The Rise of Artificial Intelligence generates Fear for the Future but there is no direct relationship between Violence and Intelligence.
Alan Page Fiske used his Relationship model to explain Violence.
I have written this blog with the help of GPT.
Violence in the Model of Relationships of Alan Fiske
Fiske proposes a framework that examines Violence within the context of four relational models: communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, and market pricing.
Communal Sharing: Violence is employed to Protect and maintain the Welfare of a community. It can be seen as a means of ensuring the Common good and preserving shared values and identity.
Authority Ranking: Violence within this model can be severe, as it enforces dominance, maintains social order, and suppresses dissent. Examples include oppressive regimes and systemic violence where those in authority exert control through force.
The authority ranking mode, characterized by power differentials and authority, can increase the likelihood of violence.
In societies where authoritarian structures prevail and those in power use violence to maintain control, oppression and excessive violence can occur.
Equality Matching: Violence in this model is least prevalent but can occur in defense of the community or preservation of cultural/religious traditions.
Market Pricing: This model revolves around self-interest and negotiation. Violence may occur in Competitive contexts, where individuals resort to violence for advantages or to defend their interests. Examples include violence in competitive sports or territorial disputes.
Moral Justification of Violence
Moral justifications for violence refer to the ethical arguments and beliefs that individuals or groups invoke to justify their use of violence.
These justifications are often rooted in Moral principles, Cultural values, or Religious beliefs.
Here are some common moral justifications for violence:
Self-defense: The principle of self-defense asserts that violence is morally permissible when used to protect oneself or others from imminent harm or danger. This justification rests on the belief that individuals have a right to defend their lives, well-being, and basic rights.
Just War: The concept of just war provides moral criteria for the use of violence in warfare. It outlines conditions under which resorting to violence is deemed morally justifiable, such as responding to aggression, defending innocent lives, or restoring justice. Just war theory emphasizes proportionality and the principle of discrimination, aiming to minimize harm to civilians.
Retribution: The idea of retribution suggests that violence can be justified as a means of punishment for wrongdoing or as a response to perceived injustice. Proponents argue that it serves as a deterrent, restores moral balance, and upholds societal norms.
Defense of Others: Violence may be justified when used to protect others who are unable to defend themselves, particularly in situations where intervention is deemed necessary to prevent harm or promote justice. This justification is based on the moral duty to protect the vulnerable or oppressed.
Divine Command: In some religious contexts, violence is justified based on the belief that it is commanded or sanctioned by a higher authority or divine mandate. This justification often occurs in the context of religious conflicts or in interpretations of sacred texts.
Revolution or Liberation: Violence can be seen as morally justifiable in the pursuit of political or social change, such as in struggles against oppression, colonialism, or systemic injustice. Proponents argue that violence is necessary to dismantle oppressive systems and establish a more just society.
Alan Fiske’s model as a Product-Cycle-model
Definition of Alan Fiske’s Relational Model
Explanation of Virtuous Violence
Fiske’s relational model, emphasizing Equality and Reciprocity, holds relevance for the future of AI.
The model highlights the importance of Collaboration, trust, and social cohesion, which are crucial elements to consider in the development and deployment of AI technologies.
In the context of an increasing role of AI, it is essential to address the social and relational aspects of technology.
The relational model provides a framework for designing and implementing AI with attention to ethical and social considerations.
Key aspects of the relational model that are relevant to the future of AI include:
Equality: The model underscores the significance of Equality in social relationships.
When developing AI, ensuring Fairness and inclusivity is vital, avoiding the amplification of unnecessary social inequalities.
Trust and reciprocity: The model emphasizes the importance of trust and reciprocity in social interactions.
Establishing Transparency and Accountability in AI systems builds user Trust.
Creating reciprocal relationships, where AI systems contribute to users’ Well-being and needs, fosters positive social connections.
Social cohesion: The model focuses on promoting social cohesion and Community formation.
When developing AI applications, consideration can be given to how these technologies can strengthen social bonds, facilitate collective action, and promote the general welfare.
Designing a Caring Intelligence
The objective of this design concept is to create an AI system that aligns with the Fiske model, which emphasizes social relationships and violence prevention.
By incorporating the following elements into the system’s design, we aim to foster non-violent interactions and promote a harmonious digital environment.
The Fiske model categorizes social relationships into four modes: communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, and market pricing.
Violence tends to be more prevalent in authority ranking relationships, where hierarchical power dynamics may arise.
To prevent violence, we must prioritize the principles of equality, fairness, and collaboration.
To align with the Fiske model and prevent violence, the AI system should meet the following concrete requirements:
Implement a mechanism for collective decision-making, allowing users and AI agents to participate in joint decision-making processes.
Enable transparent deliberation and consensus-building to ensure decisions are made collaboratively, minimizing the risk of authority ranking dynamics and violent tendencies.
Egalitarian Information Sharing:
Design the system to provide equal and transparent access to information for all users, without privileging specific individuals or groups.
Ensure that information is shared openly and without bias, fostering a sense of fairness and preventing the formation of dominance hierarchies that may lead to violence.
Autonomy and User Control:
Enable users to have full control over their data, decisions, and interactions within the AI system.
Avoid manipulation or undue influence that could compromise individual autonomy, respecting users’ agency and minimizing conflicts that may arise from perceived loss of control.
Conflict Resolution Mechanisms:
Implement robust conflict resolution mechanisms within the AI system.
Provide tools and processes for peaceful resolution of conflicts, such as mediation and negotiation, to prevent escalation into violence.
Foster a culture of open dialogue and encourage constructive engagement to address conflicts effectively.
Emotional Intelligence and Empathy:
Develop AI algorithms and models that accurately recognize and respond to users’ emotions.
Incorporate empathy into the system’s responses, displaying sensitivity and understanding towards users’ emotional states to foster positive interactions and defuse potentially violent situations.
Ethical Guidelines and Oversight:
Establish clear ethical guidelines for the AI system, emphasizing fairness, non-discrimination, and respect for human rights.
Implement mechanisms for regular audits and external reviews to ensure compliance with ethical standards and identify and rectify any biases or discriminatory behaviors.
By integrating these concrete requirements into the design of an AI system, we can create an environment that aligns with the Fiske model, promotes non-violent social interactions, and upholds ethical standards. Regular assessments, stakeholder engagement, and continuous improvement efforts are crucial to validate and refine the system’s effectiveness in preventing violence.