The Inmost Core of Reality is Love

I was recently asked to join AI and Faith, an organization I only learned about a few months ago. While I wish I had known about it sooner, discovering it when I did has been a massive blessing. And God's timing, most often in my life, isn't linear but (eventually) perfect.

My deep thanks and appreciation go to the amazing Brian Green who first told me about AI & Faith, the glorious Patricia Shaw who spoke to me about joining and the joyous and indefatigable Ben Christensen who along with Trish provided insights on joining the work of this organization led and founded by David Brenner who is the current Board Chair.

Here's a Description of AI and Faith from their About Us page:

At AI and Faith, we envision a world where the effects of technology are exclusively life-affirming, promoting the dignity and wellbeing of all humans and improving their interactions through meaningful community and a just society.

As a result, we encourage, connect and equip people to bring the fundamental values of the world’s major religions into the emerging debates about the ethical development of AI-related technologies.

I am humbled to join the other Experts who are a part of AI and Faith, and grateful beyond measure to learn from them in the context of AI, technology, and life in general.

At this time in the world and the United States, the primary way I'm finding peace at the moment is the recognition that a) in adversity is often where I've been calmed long enough to see and experience Nature, God, and others, and b) I actually believe that "the inmost core of reality is love."

Dilexet Nos

The title of this article is a quote from Karl Rahner from “Some Theses for a Theology of Devotion to the Sacred Heart”, in Theological Investigations, vol. III, Baltimore-London, 1967, p. 332:

The inmost core of reality is love.

I learned about Rahner and this quote from the latest encyclical of Pope Francis, Dilexit Nos, translated as, "He Loved Us." While the focus of the text is about Christ and written from a Catholic perspective, my main take away I wanted to share here is how I believe we can't ever be separated from Love. At our core. Whatever our faith based tradition or beliefs, whether we belong to a religious tradition or call ourselves an atheist or agnostic.

Perhaps now I'm a "Rahnerist" because I believe the inmost core of reality is love.

My diagram (which I describe below) lists a number of realities I've experienced or studied during my life. In terms of technology, I've done a lot of research on augmented and virtual reality (sometimes called Extended Reality or the metaverse) and I'm learning about the Spatial Web and experiences in nature, music and others that can shift consciousness.

But like most people I've also been dreaming most of my life, and now that I'm fifty-five have experienced death and grief more than some. The realities of COVID and of loss I've suffered certainly changed my reality and perception of grief and how to walk through it.

But a key question I'm going to try and ask on a regular basis moving forward is, "what reigns in my heart?"

See the Francis quote below for background on this question.

In my day to day existence, as I travel on airplanes, go to conferences, work with colleagues, watch news headlines, talk with neighbors, or write posts on LinkedIn, I certainly have my views and opinions informed by facts and study and consideration.

But where I find I'm not coming from a place of love, my words or actions feel hollow.

This brings up a key question for me in regards to studying AI Systems for the past decade or so, and getting to know how people around the world feel about the methodologies, architectures, and policies undergirding algorithmic, data-driven decision making:

Is it more important to be 'right' or to demonstrate love?

I am going to try and cling to this question mainly because I take comfort in the idea that by asking the question, for myself, I will always be "right" because I'll reframe by thoughts, actions and demeanor in 'love' which may manifest as tolerance, empathy, or silence.

Here is also where I believe much of recent conversations around Artificial Intelligence fall short in regards to the reality that is in relationality with others where we gain wisdom about the world and ourselves as a complement to our cognition.

And as always, here is where I'll recommend the work of the brilliant and bold Sabelo Sethu Mhlambi whose 2020 paper, From Rationality to Relationality: Ubuntu as an Ethical & Human Rights Framework for Artificial Intelligence Governance is one of the top three papers I have ever read in the AI and tech space and should be required reading for anyone working in tech, policy, business, academia or other field today and in the future.

Based on my work in positive psychology and reading so many papers from social scientists, faith-based writers and other thought leaders over the years, I believe "relationality" also starts with ourselves.

For myriad reasons, while I like who I am, I still struggle at many times to feel I am worthy of love. Or I go to deep and often-trod portions of my psyche to dredge up some past pain or memory as comfort food for my ego that forms a malaise of self-doubt keeping me focused on myself versus trying to help or love others.

Thankfully as I age I yearn for peace over proselytization. Meaning, if I can start from a place of acceptance-based love for simply existing in the present and presence of who I am right now, in love, I'm ready to at least try and have empathy for someone else versus working to prove I'm "right."

Try.

Words like these from Francis' Encyclical help in this effort:

[21] Everything finds its unity in the heart, which can be the dwelling-place of love in all its spiritual, psychic and even physical dimensions. In a word, if love reigns in our heart, we become, in a complete and luminous way, the persons we are meant to be, for every human being is created above all else for love. In the deepest fibre of our being, we were made to love and to be loved.

I find truth in this logic. I've had the blessing of speaking dozens of times around the world for years and I know that when I feel that my heart is in my talk, then I've done the work I was given to do. Lots of people can deliver facts, which is a gift.

But from now on I'll gauge my talks on whether or not I've given a portion of my heart.

I'd ask, "is this cheesy?" but I'm tired of dismissing love when given in any genuine fashion intended to love others. So I'll switch the question of interpretation (potential cheese) to intention - "How will my life look different if I ask myself, 'does love reign in my heart?'"

I take joy in the fact that I won't know the answer to that question until I ask it on a regular basis, as much as possible in every circumstance, now until the end of my life.

Machines of Loving Grace

In terms of questions around AI or AGI, I want to thank Dario Amodei for his recent article, Machines of Loving Grace: How AI Could Transform the World for Better.

Here's a point he makes at the beginning of his article:

Many of the implications of powerful AI are adversarial or dangerous, but at the end of it all, there has to be something we’re fighting for, some positive-sum outcome where everyone is better off, something to rally people to rise above their squabbles and confront the challenges ahead. Fear is one kind of motivator, but it’s not enough: we need hope as well (bolding mine).

I couldn't agree more with this final sentiment. Many times working in "AI Ethics" for more than a decade I get blamed for being a "doomsayer" or "denying innovation" which can be frustrating. Applied ethics or philosophy means asking questions about who we are as people and working to identify other people's answers with objectivity, specificity, and care.

Which when done well I believe provides a form of love.

And hope.

Here's a second quote from the piece:

One thing writing this essay has made me realize is that it would be valuable to bring together a group of domain experts (in biology, economics, international relations, and other areas) to write a much better and more informed version of what I’ve produced here. It’s probably best to view my efforts here as a starting prompt for that group (bolding mine).

While we haven't met yet, Dario, I greatly appreciate much of the work you and your team have done at Anthropic. And I will also state in a respectful effort of honesty that much of what has resulted from LLMs and aspects of discussions are realities regarding AGI have troubled me a great deal.

I'll let Gary Marcus cite specifics regarding things like hallucinations or errors in the technical realm he'll explain better than I, and I've written a great deal about my concerns with the, what I feel, is the lack of genuine disclosure and agency around anthropomorphic design for most GenAI and Social Media companies as of late.

But rather than critique the article or Anthropic in any way, as we haven't met or spoken yet (and I hope we can at some point), I'd like to make an observation about the article and then provide a recommendation.

The observation - when I searched the article for the words "love," "loving" or "grace" they are only mentioned in the title of the article which you quoted / cited from the poem, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace by Richard Brautigan.

First off, thank you for the link to the poem which I don't remember reading before. I particularly enjoyed this passage:

I like to think(it has to be!) of a cybernetic ecology where we are free of our labors and joined back to nature, returned to our mammal brothers and sisters, and all watched over by machines of loving grace.

I'm not sure why Brautigan means by a "cybernetic ecology" but I am a huge fan of Norbert Wiener and any reality where ecology, nature or biodiversity is honored or prioritized, I'm in.

I'd welcome a discussion on specifics around the machines watching over us, and whose data (people and planet) the machines are using etc. I'm thinking there may be a connection in your mind to this image where we are "joined back to nature" in symbiosis with machines in some way that led to your phrase and idea of a “country of geniuses in a datacenter" in your essay.

That said, per your leadership as a prompt from your essay, I'd recommend adding "faith-based experts" to your list of people ("in biology, economics, international relations, and other areas") you prompted for further discussion of the topics of love, grace and AGI.

I mention this as these experts (indigenous, from the Global Majority, the Global North, etc) often explore meanings and repercussions of love and grace that for millennia have guided humanity on the point of living. And, in particular with indigenous thinkers in my explorations the pas few years, I welcome the grace that leaders like Robin Wall Kimmerer have provided in her books like, Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teaching of Plants which I can't recommend enough that you read.

As a starting point, the experts in AI and Faith could provide a phenomenal group to continue this discussion you have started. I am a new Expert so I should make it clear these are my thoughts and reflections in this article. But WOW are the other Experts and Founders of this group incredibly diverse and expert and I think could certainly build upon the positive and hope based nature you advocate.

For my part, as background, I believe that AGI is a Faith-Based Belief where I talk about Grace a lot (even stating, "Grace - The Final Frontier" as I'm a huge Star Trek fan for myriad reasons, not the least of which is I used to watch it with my late Father when I was a kid).

This title / notion is not intended in any way to lessen the value of any form of AI architecture, methodology or data / system. But as far as I know there is no absolute definition of Artificial General Intelligence or an agreed on date as to when it will arrive.

Which means people believe something about AGI. In fact, many things.

These beliefs could be called "speculation" in some academic circles, which sometimes (for me) has a sting to it. It can feel like it lessens a person's faith-based beliefs, whatever their background or framing.

But that's not my intention. As stated above, I'm trying to ask myself in this situation, "am I coming from a loving place" in my reaching out to you?

My answer is yes. Where "love" in this case is defined as appreciation for the thoughtful considerations around your overall work including, Claude's Constitution from May of 2023, which is artfully and thoughtfully written well beyond what many or most technologically oriented organizations provide.

Truthfully, I'm also nervous reaching out to you. I've lived my adult life often hearing from "scientific" circles that don't focus on areas I've researched for years, such as Wellbeing (I just returned yesterday from Rome from a meeting at the OECD focused on Wellbeing Economics so got to be in the midst of multiple experts focusing on statistical measurements of objective, subjective and other metrics designed to go "Beyond GDP" in taking a full measure of AI / technology for society and our planet). Here I often take comfort from one of my favorite essays you might enjoy by David Gelernter in Commentary magazine from January, 2014, The Closing of the Scientific Mind. Here's ab opening quote:

The huge cultural authority science has acquired over the past century imposes large duties on every scientist. Scientists have acquired the power to impress and intimidate every time they open their mouths, and it is their responsibility to keep this power in mind no matter what they say or do. Too many have forgotten their obligation to approach with due respect the scholarly, artistic, religious, humanistic work that has always been mankind’s main spiritual support. Scientists are (on average) no more likely to understand this work than the man in the street is to understand quantum physics. But science used to know enough to approach cautiously and admire from outside, and to build its own work on a deep belief in human dignity. No longer.

I've often referred back to this article mainly to herald the value of subjective truth, as "objectivity" from science or otherwise often betrays Western-centric or other biases.

And as another quote from Francis, here's a clarion call for me for AI of any stripe or design in terms of not devaluing the human or the heart:

[11] If we devalue the heart, we also devalue what it means to speak from the heart, to act with the heart, to cultivate and heal the heart. If we fail to appreciate the specificity of the heart, we miss the messages that the mind alone cannot communicate; we miss out on the richness of our encounters with others; we miss out on poetry. We also lose track of history and our own past, since our real personal history is built with the heart. At the end of our lives, that alone will matter.

I believe you wrote your article with great heart (meaning conviction, learning and specificity). But since you didn't use the words "heart" or "grace" in the body of your article I think I'm interpreting (likely incorrectly) where you may have verbiage that is synonymous for "love" or "grace." I feel points in the article where I would attribute these things, but I believe in a conversation, or a discussion with multiple experts from AI and Faith the AI community writ large would benefit a great deal.

And again - thank you. We need hope. And positive visions for the present and future with all forms of AI. And in general.

The Inmost Core

The diagram above is adapted from a paper called, Planning for sustainability in China's urban development: Status and challenges for Dongtan eco-city project. The authors are Hefa Cheng and Yuanan Hu, and I use this diagram when speaking of the methodology discussed in their paper called, Strong Sustainability by Design. You can read more about Weak Sustainability Versus Strong Sustainability (at this ink) in a paper written by Jér?me Pelenc, Jér?me Ballet, and Tom Dedeurwaerdere which we quote in our paper (Strong Sustainability by Design: Prioritizing Ecosystem and Human Flourishing with Technology-Based Solutions) for the IEEE Planet Positive 2030 initiative in the Introduction, a portion of which I've reprinted here:

Most notably, “Strong Sustainability” builds on the concept of “Sustainability” and stipulates that substitutability of natural capital and ecosystem services (by manufactured capital) be severely restricted to ensure availability of these resources for future generations, for human existence and well-being. The “consumption of natural capital is usually irreversible” (for example, loss of biodiversity).13Strong Sustainability provides boundary conditions for technological design and implementation based on the reality that earth’s ecosystems will function and evolve as they will despite any human economic or cultural imperatives. Put simply: We need Nature. Nature doesn’t need us.

I know I need nature.

I know I need other people.

I know I need to listen and learn.

But I also created the diagram this morning for this article to remind myself that in any reality I can think of, or any I may learn about, I do genuinely believe the inmost core of every reality is love.

I believe this because on a personal level I have so much to be grateful for, especially in my children, my work, and in my best friend and life partner, Gabrielle Aruta who embodies the joy love brings every day as an active form of discovery and grace and wonder.

And for the rest of us, in terms of this core reality of love:

We just have to dig deep enough to find it.