Artificial intelligence is a hot topic these days, and just about everyone seems to be chiming in on whether it marks the next major step in technological advancement or a leap over the cliff toward the destruction of the human race. I will not be adding my voice to the noise, at least not at this point. But recently my brother sent me a very interesting dialog between ChatGPT, one of the most well-known and widely used AI applications, and evolutionary biologist and famous evangelist of atheism Richard Dawkins.
In this discussion Dawkins posed a simple question to ChatGPT: Are you conscious? For many this is a serious area of concern. Do machines have the capability of genuine thought? Can they become conscious? Are they, or can they ever be persons? To answer this question, Dawkins and others applied a test known as the Turing Test, named after its creator, Alan Turing. Essentially it says that if a human being, engaging in a conversation with a machine, cannot distinguish the machine from a human, then it is reasonable to consider the machine to be intelligent.
Dawkins said that he believes ChatGPT passes the Turing Test, because it can carry on an intelligent conversation with you in such a way that you would not be able to prove it was a machine and not a person. For its part, ChatGPT denied that it is conscious, even if it does pass the Turing Test, since consciousness implies more than just external behavior. Consciousness, as defined by this AI bot includes subjective experiences, emotions, and self-awareness.
For Dawkins, the fact that a computer program might be conscious, is sufficient reason to act with caution in applying the ethics of personhood to a machine, but the fact that a human child is developing in his mother’s womb is not sufficient cause to apply personal ethics to him.
Now before we get any further into the weeds of the conversation between Dawkins and ChatGPT, let me say that my purpose in this post is not to discuss or debate the question of consciousness (any further). I am just trying to explain the context in which a particular comment by Dawkins caught my eye. At one point in the discussion with ChatGPT, Dawkins said this:
I do think we should err on the side of caution when it comes to ethical decisions on the treatment of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) which might be an Artificial Consciousness (AC). Already, although I THINK you are not conscious, I FEEL that you are. And this conversation has done nothing to lessen that feeling!
When I read this, I sent my brother a message saying, “Clearly, then, Richard Dawkins is pro-life.” If he feels that we should err on the side of personhood with respect to a machine that has been programmed to learn and speak like a human being, then certainly he would agree that we should err on the side of personhood when it comes to children in the womb. Right? Sadly, he is quite inconsistent on this point (not surprising, I know, but please bear with me).
In another article on the topic of abortion and defeating pro-life arguments, Dawkins states that the popular slogan, “My body, my choice!” will not be convincing to anyone who believes that life begins at conception. He is quite right about that! So he says that the pro-abortionists must change their approach: “We have to persuade them out of their fallacious belief, their passionate conviction that human personhood begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder.” For Dawkins, the fact that a computer program might be conscious, is sufficient reason to act with caution in applying the ethics of personhood to a machine, but the fact that a human child is developing in his mother’s womb is not sufficient cause to apply personal ethics to him. Wow!
What came to my mind almost immediately upon reading this statement by Dawkins was a chapter in a book of Christian apologetics that I read in college. In addressing the question of whether a human fetus is a person, the authors, Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino, share an illustration from philosopher Peter Kreeft. It’s an imaginary discussion between an abortionist named Herrod and Socrates.
Herrod: They [the pro-life supporters] claim to know what they really do not know: that the fetus is a human person from the moment of conception.
Socrates: And you–you do not claim to know that it isn’t?
Herrod: No. There is my advantage and my wisdom. I do not claim to know what I do not know. They do. They are the dogmatists. Theologians, philosophers and scientists have argued about this for many years without agreeing. It is clear dogmatism for anyone to claim certainty about such a moot point….We simply do not know when the fetus becomes a human person. Anyone who claims to know is a fool because he claims to know what he does not know.
Socrates: You do not know whether the fetus is a person, correct?
Herrod: Correct.
Socrates: And your work here is to kill fetuses, correct?
Herrod: Socrates, I am continually shocked by the language you choose to use. I abort unwanted pregnancies.
Socrates: By killing fetuses or by something else?
Herrod: (Sigh.) By killing fetuses.
Socrates: Not knowing whether they are persons or not?
Herrod: Oh. Well…
Socrates: You said a moment ago that you did not know when the fetus became a person. Do you know now?
Herrod: No.
Socrates: Then you kill fetuses, not knowing whether they are persons or not?
Herrod: If you must put it that way.
Socrates: Now, what would you say of a hunter who shot at a sudden movement in a bush, not knowing whether it was a deer or a fellow hunter? Would you call him wise or foolish?
Herrod: Are you saying I am a murderer?
Socrates: I am only saying one question at a time. Shall I repeat the question?
Herrod: No.
Socrates: Then will you answer it?
Herrod: (Sigh.) All right. Such a hunter is foolish, Socrates.
Socrates: And why is he foolish?
Herrod: You never stop, do you?
Socrates: No. Wouldn’t you say he is foolish because he claims to know what he does not know, namely, that it is only a deer and not his fellow hunter in the bush?
Herrod: I suppose so.
Socrates: Or suppose a company were to fumigate a building with a highly toxic chemical to kill some insect pests, and you were responsible for evacuating the building first. If you were unsure whether there were any people in the building and you nevertheless gave the order to fumigate the building, would that act be wise or foolish?
Herrod: Foolish, of course.
Socrates: Why? Is it not because you would be acting as if you knew something you really did not know, namely, that there were no people in the building?
Herrod: Yes.
Socrates: And now you, Doctor. You kill fetuses–by whatever means, it does not matter; it may be by a gun or a poison. And you say that you do not know whether they are human persons. Is this not to act as if you knew what you admit you do not know? And is that not folly–in fact, the height of folly, rather than wisdom?
Herrod: I suppose you want me to meekly say, “Yes, indeed Socrates. Anything you say, Socrates.”
Socrates: Can you defend yourself against the argument?
Herrod: No.
Socrates: It has indeed devoured you like a shark, as surely as you devour fetuses.1
1Peter Kreeft, The Unaborted Socrates (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1983), 69-72 cited by Normal Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakable Foundations (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001), 377-378.