Cultural theorist Johan Huizinga argues that, as Homo ludens, we are born to play. During gameplay, gamers are invited to embrace the game’s world once they have crossed the membrane of the videogame. In this digital space, they are met with dreams and fantasy, where they can escape the mundane while forming virtual characters. Consequently, within the game’s alter-reality, everything is in some way transformative. It is in this transformative space that we are to discuss digital gaming and its effects.

Gen Z and gaming

My current area of research is Gen Z’s engagement with gaming. Thus, I will be focusing my reflection on this generation. These are young adults or children born after 1997. This generation has been introduced to digital gaming from an early stage; for learning purposes, or to keep them busy or entertained.

When speaking about generations, one needs to keep in mind that generations are different. Thus, some conclusion which is valid for one generation cannot be re-used on other generations. One such observation is that while Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) play to compete, the Zeres (born between 1997-2010) game to socialise. Suffice to note how Fortnite took this generation by surprise. Rather than acting as a game, it presents itself as a new social network. The main aim of this game is socialising rather than winning.

One may be tempted to view Gen Z as a very lonely generation. They tend to play alone on their handheld devices. However, echoing Gen Z’s researcher Alex Strauss, I believe that “socialisation has evolved“. In fact, Alycia Puza concludes that gamers feel closer to their friends than non-gamers.

Moreover, according to the Whistle Research Centre, 68% of those surveyed see ‘gaming as an essential part of their identity’. We might read this as a mere statistical fact and fail to realise that such a statement has shifted the discourse from what they do to who they are.

Failure to take gaming seriously is a huge mistake

Let us use Fortnite’s phenomenon to discuss the existential power of gaming. According to the American: National Research Group, Fortnite managed to help the player feel part of a community with a marginal difference of 47% in comparison to social networks. The same research shows that 48% of the sample act on their feelings which they cannot act upon in real-life.  28% of gamers also note an increase in their self-confidence when playing the game. The latter, I hypothetically believe, is because of what is known as the Proteus Effect. This refers to the tendency to be emotionally affected by one’s digital representations, such as avatars and social networking personas.

Digital-theologian Rachel Wagner’s remarks that the digital-space is a platform where the self is continuously being constructed. Considering this remark, I would like to highlight two different avenues for when gaming can be essentially evangelical. (i) Engaging Christian games as part of the catechetical journey. (ii) To discuss game-theology during youth formation.

• Engaging Christian Games

It may be easy to pepper our catechesis with a closely related game. However, this is not what I’m understanding by engaging Christian games. Hence, the catechist needs to engage in careful theological exploration prior to introducing Christian games; often they might espouse non-Christian theologies. By way of example, in an unpublished research, I looked at the trailers of Christian videogames. For my sample, I looked at the then most recent games listed on Wikipedia under ‘Christian video games.’ Out of the 4 games, none showed true Christian values. In fact, the theme of violence appeared in two and alluded to in a third. None of the four games allude to the Resurrection, a central tenant in our faith.

Through gaming, and possibly also through Virtual and Augment Reality we can invite our youths, to engage their imaginative faculties. This practice is akin to Ignatian Spirituality. It may offer a mediated-encounter with Christ. One can also be more creative and develop a discipleship experience where the youth embarks on a discipleship journey while being mentored by the catechist. The way the script is narrated and how it is actually played can take the form of being called, akin to one’s own vocation. In this way, gamers can witness key Gospel episodes and become onlooker-participants. Hence, the pupil doesn’t merely learn about Jesus but experiences Him.

• Discussing games

Wagner speaks of transmedia storytelling as world-building. He argues that religion and transmedia have a lot in common.  Thus, even secular games function like religion; they fascinate us with rule-based environments outside our daily lives.

In response to this generation’s need, we are to fluidise our catechesis and acknowledge Gen-Z’s fascination with the coded, screened, and mediated. In a media ecology manner, the youth minister is invited to engage the group so that they can tease out theological themes from popular games and discuss them.

Gaming in COVID times

In conclusion, let us speak of how COVID has affected us. According to Nielsen data, gaming has seen a massive growth of 82%, across all age groups. Health experts are applauding such growth. Gaming can function as a beneficial stress buster, especially given their endorphins kick.  Moreover, we are also witnessing the increase in ‘gamified education’. Games can be a valuable teaching tool to impart skills such as creative thinking, problem solving and collaboration.

As is evident, the gaming scene is ever changing. Similarly, the Church’s vocation is to reform its catechetical ministry as the needs arise. Hence, in this culture of flux, where is the Spirit leading us to explore? Our first reaction as carers would be to see the addiction to gaming as a problem to be tackled. In contrast, the foregoing journey attempted to present a positive facet to gaming. Gen Z’s are begging us to reflect on our discipleship programs; to place gaming as a central tenet of our endeavours in dialoguing with them.

Gaming and religion

Read more:
– What is Artificial Intelligence? Myths, Robots, Ethics
– Astronomy and Faith

The post “Born to Play” – Gaming and Religion appeared first on Universe of Faith.

Words below from Google Trends:

Fun…

how to cut your hair was searched at an all-time high.

Kids made “productive” use of their time at home this year, as pranks on parents reached an all-time high.

Thankful…

Global searches for how to thank also hit an all-time high, with teachers, bus drivers, nurses, and doctors topping our lists. This year, we focused on helping others more than we focused on ourselves – how to donate was searched 2x more than how to save money.

Surprising…

Shelter-in-place routine got you a bit disoriented? You’re not the only one. what day is it hit an all-time high in April 2020.

Uplifting

The world also searched for how to help more than ever. Top trending how to help were: how to help australia fires, how to help Black Lives Matter, how to help during coronavirus, how to help beirut.

This year how to be an ally was searched more than how to be an influencer.

Inspiring…

We looked for a better future more than we wished to return to the past. how to change the world was searched twice as much as how to go back to normal.

Restless…

Trouble sleeping? You weren’t alone. insomnia was searched more in 2020 than ever before.

Beneficial…

This year, we grew our collective awareness as global searches for invisible disability doubled.  (An invisible disability refers to a condition that isn’t apparent from the outside, but affects a person physically, mentally, or neurologically like epilepsy, cystic fibrosis, HIV/AIDS, and psychiatric conditions such as depression or post-traumatic stress disorder.)

And … In 2020, worldwide searches for support small business doubled compared to the previous year.

Learning…

how to learn coding was the top trending thing people searched to learn. python was the top searched programming language.

Thought provoking…

World events gave us pause, and we did some soul-searching. In June 2020, how to be anti-racist was searched more than how to be a millionaire.

And in June 2020, what is systemic racism reached an all-time high, as more people questioned the institutions, government processes and economic systems that perpetuate racial injustice.

Healthy…

Comfort foods may have gotten us through March, but…how to start a vegetable garden was searched twice as much in 2020 than 2019.

Calming…

Remember to breathe. meditation was searched worldwide.

Close to home…

Search interest in sunset near me reached an all-time high in 2020. A moment to be serene amidst the routine.

Keywords 2020

Read more:

– New Year Christian Message on Newness and Hope
– Finding Time for God

The post Google Keywords 2020 That Caught My Attention appeared first on Universe of Faith.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a broad concept which is becoming harder to define. As AI researcher Nick Bostrom explains, the more AI is being incorporated into our daily lives, such as in the algorithms which reshuffle our social media walls and in the technology of general home appliances, the less we recognise that software as being AI. Instead, we see it as ‘mere technology’.

Part I – Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence definition

The Maltese AI Taskforce defines Artificial Intelligence as follows:

“Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to systems designed by humans that, given a complex goal, act in the physical or digital world by perceiving their environment, interpreting the collected structured or unstructured data, reasoning on the knowledge derived from this data and deciding the best action(s) to take to achieve the given goal. AI systems can also be designed to learn to adapt their behaviour by analysing how the environment is affected by their previous actions.”

“As a scientific discipline, AI includes several approaches and techniques, such as machine learning, machine reasoning, and robotics, as well as the integration of all other techniques into cyber-physical systems.”

I decided to use this definition since it is so elaborate; it somehow defines AI sufficiently. Of interest are the highlighted key phrases. The phrase, ‘designed by humans’, clearly states that it is a technology created by us humans. As Noreen Herzfeld theorises, it is made ‘in our image’. This statement will be useful in our discussion further on. Another key phrase refers to the fact that AIs are often built to achieve a goal. An exception to this is the Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) which is built goal-less. The third highlighted phrase refers to the use of AI in analysing effects on the environment. The strength of AI is mostly appreciated in their use when processing data to make decisions regarding the environment.

Two main categories of artificial intelligence:  NI and AGI

AI is normally broken down into two main categories, Narrow Intelligence (NI), and General Intelligence (AGI).

NIs are AI programmed to perform a single, albeit complicated, task such as analysing text, processing vocal input or even creating art and literature. Great advancements are happening in the NI field. Some examples are its use in self-driving cars and natural language processing. NIs ubiquitous use is also found in search and recommendation engines and in some data engines such as IBMs Watson.

In contrast,  AGI is still a nascent field. It is sometimes referred to as strong AI; a superintelligent, or human-level AI. It can understand and reason its environment just as a human being would. Concisely, an AGI is built to replace the human in a decision-making environment.  AGI researcher, Nick Bostrom, has defined superintelligence as “any intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest”. In Bostrom’s definition AGI needs a capacity to learn and to deal effectively with uncertainty and probabilistic information.

Myths about artificial intelligence

Only luddites worry about AI. This cannot be further from the truth. Many top AI researchers and technophobes, including Elon Musk, the late Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates, Sam Altman and Nick Bostrom have expressed their concern regarding its use. Musk’s response to an MIT audience – “we are raising the demon”- summarises this existential fear.

AI turns evil: While AI’s goals can be misaligned with ours, this doesn’t necessarily mean that AI can ever turn evil. This is especially the case with the way that AI is portrayed in sci-fi movies. Hence, as technologists we ought to make sure that the data on which the AI is built, and the algorithmic intelligence, are both aligned to an ecological view of humanity.

AI can’t control humans. Again, this statement is false. Intelligence enables control. One need not go far to understand that political propaganda on social media, itself an AI-based algorithm, can and did sway many an election. Moreover, data is the new gold. Thus, it is also the new power of economy. As we all know, power provides the means to influence which data is used and deemed relevant. It can determine which problems become priorities, and for whom the tools, products, and services are geared. Hence, AI is an enabler or disabler of power.

Part II –  Robots and AI

Defining Robots

Let’s start by looking at some definitions of robots.

According to Asimov’s Laws of Robotics every robot should obey these 3 laws:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. It must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

I join the likes of Eliezer Yudkowsky’s camp of believers that such laws are unsafe at best.

On the other hand, the AI4People’s ethics group have outlined 4 principles for the use of AI in robots:

i) beneficence aligned (do only good),
ii) non-maleficence (do no harm),
iii) autonomy (human agent remains responsible for individual decisions)
iv) justice

I believe that these are much safer to use when interpreting AI-research.

Robot Sophia

With regards to robots such as Hanson Robotics’ Sophia, I believe that this is nothing more than a marketing stunt.  Before discussing the AI behind this project, let us discuss the team behind Sophia. Given his artistic background, David Hanson fully understands the importance of having a humanoid robot that has an appearance which is both non-threatening and welcoming.

Hanson’s spokesman, Ben Goertzel, is a full-stack AI researcher and a strong believer of Singularity. He supports the idea of a hypothetical point in time at which technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable (not necessarily bad) changes to humankind: an ‘intelligence explosion’ that qualitatively far surpasses all human intelligence. According to technologist Antoine Tardif, Goertzel’s mission is to use Sophia to raise funds for his SingularityNET project which attempts to democratise access to AI technology. Thus, Sophia is useful to keep the interest of investors in the project.

Sophia is often wheeled in during presentations. However, the robot seems to lack awareness of its surroundings, while finding it hard to focus its attention on any one object. It seems that Sophia (I refuse to use ‘her’) is using computer vision, chat-bot technology comprised of voice recognition technology and perhaps some form of Natural Language Processing. In comparison, the last two technologies are also used in Amazon’s Alexa and Apple’s Siri. Both of these are actually way more technologically advanced than Sophia despite her ‘cute’ human face.

Nonetheless, given the Law of Accelerating Returns , the AI community is still hypothesising the technological-emergence of a solid AGI framework, such as OpenCog or DeepMind, which can be easily hosted by a humanoid such as Sophia.

Do you think a humanoid robot can eventually become more powerful than a human being?

Humanoid robots are just a marketing gimmick. They give a sense of intelligence. I am much more concerned with AIs shaping us, rather than the AIs shaped after us.

In a paper co-authored with spiritual theologian Fr Charlo Camilleri and philosopher Tero Massa, we argue, in line with Paul Heelas, that rather than rationality, spirituality is essential in the definition of what it means to be human. This quote summarises what we attempt to say: “Innate drives linked essentially to being human, such as the discovery of the self, seeking to gain knowledge, progressing in life, searching for one’s identity and the definition of one’s self, are translated and replicated into the building of the new version of the human. One can postulate that innate within humankind, there is a desire for self-reproduction which surpasses the biological need and ventures into the realm of the spiritual.”

Thus, when speaking about AGIs becoming human or human-like, we believe that we need to start our discussion from what makes us spiritual. We outline the following categories:

1. Self-knowledge, stimulations and intellectual aspiration
2. Spirituality as 3 ‘to’s: to be (noun), to do (verb), to encounter (relational)
3. Built in imago humani 
4. The ability to imagine
5. The capacity of feeling  emotions
6. Consciousness, personhood and ensoulment
7. The ability to re-invent the self

Technologically speaking, AGIs are far from achieving such attributes. This does not mean that God is limited from irrupting in silicon as God irrupted in biology. In our thought-provoking paper, we conclude with philosopher Johan Seiber’s suggestion that as theologians, reflecting on the digital, we need to “find ways to think about digitalisation not as a threat to humanity but as an opportunity to explore avenues that we may not have even known about.”

Part III – Ethics in AI

Artificial intelligence ethics

The main question one needs to ask when discussing AI ethics is: “For what purposes do you want to use it?” Are you going to use it to do good or to harm?

Let us look at some examples. Imagine taking a photo of a lump in the skin, and uploading it to a trained AI system to verify whether this is skin cancer or not. One can mention Facebook’s tool which is used to identify potential suicidal cases amongst its users.  One can also speak of AIs which are used to allocate resources after natural disasters.

On the other hand, AI can be programmed to kill, such as in the use of autonomous weapons. One can also mention the deep fakes which are a particular source of concern in 2020’s US presidential campaign. Another example when AI can be misused is that one can programme with good intentions but use biased data. In these situations, the AI’s goals will be misaligned from those of humankind.

As these examples illustrate, the concern about advanced AI isn’t malevolence but competence. A super-intelligent AI will be extremely good at accomplishing its goals. However, if those goals aren’t aligned with ours as humankind, we have a problem.

Data as the New Gold

When speaking about ethics, a major issue lies in the collection and use of Big Data. Recognising that two points of data are connected, is not enough. The system must ask why one-point affects another. Moreover, data is deeply personal. We would not want others to access the digital ‘model’ — our Facebook or Google account — that defines us. Therefore, it must be fortified. As Joanna Bryson muses, legal frameworks with a heavy focus on AI ethics must protect this data from being bargained as an asset. Companies need to carry out a risk-assessment, reinforce their servers and take every precaution to ensure their cyber-security is defended. Furthermore, questions surrounding who owns the user’s data are necessary in the groundwork of protecting the user. So is the psychology behind how you are using it.

Related to data is algorithmic transparency and the ‘black box’ problem. AI needs to be built capable of explaining its steps. As McKinsey Global Institute discovered in their research, some companies made a trade-off opting for a slightly less performant AI because they favoured explainability. Otherwise they could end up with situations similar to that of Sarah Wysocki .

Ms Wysocki, a fifth-grade teacher, who despite being praised by students, parents and administrators alike, was fired because the algorithm decided that her performance was sub-par. Other biases emerging from data include considerable job losses suffered by African-American men due to such processing of data. Another instance is of dark-skinned patients being falsely ‘imaged’ to be healthier, with the subsequent risk of further aggravating their health issues. Against the rise of a ‘digital technocracy’, which masks itself as post-racial and merit-driven but is essentially likely to judge a person’s value based on racial identity, gender, class and social worth, Pope Francis’ call to ecological conversion sounds even stronger.

Seven Principles for discussing AI ethics

The High-Level Ethics group of the European Commission speaks of 7 principles when discussing AI ethics. I would like to outline the principles as a conclusion to this article:

1. Human agency and Oversight: AIs should support individuals in making better and more informed choices in accordance with their goals. One can achieve oversight by ensuring overseeing of the work by a human person, either ‘in’ every decision cycle, ‘on-loop’ intervenes during the design cycle and monitors or ‘in command’ overseeing overall activity;
2. Technical robustness and safety: AIs need to be resilient against both overt and more subtle attacks to manipulate data or algorithms themselves;
3. Privacy and data governance: The user remains the owner and controller of the data;
4. Transparency and Explainability: It is important to log and document the decisions of the system while the AI is able to explain such decisions. Moreover, the AI needs to be capable of communicating such decisions;
5. Diversity, Non-Discrimination and Fairness: All stakeholders need to be consulted and represented;
6. Societal and Environmental well-being: The use of AI systems should be given careful consideration particularly in situations relating to the democratic process, including opinion-formation, political decision-making or electoral contexts;
7. Accountability: On this principle, I tend to agree with Tom Strange who says that humans must remain accountable for every AI decision. According to Bryson, the human has the onus on what code is written, as well as when, why and by whom, and on which software and data libraries are used. Thus, it is the responsibility of the organisations to monitor AIs.

Living in a shared home

In conclusion, while reading these principles, I cannot help but hear once again Pope Francis’ recommendations on ecological conversion. He suggests that we move away from a technocratic paradigm which seeks unlimited progress at all costs, and start looking at our world as a shared home. We need to convert our way of thinking, policies, lifestyle and spirituality  so as to thread carefully into the future, while being neither luddites nor blind technophobes. Is my decision other-focused?

The post What Is Artificial Intelligence? – Myths, Robots, Ethics appeared first on Universe of Faith.