. I asked Michael B. Jordan what he thought, and here's what he said. Your grandmother, suppose it were possible for her to have done that, so that you could spend more time with her now. Sounds like you, well, how would you feel about that? Oh, man, selfishly. If the knee-jerk reaction is, yeah, of course, I'll do anything to see her and feel her and be around her again. It's something that's so foreign that my mind can't completely wrap my brain, like I can't wrap it around the experience of what that would be. If I could tell in the slightest that it's not that, I would reject, I wouldn't want nothing to do with it. Because the tech-mediated connection you feel might obstruct or corrupt the spiritual connection? 1000%. How she smelled, how she touched the way she looked at me. There's no algorithm, there's no emails or texts or phone calls, not enough information for me to look beyond her eyes and how she used to look at me and talk to me. There's nothing, there's not enough. You have a conviction listening to you, Michael, that we're not data all the way down. And if you're right about that, then even the best AI chatbot couldn't capture, it might even obstruct the spiritual dimension of life. It may trick you for a while. It can think your own projections of sadness and the want of those things would make you hear what you want to hear and see what you want to see. We do that all the time with the relationships that we have now with jobs and relate friendships, relationships and experiences, we somehow toward reality so you can be okay and cope and deal with it. And so to go back to the question with which we began, will technology change what it is to be human? Your answer is? For some, yes. But for me, no. So here is the most fundamental question posed by the age of AI and chatbots and big data. Beyond worries about jobs and fairness, about privacy and even democracy, is the deeper question about whether human authenticity, dignity, human presence are fundamentally at stake. Will new technologies lead us? Are they already leading us and our children to confuse virtual community and human connection for the real thing? Because if they do, then we may, here's what I think we learned from this discussion, then we may lose something precious about what it means to be human. Thank you very much.