The Go match between AlphaGo and Lee Sedol is used to discuss the impact of the rapid development of artificial intelligence on humans, the value neutrality of science and technology, and the responsibilities of scientists and users.
Many years ago, the Go match between AlphaGo and Lee Sedol was the game of the century between an artificial intelligence and a human representative, capturing the attention of the world. Most experts believed that AI was not yet advanced enough to defeat the brain of the “God of Go,” Lee Sedol. Lee himself was confident of victory. But those who watched the first game were stunned. AlphaGo defied all expectations, surpassing even the predictions of those who thought it would win. AlphaGo continued to dominate in the second and third games, sealing the victory, and Lee Sedol, after giving it everything he had, was able to squeak out a win in the fourth game.
AlphaGo’s dominance was both a marvel and a concern for the state of artificial intelligence. This was due to the uncertainty of what would happen when AI, which was considered to be in its infancy, surpassed humans not only in Go but also in other fields. The outcome depends on how AI technology is ‘utilized’, as it can be used positively to make our lives easier or help solve environmental problems, but it can also be misused to eliminate or dominate humans, just like in the movies.
In this way, science and technology cannot be considered good or bad, right or wrong, and its value is determined by the way it is utilized. This is called the value neutrality of science and technology. The social responsibility of scientists and engineers related to value neutrality is a topic that has emerged as science and technology have developed rapidly. There are two main positions on this issue. There are two main positions: that those who utilize the technology are more responsible for its side effects than the scientists who develop it, and that scientists are responsible for anticipating and preventing side effects from the time they develop the technology. Neither position is easy to determine, and it is clear that both developers and users of technology have responsibilities. However, leaning on the value-neutrality definition of science and technology, it is also clear that the direction of use plays a large role in determining the weight of this responsibility.
Have you ever heard of Fritz Haber? He was a German chemist who is famous for developing the Haber-Bosch method of synthesizing ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen. This method allowed for the mass production of food, which greatly contributed to solving the food problem of a burgeoning population. On the other hand, Haber was also at the forefront of the development and deployment of poison gas during World War I, a role for which he is still criticized to this day.
Harbor’s work on poison gas is an example of a malicious use of a technology that was created with malicious intent. However, technologies developed with malicious intent are not necessarily used for their intended purpose. The microwave oven, which we find very useful for reheating cold food or cooking quick, instant meals, had a very different origin as a war radar.
From the above examples, it’s hard to say that “Haber’s synthesis of ammonia is good, and his work on poison gas is bad.” The value judgment between solving food shortages with the Haber-Bosch method and producing lethal weapons based on poison gas research is clear. Everyone can see that the former is a positive outcome and the latter is a negative outcome. However, judgments about these outcomes should not be equated with judgments about the research that led to them or the scientists who conducted them. Ammonia can be used as a fertilizer for plants, but it is a toxin for humans. Imagine if the Haber-Bosch Act had been used to produce weapons instead of fertilizer. And what if Harbor’s work on poison gas had been used to prevent such harm, rather than to create mass destruction? The same can be said for microwaves. If it had been used as a war radar, as it was originally intended, it would have been a technology that killed countless people, rather than a technology that brought convenience to everyday life. The fact that the microwave originated with the intention of being used for its current purpose does not make its use any more positive. Therefore, since the evaluation of a technology is based on how and where it is used, it can be argued that its use is more responsible than its development.
However, this does not mean that scientists are not responsible for the technologies they develop. Even if a technology is created to benefit humanity, if it is used as a weapon that threatens some people, the scientist cannot escape the responsibility of creating it. This may be harsh on the scientist, but putting their technology out into the world is like putting a rock in the hands of a group of monkeys. Depending on their choices, the stone can be a toy, a tool to get food, or a weapon to harm other monkeys. The monkey is responsible for the choices it makes after picking up the stone because they are the result of its will, but the primary responsibility lies with the person who gave it to it.
So, what attitude should a scientist have when researching and developing science and technology? First of all, we should never conduct research that is malicious in its purpose or intent, especially when it is designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly and simply as possible, such as poison gas or the atomic bomb in World War II. This includes not only weapons that harm people, but also science and technology that harms human dignity, such as creating hacking programs to steal other people’s information for profit, or cloning people or their organs through genetic manipulation. Researching or developing these technologies is like making a sharp rock from scratch and putting it in the hands of a monkey. The more angular the stone, the greater the risk of harming other monkeys with it, so scientists should strive to make the stone as smooth and round as possible.
Another thing that scientists need to be careful about when creating a “stone” of science is that it needs to be the right size. Even if the stone is smooth, if it’s too big, it can become a weapon to throw at other monkeys, and if it’s too small, it’s completely useless. The size of the stone represents the universality of science and technology and the scope of its application. If the scope of a technology is too narrow, such as in a laboratory, the research becomes less valuable, and if the scope is too broad, the risks of the technology become unpredictable. Just as the principle of mass deficit caused by nuclear fusion led to the invention of the atomic bomb, the most destructive weapon in existence.
In this way, scientists can influence and be responsible for the use of the stone of technology. But it is the monkeys who ultimately decide the fate of the stone. A stone, no matter how smooth and seemingly unable to harm anyone, can become a weapon if a monkey grinds it and sharpens it. Or, a brilliant monkey can make an angular stone round and smooth. Therefore, while the scientists who created the technology are certainly responsible, the people who utilize it have a greater influence and responsibility.
Scientists research and develop technologies that they believe will benefit humanity, and when they release them to the world, people use them in their own ways. Some people use it according to the scientists’ intentions, some improve it to make it more effective, and some use it differently from its original purpose. Some people will repurpose the technology in ways that are different from the scientist’s intentions, but just as beneficial to humanity, while others will abuse it. To maintain a balance in this structure, where scientists provide technology and people use it in their own ways, both providers and users need to be responsible. As a provider of technology, you need to hand over the most refined and secure technology possible, a smooth, rounded “stone,” and communicate with them, recognizing that you can always become a “monkey” using another scientist’s stone. And on the receiving end of the technology, the monkeys will need to be careful to use the stones as the monkeys intended, and never to use them as weapons.
