While machines have rapidly advanced in simulating human behavior and performing complex tasks, they lack the depth of moral and existential awareness that defines human existence, said Dominic Burbidge in a Nov. 8 lecture in Lane Hall.
“Ironically, our very fear of AI control highlights what sets us apart from it,” Burbidge said. “Ultimately, this question boils down to whether we think there is something irreplaceably human in how we act and think that will persist in its uniqueness despite all manner of technological innovations.”
Burbidge is the director of the Canterbury Institute at the University of Oxford. The Oxford study abroad program hosted Burbidge’s speech, titled “Moral Reasoning Versus Machine Learning.”
Burbidge said machines lack the human awareness of death and complex values. Machines follow programmed paths, often moving toward a definitive end or caught in perpetual loops. In contrast, human lives are dynamic and navigate multiple, sometimes conflicting aspirations shaped by a sense of morality, beauty, and responsibility.
“The good life is not about maximizing a single variable and then terminating, but about pursuing enduring goals despite the unknown,” Burbidge said.
According to Burbidge, humans, unlike machines, engage in acts of moral and aesthetic creation.
“When computers execute their programming, they’re either in a loop or traveling towards the end,” Burbidge said. “They will terminate if that part finishes.”
Burbidge said humans pursue postponed goods, values or goals over time, often with incomplete understanding or the knowledge that they may not be immediately achievable.
“We develop hierarchies of goods that specialize in keeping sight of goods we cannot currently always pursue,” Burbidge said.
According to Burbidge, while a machine’s primary function is to complete tasks efficiently, humans are capable of recognizing and valuing goals beyond the immediate, grounded in our awareness of mortality.
Machines and humans, from each other’s perspectives, might appear peculiar, Burbidge said. From a machine’s view, human life — with its death-aware, complex motivations — may seem illogical and unpredictable.
“From a human perspective, machines live strangely too, never enjoying the moment and always moving on to the next task,” Burbidge said.
Junior Mark Ayers said his main takeaway was the difference between human goals and ultimate ends.
“Our goal ultimately is — depending on who you ask — to reach heaven, to spend eternity with Christ. But our immediate goal can be any number of different things,” Ayers said. “As living, breathing humans, we have an endpoint beyond our immediate purpose, whereas machines lack this distinction.”
Professor of History and Director of the Oxford Program Kenneth Calvert said Burbidge’s lectures are particularly valuable as they address not only AI’s ethical implications but also how society tends to anthropomorphize technology.
“Dr. Burbidge looks at the ethics of this and makes sure that we don’t abrogate our position as human beings,” Calvert said. “How much are we willing to surrender to machines?”