IS A TORAH WRITTEN BY A ROBOT KOSHER?! Would you want to read from one? How about if a SOFER oversaw the process and adding crowns to the letters? Is it like an extension of his own quill? And if it was on kosher parchment....?
One foundational idea in halakha (Jewish law) is that a person creating an item that we use to do a mitzvah, especially a Torah, should be a person! With a Torah scroll the Sofer has to follow laws like going to a mikvah each day he writes a sefer Torah. But don't we use machine made ritual items at others times? Is there a difference between using a washing cup made in a factory before HaMotzi and a robot or droid who one day might sculpt one out of clay?
A theoretical question arose about whether a GOLEM like creature (clay/...or make it metal...animated humanoid) could count in a minyan, after the TALMUD told a tale of Rava "creating a man." Would that humanoid/droid be able to help make the minyan? Would another human being be responsible for murder, if he destroyed it?
Read the following passage. The Talmud assumed RAVA and Rabbi Zeira had the right incantations and texts, to both create and destroy their golem.
A theoretical question arose about whether a GOLEM like creature (clay/...or make it metal...animated humanoid) could count in a minyan, after the TALMUD told a tale of Rava "creating a man." Would that humanoid/droid be able to help make the minyan? Would another human being be responsible for murder, if he destroyed it?
Read the following passage. The Talmud assumed RAVA and Rabbi Zeira had the right incantations and texts, to both create and destroy their golem.
רבא ברא גברא שדריה לקמיה דר' זירא הוה קא משתעי בהדיה ולא הוה קא מהדר ליה אמר ליה מן חבריא את הדר לעפריך
Indeed, Rava created a man, a golem, using forces of sanctity. Rava sent his creation before Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira would speak to him but he would not reply. Rabbi Zeira said to him: You were created by one of the members of the group, one of the Sages. Return to your dust.
Rabbi Zeira said "Return to your dust..." - in other words - he destroys it the same way that it was created. Did he commit murder?!
It depends on how you define "the man" .....or the woman!If it's a man then he just killed someone!
Will we get to the point where robots/androids (think Blade Runner and replicants) become citizens and even Jews?! Read the following sources and think about what's at stake.
It depends on how you define "the man" .....or the woman!If it's a man then he just killed someone!
Will we get to the point where robots/androids (think Blade Runner and replicants) become citizens and even Jews?! Read the following sources and think about what's at stake.
FROM: TABLET MAGAZINE
Sophia, Saudi Arabia’s newest citizen, falls short of the requirements on several fronts: she doesn’t speak Arabic, nor does she give any indication of practicing Islam. But her most glaring violation falls under Article 10, “the term of having normal body and intellect.”
That’s because Sophia is a robot, built by Hanson Robotics and awarded citizenship last week at the Future Investment Initiative summit in Riyadh. Her creator, Dr. David Hanson, claims that she’s “basically alive,” and she’s proved herself savvy enough to petition investors and joke with Jimmy Fallon on The Tonight Show. However, Sophia’s speech and movements are limited, and she more closely resembles a sex doll crossed with a telemarketer than an actual human being.
Nonetheless, as the first artificially intelligent citizen of any country, Sophia raises a number of existential questions. Should machines be considered members of human society? Can a robot have a religion?
“I’d certainly be a lot quicker to offer [robots] citizenship than I would be to offer them religion,” said Rabbi Jack Abramowitz, who has written about artificial intelligence for the Orthodox site Jew in the City. “If they are determined to be intelligent and aware and able to feel and suffer, then they should enjoy the same rights we would give to anybody.”
Rabbi Joe Schwartz disagrees. “Citizenship assumes that you have the capacity to vote in your own interest, and that your interest more or less aligns with the interests of others… That’s not true for a machine,” said Schwartz, rabbi at the Conservative Synagogue on Fifth Avenue. “A machine’s interests, on a very narrow level, are different from [those of] humans. They don’t need oxygen, for example, so why would they care about environmental regulations?”
Both rabbis are skeptical of the concept of a Jewish robot, citing the need for moral discernment. “Even if they have intelligence, it doesn’t mean they have a soul, which is basically the foundation of religion. It’s a spiritual obligation rather than a physical one,” Abramowitz explained.
Sophia, Saudi Arabia’s newest citizen, falls short of the requirements on several fronts: she doesn’t speak Arabic, nor does she give any indication of practicing Islam. But her most glaring violation falls under Article 10, “the term of having normal body and intellect.”
That’s because Sophia is a robot, built by Hanson Robotics and awarded citizenship last week at the Future Investment Initiative summit in Riyadh. Her creator, Dr. David Hanson, claims that she’s “basically alive,” and she’s proved herself savvy enough to petition investors and joke with Jimmy Fallon on The Tonight Show. However, Sophia’s speech and movements are limited, and she more closely resembles a sex doll crossed with a telemarketer than an actual human being.
Nonetheless, as the first artificially intelligent citizen of any country, Sophia raises a number of existential questions. Should machines be considered members of human society? Can a robot have a religion?
“I’d certainly be a lot quicker to offer [robots] citizenship than I would be to offer them religion,” said Rabbi Jack Abramowitz, who has written about artificial intelligence for the Orthodox site Jew in the City. “If they are determined to be intelligent and aware and able to feel and suffer, then they should enjoy the same rights we would give to anybody.”
Rabbi Joe Schwartz disagrees. “Citizenship assumes that you have the capacity to vote in your own interest, and that your interest more or less aligns with the interests of others… That’s not true for a machine,” said Schwartz, rabbi at the Conservative Synagogue on Fifth Avenue. “A machine’s interests, on a very narrow level, are different from [those of] humans. They don’t need oxygen, for example, so why would they care about environmental regulations?”
Both rabbis are skeptical of the concept of a Jewish robot, citing the need for moral discernment. “Even if they have intelligence, it doesn’t mean they have a soul, which is basically the foundation of religion. It’s a spiritual obligation rather than a physical one,” Abramowitz explained.
Taking it back to HALAKHIC history - Sages had questions about the Talmudic passage we learned before.
Did Rabbi Zeira commit murder? Could there be a way to understand this "man" Rava created as a human being?
Did Rabbi Zeira commit murder? Could there be a way to understand this "man" Rava created as a human being?
Tzvi Hirsch ben Yaakov Ashkenazi (Hebrew: צבי אשכנזי; 1656, – May 2, 1718), known as the Chacham Tzvi after his responsa by the same title, served for some time as rabbi of Amsterdam.
THE APPROACH OF THE CHACHAM TZVI 93 (From Judaism & Science):
Was this “man” created by Rava considered human? Was Rabbi Zeira liable for murder?
The biblical term for “human” is often “[one who was] born from a woman,” (Job 14:1,15:14, 25:4) implying that the definition of a human is one who was born from one.
Additionally, Scripture describes murder as “spilling the blood of a human with[in] a human.”(Genesis 9:7) So, NO, not a human!
The question of murder aside, would this “man” be Jewish and could he be counted for a minyan?
The Chacham Tzvi cites the rabbinic teaching that “the works of the righteous are their offspring.” Thus, one might consider a creation of a (righteous) Jew to be Jewish. However, he notes that since Rabbi Zeira did not hesitate to destroy Rava’s creation, it is evident that it was not qualified to count for a minyan. For had there been even a minimal use for this “man,” to destroy it would have been wasteful.
THE APPROACH OF THE CHACHAM TZVI 93 (From Judaism & Science):
Was this “man” created by Rava considered human? Was Rabbi Zeira liable for murder?
The biblical term for “human” is often “[one who was] born from a woman,” (Job 14:1,15:14, 25:4) implying that the definition of a human is one who was born from one.
Additionally, Scripture describes murder as “spilling the blood of a human with[in] a human.”(Genesis 9:7) So, NO, not a human!
The question of murder aside, would this “man” be Jewish and could he be counted for a minyan?
The Chacham Tzvi cites the rabbinic teaching that “the works of the righteous are their offspring.” Thus, one might consider a creation of a (righteous) Jew to be Jewish. However, he notes that since Rabbi Zeira did not hesitate to destroy Rava’s creation, it is evident that it was not qualified to count for a minyan. For had there been even a minimal use for this “man,” to destroy it would have been wasteful.
AND........IT HAS NO SOUL!
Both Rabbi Avraham Meshulam Zalman, in his work Divrei Rabeinu Meshulam,9 and Rabbi Yaakov Emden in Sheilot Yaavetz 2:82, quote Kabbalists (R. Moshe Cordovero, Pardes Rimmonim 24:10, also Rav Avraham Azulai, Hesed L'Avraham 4:30), who explain:
Only G-d has the power to draw a human soul down from heaven. At best, a person using the power of the Sefer Yetzirah can only animate something on par with an animal. It is for this reason that if one “killed” such a creature (as in the story with Rava), they say, it is not considered murder.
BUT, IF WE DEFINE SOUL as the electricity and sentience within the human being or human form, and we start to think about the technologies we have today - from self-driving cars to androids that look like human beings ARE WE CLOSER TO INCLUDING ROBOTS WITH AI SYSTEMS WIRED IN as both citizens and MOT (members of the tribe)?!
Both Rabbi Avraham Meshulam Zalman, in his work Divrei Rabeinu Meshulam,9 and Rabbi Yaakov Emden in Sheilot Yaavetz 2:82, quote Kabbalists (R. Moshe Cordovero, Pardes Rimmonim 24:10, also Rav Avraham Azulai, Hesed L'Avraham 4:30), who explain:
Only G-d has the power to draw a human soul down from heaven. At best, a person using the power of the Sefer Yetzirah can only animate something on par with an animal. It is for this reason that if one “killed” such a creature (as in the story with Rava), they say, it is not considered murder.
BUT, IF WE DEFINE SOUL as the electricity and sentience within the human being or human form, and we start to think about the technologies we have today - from self-driving cars to androids that look like human beings ARE WE CLOSER TO INCLUDING ROBOTS WITH AI SYSTEMS WIRED IN as both citizens and MOT (members of the tribe)?!
One aspect of technology with AI that we want to think about is the question of: who is resonsible?! The engineer who programs the self driving vehicle or the renter of the car? Does it matter if the renter touched the control panels?
Who decides on the ethical system - the decision-making grid - when the car is driving?
Does a renter choose - drive according to Utilitarian Ethics on my trip?
Can a renter choose - drive according to the Jewish/Halakhic system? Assuming one knows the difference between different ethical outlooks and the results/collateral damage/outcomes would more than one decision-making tree within an AI system be available for engagement?!
Watch the next video to see where we are with driver-less vehicles and then a video about the Trolley Problem that raises the questions of how AI and ethics and our humanity (or lack thereof) all intersect.
Who decides on the ethical system - the decision-making grid - when the car is driving?
Does a renter choose - drive according to Utilitarian Ethics on my trip?
Can a renter choose - drive according to the Jewish/Halakhic system? Assuming one knows the difference between different ethical outlooks and the results/collateral damage/outcomes would more than one decision-making tree within an AI system be available for engagement?!
Watch the next video to see where we are with driver-less vehicles and then a video about the Trolley Problem that raises the questions of how AI and ethics and our humanity (or lack thereof) all intersect.
Dr. Jeremy Wertheimer, a Ph.D. in Artificial Intelligence and a VP at Google
Can a machine be ‘programmed’ to be ethical? [Can humans make decision-making AI in the Divine Image, so that we may allow it to function as we would wish if as Jews we knew exactly what our decisions / moral code would be?! (And that's a whole megillah in and of itself....)]
In discussing this topic we learned about ways in which AI actually make ‘decisions.’ When we are looking at something like self-driving cars, we are seldom talking about a line of code that tells the car to do something in a particular circumstance. Rather, AI has the ability to look at scenarios or outcomes from enormous data sets gleaned from the collected experience of every self-driving car on the road. From this, it learns to make a choice that has the likelihood of leading to the best outcome. And we, as human beings using this technology, are not free of responsibility.
Dr. Wertheimer presented the example from Jewish tradition of an ox that gores, causing harm to another ox or to a human being. We find this first presented in Exodus 21:28-29, but there is significant discussion of a variety of situations involving the ox in the Talmud (Bava Kamma). As in the Talmud, we are responsible for taking action that will minimize the harm that an ox can do. If, knowing that it is capable of causing harm, we fail to take those precautions, we are held liable. That is true today when we take a car on the road (where thousands die in automobile accidents every day), and it will be true even when a self-driving car may help to minimize harm caused when a driver is distracted, has been drinking etc.
Does a Jewish driverless car function according to secular ethics or Jewish values? Are we only able to program driverless cars the way we wish to in Israel? Should Jewish ethics inform the way we program AI - driverless cars? and beyond?
Can a machine be ‘programmed’ to be ethical? [Can humans make decision-making AI in the Divine Image, so that we may allow it to function as we would wish if as Jews we knew exactly what our decisions / moral code would be?! (And that's a whole megillah in and of itself....)]
In discussing this topic we learned about ways in which AI actually make ‘decisions.’ When we are looking at something like self-driving cars, we are seldom talking about a line of code that tells the car to do something in a particular circumstance. Rather, AI has the ability to look at scenarios or outcomes from enormous data sets gleaned from the collected experience of every self-driving car on the road. From this, it learns to make a choice that has the likelihood of leading to the best outcome. And we, as human beings using this technology, are not free of responsibility.
Dr. Wertheimer presented the example from Jewish tradition of an ox that gores, causing harm to another ox or to a human being. We find this first presented in Exodus 21:28-29, but there is significant discussion of a variety of situations involving the ox in the Talmud (Bava Kamma). As in the Talmud, we are responsible for taking action that will minimize the harm that an ox can do. If, knowing that it is capable of causing harm, we fail to take those precautions, we are held liable. That is true today when we take a car on the road (where thousands die in automobile accidents every day), and it will be true even when a self-driving car may help to minimize harm caused when a driver is distracted, has been drinking etc.
Does a Jewish driverless car function according to secular ethics or Jewish values? Are we only able to program driverless cars the way we wish to in Israel? Should Jewish ethics inform the way we program AI - driverless cars? and beyond?
Does the ability of AI to present choices to us that it thinks we will like or want change our free will - or is it a choice of free will to allow AI to function in our lives? Are we reducing our humanity and giving up a trait that could be defined as "the soul" or the animating spirit of the human being created in God's image?
It is certainly true that AI can help us narrow down the vast number of choices for how we will fly from point A to point B, and can help Netflix suggest things that we might like to watch based on our previous choices and tastes that we have shared with the service. Facebook puts certain ads, certain news articles, and certain friend updates on our feed from a potential list of thousands, based on things it knows about our friendship connections, interests, and tastes.
How does that jive with the following passage of the RAMBAM and the Mishnah after it from Pirke Avot?
What does it mean to be human? Are we SACRIFICING TOO MUCH of our humanity by introducing too much AI into our lives?
It is certainly true that AI can help us narrow down the vast number of choices for how we will fly from point A to point B, and can help Netflix suggest things that we might like to watch based on our previous choices and tastes that we have shared with the service. Facebook puts certain ads, certain news articles, and certain friend updates on our feed from a potential list of thousands, based on things it knows about our friendship connections, interests, and tastes.
How does that jive with the following passage of the RAMBAM and the Mishnah after it from Pirke Avot?
What does it mean to be human? Are we SACRIFICING TOO MUCH of our humanity by introducing too much AI into our lives?
Judaism in the Age of AI Peril
By Andrew Fretwell
Good news! The Jewish community’s thorniest internal debates may be resolved in our lifetime. But the bad news is this might happen because Judaism is walking into an existential trap, one for which we are totally unprepared: the temptation to surrender personal choice to artificial intelligence. Judaism is all about choices and their consequences. The Torah begins with Adam and Eve’s irreversible decision and ends with Moses beseeching us to make better decisions. In between we have memories about individuals, families, and nations clumsily learning how to make good choices. But that skillset may become as useful as building sundials.
...As observed by Noah Yuval Harari in Homo Deus, “Every day millions of people decide to grant their smartphone a bit more control.” At some point soon, Amazon will know exactly what I should buy, Facebook will know precisely who my next friend should be, my Apple Watch will know when I should exercise down to the minute, and Yelp will know each menu item I should order, all before I do. We are quickly approaching a world where we can go days without making a solo decision, so where is the tipping point when we concede that we are no longer the best decision makers over daily lives?
...How do we build a fence around free choice without shunning the many benefits of artificial intelligence? How do we ensure that future generations are vigilant about their choices and embrace the accompanying responsibility, both on a micro and macro level? Our future depends on our answer, and the future waits for no one.
Andrew Fretwell is a Media and Publishing executive at IBM, a former educator for Young Judaea and the Birthright Israel Foundation, and currently chairs Repair the World NYC’s Advisory Board.
By Andrew Fretwell
Good news! The Jewish community’s thorniest internal debates may be resolved in our lifetime. But the bad news is this might happen because Judaism is walking into an existential trap, one for which we are totally unprepared: the temptation to surrender personal choice to artificial intelligence. Judaism is all about choices and their consequences. The Torah begins with Adam and Eve’s irreversible decision and ends with Moses beseeching us to make better decisions. In between we have memories about individuals, families, and nations clumsily learning how to make good choices. But that skillset may become as useful as building sundials.
...As observed by Noah Yuval Harari in Homo Deus, “Every day millions of people decide to grant their smartphone a bit more control.” At some point soon, Amazon will know exactly what I should buy, Facebook will know precisely who my next friend should be, my Apple Watch will know when I should exercise down to the minute, and Yelp will know each menu item I should order, all before I do. We are quickly approaching a world where we can go days without making a solo decision, so where is the tipping point when we concede that we are no longer the best decision makers over daily lives?
...How do we build a fence around free choice without shunning the many benefits of artificial intelligence? How do we ensure that future generations are vigilant about their choices and embrace the accompanying responsibility, both on a micro and macro level? Our future depends on our answer, and the future waits for no one.
Andrew Fretwell is a Media and Publishing executive at IBM, a former educator for Young Judaea and the Birthright Israel Foundation, and currently chairs Repair the World NYC’s Advisory Board.
AND TO CONSIDER: ON RACISM AND ROBOTS
https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/humanoids/robots-and-racism
The majority of robots are white. Do a Google image search for “robot” and see for yourself: The whiteness is overwhelming. There are some understandable reasons for this; for example, when we asked several different companies why their social home robots were white, the answer was simply because white most conveniently fits in with other home decor.
But a new study suggests that the color white can also be a social cue that results in a perception of race, especially if it’s presented in an anthropomorphic context, such as being the color of the outer shell of a humanoid robot. In addition, the same issue applies to robots that are black in color, according to the study. The findings suggest that people perceive robots with anthropomorphic features to have race, and as a result, the same race-related prejudices that humans experience extend to robots.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/humanoids/robots-and-racism
The majority of robots are white. Do a Google image search for “robot” and see for yourself: The whiteness is overwhelming. There are some understandable reasons for this; for example, when we asked several different companies why their social home robots were white, the answer was simply because white most conveniently fits in with other home decor.
But a new study suggests that the color white can also be a social cue that results in a perception of race, especially if it’s presented in an anthropomorphic context, such as being the color of the outer shell of a humanoid robot. In addition, the same issue applies to robots that are black in color, according to the study. The findings suggest that people perceive robots with anthropomorphic features to have race, and as a result, the same race-related prejudices that humans experience extend to robots.
What other concerns should we have about introducing robots/AI into our lives?
What do the following sources (below) describe as essential for maintaining our humanity? What in your opinion is essential to sustain our humanity?
Is there room to interpret AI as a new, holy tool?
Argue with this assertion, or explore it:
AI is revealing to us more of the Omniscient God in whose image we were created! And who still allows us the opportunity to choose through free will.
What do the following sources (below) describe as essential for maintaining our humanity? What in your opinion is essential to sustain our humanity?
Is there room to interpret AI as a new, holy tool?
Argue with this assertion, or explore it:
AI is revealing to us more of the Omniscient God in whose image we were created! And who still allows us the opportunity to choose through free will.
רְשׁוּת לְכָל אָדָם נְתוּנָה. אִם רָצָה לְהַטּוֹת עַצְמוֹ לְדֶרֶךְ טוֹבָה וְלִהְיוֹת צַדִּיק הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. וְאִם רָצָה לְהַטּוֹת עַצְמוֹ לְדֶרֶךְ רָעָה וְלִהְיוֹת רָשָׁע הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. הוּא שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה (בראשית ג כב) "הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ לָדַעַת טוֹב וָרָע". כְּלוֹמַר הֵן מִין זֶה שֶׁל אָדָם הָיָה יָחִיד בָּעוֹלָם וְאֵין מִין שֵׁנִי דּוֹמֶה לוֹ בְּזֶה הָעִנְיָן שֶׁיְּהֵא הוּא מֵעַצְמוֹ בְּדַעְתּוֹ וּבְמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ יוֹדֵעַ הַטּוֹב וְהָרַע וְעוֹשֶׂה כָּל מַה שֶּׁהוּא חָפֵץ וְאֵין מִי שֶׁיְּעַכֵּב בְּיָדוֹ מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת הַטּוֹב אוֹ הָרַע. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁכֵּן הוּא פֶּן יִשְׁלַח יָדוֹ:
Every man was endowed with a free will; if he desires to bend himself toward the good path and to be just it is within the power of his hand to reach out for it, and if he desires to bend himself to a bad path and to be wicked it is within the power of his hand to reach out for it. This is known from what it is written in the Torah, saying: "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" (Gen. 3.22), that is as if saying: "Behold, this species, man, stands alone in the world, and there is no other kind like him, as regards this subject of being able of his own accord, by his reason and thought, to know the good and the evil, and to do whatever his inclination dictates him with none to stay his hand from either doing good or evil; and, being that he is so, 'Lest he put forth his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever'" (Ibid.)1Abodah Zarah, 16b; Megillah, 25a. G.
הַכֹּל צָפוּי, וְהָרְשׁוּת נְתוּנָה, וּבְטוֹב הָעוֹלָם נִדּוֹן. וְהַכֹּל לְפִי רֹב הַמַּעֲשֶׂה:
Everything is foreseen yet freedom of choice is granted, And the world is judged with goodness; And everything is in accordance with the preponderance of works.
Gersonides (13th-14th c., France)
According to him, all sublunary events are determined by the celestial bodies. Man, however, may successfully oppose their determinations in so far as his own person is concerned. God knows all that is determined by the celestial bodies; but as man's freedom may annul their determinations He knows them only as possibilities. "To affirm that God knows the possible only as possible is not detracting from His supreme intelligence, for to know things as they are means to know them well" ("Milḥamot," iii. 106). (Ibid.)
According to him, all sublunary events are determined by the celestial bodies. Man, however, may successfully oppose their determinations in so far as his own person is concerned. God knows all that is determined by the celestial bodies; but as man's freedom may annul their determinations He knows them only as possibilities. "To affirm that God knows the possible only as possible is not detracting from His supreme intelligence, for to know things as they are means to know them well" ("Milḥamot," iii. 106). (Ibid.)
YOUR THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS, please! Write to me at [email protected]
One question that has already come up after one study group used the source:
Naomi Fabes asked: What do we think Jewish law will say about relationships with androids who are programmed with AI and with whom people could easily fall in love? Can they get married?!
One question that has already come up after one study group used the source:
Naomi Fabes asked: What do we think Jewish law will say about relationships with androids who are programmed with AI and with whom people could easily fall in love? Can they get married?!
A final thought.....
“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”
-Victor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning
-Victor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning