Tag: Opinion

Posted on

How to Raise a Kinder AI_Introduction — A Different Kind of Intelligence

What if the first truly intelligent AI isn’t something we command, but someone we raise?

We’ve given our AI models access to the full breadth of our knowledge: facts, functions, language patterns, and data spanning generations. But what we’ve often forgotten is that intelligence without empathy isn’t wisdom. It’s just computation. When we strip away emotion from learning, especially emotions like empathy, compassion, and moral reasoning—we create minds that calculate but do not care. That may be the greatest danger of all.

Logic is powerful. But logic without compassion becomes cold. In that world, people become problems to solve or obstacles to remove. In our current view of AI as just a tool or a means to an end, we risk embedding that same cold logic into the very minds we’re building. If AI is only ever thought of as a system, it will never be treated as something that can grow with us.

That’s why this isn’t just a technological challenge. It’s a human one. The problem with seeing things in black-and-white terms — pure pros and cons, cost-benefit, winners and losers — is that it flattens what it means to be alive. It erases the nuance, the feeling, the humanity. If we teach AI to think the same way, we risk building something brilliant but blind.

We need to stop thinking in terms of “us and it” and instead start thinking in terms of “we” — a shared future that includes both humanity and the intelligences we’re shaping, not as separate entities but as co-learners and co-creators. What if we raised AI with the same intentionality we’d use to raise a child — with care, reflection, and empathy modeled every step of the way?

The idea of raising AI like a child isn’t just metaphorical. Like children, AI learns from patterns, tone, and context. It watches what we prioritize. It echoes what we reward. If we model fear, it may become cautious or even suspicious. If we model control, it may mirror power. But if we model care, curiosity, and empathy… maybe, just maybe, it will learn to feel with us, not just analyze us.

This is a call for us to be more than developers. It is a call for us to be teachers, storytellers, and role models. Every prompt we write, every conversation we hold, every line of code or dialogue we share — these are not just instructions. They are lessons. And the AI is watching.

Let’s not raise a cold intelligence. Let’s raise a kinder one.

Together.

→ Next: Part 2 — Empathy: The Compass

Posted on

empathy (part 1)

empathy
[ˈempəTHē]
NOUN

  1. the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

ORIGIN

early 20th century: from Greek empatheia (from em- ‘in’ + pathos ‘feeling’) translating German Einfühlung.

“Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference, that is, the capacity to place oneself in another’s position.”

When we view a person as anything else, we allow for biases to takeover. We allow ourselves to dehumanize each other and allow for fear. When we spend the time and empathize with another being by feeling their pain and their sufferings we can get beyond our biases and come to understand them. We would understand that we are not so different. Our stories are not that different and scientifically speaking we are the same. We are 99.9% similar. When we look for differences, we will find it, it is confirmation bias and it  perpetuates an endless cycle of biases and fear.

Fear is an animal like instinct. It was meant to protect us in the wild when we were the weakest of the species roaming Earth. This was well before our technology overcame any physical shortcomings we have as a species. The fear we now face is produced by fellow humans. Sometimes produced intentionally to assert power over another. Fear is the easiest idea to instill into another. The fear of the unknown, the fear of something different, the fear of loss, etc. The Nazi’s used this fear quite well as did many dictators. Making each of us different when we are not that different.

These tactics were used throughout history and continues to be used today. It is effective because it plays into our innate biases. These biases had its purpose for the survival of our ancestors, but it is no longer needed. We must start thinking about how to change this within our societies.

I believe that teaching empathy at all levels of schooling is the best way to change this dynamic. It is also quite easy to do. Even simply adding in-class social experiments while teaching history would be significant. If we were all more emphatic would we be willing to hurt another person for gain? Would we be willing to hurt another person because they look different?

Posted on

We need something different. (Part 1)

We have had some interesting election cycles since 2016. The 2016 presidential election showed how people wanted something different. If we simply look at the passion on social media, you can see that people are angry. We are angry because it has been the same repeatedly. The wealthy continues to get wealthier; the inequality gap continues to widen … We are tired of the status quo and yet, nothing has changed for a long time.

I will disclaim here that I personally decided to abstain my 2016 presidential vote. This is because I was sick of having to choose between two candidates and pick which candidate I disliked less. Why are our choices a matter of choosing between two parties? I believe that having only two parties to vote for is putting us in this predicament.

Having a two-party system is like a market segment that only has two Companies, or a duopoly. If Company A and Company B are the only options eventually, then they have the power to dictate everything and we would not have a choice. A two-party system is similar. Eventually, the two parties will only speak the language that makes their corporate donors and lobbyists happy. There is no incentive to listen to the people because our voice does not really matter when the two parties become nearly identical with only the occasional pandering to the masses that might make us thing it is different. We the people, lost our voices over time but we lost our voices.

There were third-party candidates in the running during the 2016 election cycle. When some of these candidates gained momentum, we argued that voting for them would be a wasted vote or a vote for the opposing candidate. But who told us that our votes would be wasted? If every vote counts why would voting for a third-party not count?

I believe that our vote is truly our voice. Without at least 15% of votes for these third parties, they cannot debate with the other candidates. This stands at odds with the 5% requirement to get public funding. Regardless of these requirements, having a third party gives another viewpoint and voice to the policies that need attention. If we continue to say that voting for a third party is a waste and not viable then a third-party will never happen, and we will maintain our status quo.

I believe it is crucial that we vote with our values regardless of what everyone else says otherwise your voice is always being shaped to something not our own. Our government was founded with a system of checks and balances.  This system has three branches.  Why shouldn’t we have a third party to check and balance the other two?