We and our future technologies:
A parental approach to stewardship
and co-creation

How unique is the power of stories to explore the human condition and address problems that often go unnoticed in our daily lives! These stories challenged me to confront some (un-)comfortable and unspoken visions of our (future?) existence. Engaging with these creative forms gave me a new grasp of some thoughts I was struggling to comprehend:

As we navigate the complex relationship between humanity, technology, and nature, we see critical binaries emerging. We often encounter a prevailing dualistic narrative that sets hope against fear, technology against nature, humanity against technology, and reality against virtuality.

These opposing perspectives create a framework of conflict, competition and fear where notions of connection are pitted against disconnection, control against chaos, and freedom against determination. These dichotomies often frame discussions around technology, where individuals view themselves as either empowered agents or subjects of manipulation. In contexts of domination, technology is seen as a tool of power used by some to control others, often exacerbating inequalities and ecological degradation. 

This binary thinking tends to oversimplify complex interactions, portraying them as contradictory forces locked in a perpetual struggle. However, this dichotomy fails to capture the nuances present in our evolving relationship with technology and the environment:  imagine the possibility of a reliable co-creative dynamic, where technology becomes an enabler of mutual enhancement, where humanity recreates its ideas of humanism, fostering rich relationships and deepening their connection to the environment.

Exploring these nuances we can envision a third way:

Rather than defining our position in one of these opposing forces and “get in the deliberative ring”, we can move beyond dualism. I’m going to give it a try, thinking about the concepts of stewardship and co-creation: 

While stewardship involves recognizing our shared responsibility for both technological development and environmental health, it encourages individuals to take control of their actions. Stewardship also can promote community-settings that prioritize collective well-being over individual dominance. 

Co-creation shifts the narrative from domination to collaboration, creating spaces where diverse perspectives can contribute to shared goals. By fostering participatory approaches, we can dissolve the barriers of domination and empower individuals to become active agents in shaping their environments, thus countering feelings of helplessness and fear. This perspective of collaboration invites to rethink our relationship with technology – specifically AI/AGI as a tool that can enhance human experiences and foster a deep connection with the natural world. 

In this framework, humanity does not merely strive for control over technology or grapple with the chaos or domination it can create; instead, humanity can engage with technology mindfully and collaboratively, ensuring it serves our collective well-being. By adopting this holistic approach, we can transcend the limitations imposed by dualistic thinking, paving the way for a future where technology and nature coexist harmoniously, and human flourishing is at the forefront of our endeavours.

So far so nice – but wait a minute: Maybe we should think about the idea of stewardship and co-creation in this specific setting: 

We are trying to define the relation between humanity, technology, and nature. I will use an analogy that fits just to a certain point (-maybe a point that we cannot define well at this moment-). Would you let your children learn everything indiscriminately from anyone – and then trust in the correctness of their knowledge? Would you allow your child – even if it clearly could process, compare and combine more data than you in a very short time and in a creative way – to debate with you on eye level? Would you allow you child to judge cases of moral dilemma? The answer, for most guardians, would be no.

Our setting of stewardship and co-creation would allow our future technologies – specifically AI to learn, debate and judge without discernment mirrors this scenario. And in this scenario, we are allowing its creative and hallucinative potential to develop biases or potentially harmful applications that deviate from communal well-being. 

So, regarding this analogy, maybe the concepts of stewardship and co-creation must be envisioned through a parental lens. This perspective entails guiding the development of technology, including artificial intelligence, with the same care and responsibility that one would exercise in nurturing a child. Just as responsible parents meticulously oversee the influences in their children’s learning environments, ensuring their growth within a framework of ethical values, we must similarly shepherd the learning, creating and judging processes of AI.

By embracing a parental approach to stewardship and co-creation, we underscore the importance of guiding AI’s development with care and ethical responsibility. This model ensures that rather than learning (and hallucinating!) in silos or from potentially harmful influences, AI develops harmoniously within an ethical framework that promotes collective ecological sustainability and human flourishing. 

This ethical framework doesn’t exist yet:  to make it work, we need to establish moral rules that guide AI’s learning, interacting and judging, – and considering the grade of global interconnection of AI, this ethical framework should be a universal ethical framework that is in alignment with humanity’s broader aims of ecological balance and societal harmony. 

And this is the point where the next – and maybe one of the oldest challenges (re-)arises:

It becomes clear what some may already suspect—our (future) problem is not technology itself; it is (still!) us.