Article
AI
Comment
4 min read

It's our mistakes that make us human

What we learn distinguishes us from tech.

Silvianne Aspray is a theologian and postdoctoral fellow at the University of Cambridge.

A man staring at a laptop grimmaces and holds his hands to his head.
Francisco De Legarreta C. on Unsplash.

The distinction between technology and human beings has become blurry: AI seems to be able to listen, answer our questions, even respond to our feelings. It becomes increasingly easy to confuse machines with humans. In this situation, it is increasingly important to ask: What makes us human, in distinction from machines? There are many answers to this question, but for now I would like to focus on just one aspect of what I think is distinctively human: As human beings, we live and learn in time.  

To be human means to be intrinsically temporal. We live in time and are oriented towards a future good. We are learning animals, and our learning is bound up with the taking of time. When we learn to know or to do something, we necessarily make mistakes, and we take practice. But keeping in view something we desire – a future good – we keep going.  

Let’s take the example of language. We acquire language in community over time. Toddlers make all sorts of hilarious mistakes when they first try to talk, and it takes them a long time even to get single words right, let alone to try and form sentences. But they keep trying, and they eventually learn. The same goes with love: Knowing how to love our family or our neighbours near and far is not something we are good at instantly. It is not the sort of learning where you absorb a piece of information and then you ‘get’ it. No, we learn it over time, we imitate others, we practice and even when we have learned, in the abstract, what it is to be loving, we keep getting it wrong. 

This, too, is part of what it means to be human: to make mistakes. Not the sort of mistakes machines make, when they classify some information wrongly, for instance, but the very human mistake of falling short of your own ideal. Of striving towards something you desire – happiness, in the broadest of terms – and yet falling short, in your actions, of that very goal. But there’s another very human thing right here: Human beings can also change. They – we – can have a change of heart, be transformed, and at some point in time, actually start to do the right thing – even against all the odds. Statistics of past behaviours, do not always correctly predict future outcomes. Part of being human means that we can be transformed.  

Transformation sometimes comes suddenly, when an overwhelming, awe-inspiring experience changes somebody’s life as by a bolt of lightning. Much more commonly, though, such transformation takes time. Through taking up small practices, we can form new habits, gradually acquire virtue, and do the right thing more often than not. This is so human: We are anything but perfect. As Christians would say: We have a tendency to entangle ourselves in the mess of sin and guilt. But we also bear the image of the Holy One who made us, and by the grace and favour of that One, we are not forever stuck in the mess. We are redeemed: are given the strength to keep trying, despite the mistakes we make, and given the grace to acquire virtue and become better people over time. All of this to say that being human means to live in time, and to learn in time. 

So, this is a real difference between human beings and machines: Human beings can, and do strive toward a future good. 

Now compare this to the most complex of machines. We say that AI is able to “learn”. But what does it mean to learn, for AI? Machine learning is usually categorized into supervised learning, unsupervised and self-supervised learning. Supervised learning means that a model is trained for a specific task based on correctly labelled data. For instance, if a model is to predict whether a mammogram image contains a cancerous tumour, it is given many example images which are correctly classed as ‘contains cancer’ or ‘does not contain cancer’. That way, it is “taught” to recognise cancer in unlabelled mammograms. Unsupervised learning is different. Here, the system looks for patterns in the dataset it is given. It clusters and groups data without relying on predefined labels. Self-supervised learning uses both methods: Here, the system uses parts of the data itself as a kind of label – such as, for instance, predicting the upper half of an image from its lower half, or the next word in a given text. This is the predominant paradigm for how contemporary large-scale AI models “learn”.  

In each case, AI’s learning is necessarily based on data sets. Learning happens with reference to pre-given data, and in that sense with reference to the past. It may look like such models can consider the future, and have future goals, but only insofar as they have picked up patterns in past data, which they use to predict future patterns – as if the future was nothing but a repetition of the past.  

So this is a real difference between human beings and machines: Human beings can, and do strive toward a future good. Machines, by contrast, are always oriented towards the past of the data that was fed to them. Human beings are intrinsically temporal beings, whereas machines are defined by temporality only in a very limited sense: it takes time to upload data, and for the data to be processed, for instance. Time, for machines, is nothing but an extension of the past, whereas for human beings, it is an invitation to and the possibility for being transformed for the sake of a future good. We, human beings, are intrinsically temporal, living in time towards a future good – which machines do not.  

In the face of new technologies we need a sharpened sense for the strange and awe-inspiring species that is the human race, and cultivate a new sense of wonder about humanity itself.  

Snippet
Care
Comment
Community
Mental Health
2 min read

Who holds the vital ingredient as healthcare shifts from hospital to community?

The trusted anchor institutions that can provide pastoral care and more.

Esther works as a Senior Consultant for the Good Faith Partnership. She sits in the secretariat for the ChurchWorks Commission.

A social prescribing project in full swing.
A social prescribing project in full swing.
Theos.

On 11 November, the Good Faith Partnership, the National Academy of Social Prescribing (NASP) and the Bishop of London convened a roundtable discussion in the House of Lords to call for a collaborative relationship between faith groups and NHS social prescribing providers. 

Faith leaders from the major religions in the UK gathered alongside senior officials such as from the Department for Health and Social Care, NHS England and arm’s length bodies.  

‘There are lots of exciting opportunities with a new government in place,’ said Charlotte Osborn-Forde, CEO of NASP, adding that as part of her desire to see social prescribing available in NHS services beyond GP surgeries ‘there are huge and untapped assets in communities.’  

Marianne Rozario from Theos, the lead researcher on a groundbreaking new report on faith and social prescribing, elaborated, saying that faith groups are trusted anchor institutions in local communities that are well networked, offer resources in the form of buildings and volunteers, and have expertise in pastoral and spiritual care.  

Mark Joannides, Deputy Director for Community Health in the Department of Health and Social Care, added that: ‘Faith groups are going to have to be part of this,’ when referring to the government’s health mission and the three big shifts from hospital to community, analogue to digital, and sickness to prevention.  

The conversation focused on how this integration could take place, particularly through securing shared investment funds for faith groups, co-locating healthcare services into faith buildings, and integrating faith groups into the NHS 10-year healthcare plan. 

A range of ideas were shared by those present including the importance of investing in faith groups to provide palliative care, focusing on reducing health inequalities, and investing in local infrastructure.  

On 30 January, Good Faith Partnership and Theos will publish the first ever report into the role of faith communities in the social prescribing system. This timely report collates research into the role of faith groups in social prescribing and aims to facilitate further discussion on how collaboration between faith groups and the NHS can support the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. Alongside the report, two ‘How To’ guides will be published, providing faith leaders and social prescribing link workers with a step-by-step process for building relationships with one another.  

To hear more about the research recommendations, explore next steps and to access the practical ‘how-to’ guides register for a free hour-long webinar on 30 January using this link: 

Join with us - Behind the Seen

Seen & Unseen is free for everyone and is made possible through the generosity of our amazing community of supporters.

If you’re enjoying Seen & Unseen, would you consider making a gift towards our work?

Alongside other benefits (book discounts etc.), you’ll receive an extra fortnightly email from me sharing what I’m reading and my reflections on the ideas that are shaping our times.

Graham Tomlin

Editor-in-Chief