"a particular ethical and spiritual responsibility"

Earlier this summer the Pope published his encyclical on AI, which is when we learned what an encyclical even is (basically a super researched religious book report). The title is Magnifica humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence.

Magnifica humanitas means "Magnificent Humanity", so there's an obvious point of view right from the first words of his letter. He writes:

Developers, therefore, bear a particular ethical and spiritual responsibility, for every design choice reflects a vision of humanity...so developers are called to embed values in their projects with due seriousness: with transparency, responsibility toward affected communities and careful attention to ensuring that what is being cultivated is a genuine good.

What we appreciate from this is the framing of AI technologies as neither good or bad, but embedded with our own values. Importantly, both in how it's built and how it's used, which obligates us throughout the tech stack. Meaning, we have a responsibility in how we build the AI systems to start with and how we use AI to build other systems.

A parallel perspective comes from Tobi Lutke, the founder of Shopify, in an internal memo:

Reflexive AI usage is now a baseline expectation at Shopify...Using AI effectively is now a fundamental expectation of everyone at Shopify. It's a tool of all trades today, and will only grow in importance. Frankly, I don't think it's feasible to opt out of learning the skill of applying AI in your craft; you are welcome to try, but I want to be honest I cannot see this working out today, and definitely not tomorrow.

These aren't two conflicting or polar perspectives. One says we should build the technology with intention and responsibly and for good. The other, that we should use it for every aspect of our work.

We're still in the process of defining both our own policies for AI usage and also our recommendations for clients on how they should employ AI. And we're using, among others, these two perspectives as axes on our decision making chart: Can we use this effectively/is it wise to use this at all/how should we use this.

On these 3 axes we're trying to plot use cases like quality assurance, troubleshooting, and design and development. In the case of QA, AI systems are fine for a first-pass, to cover best-practice checklists, but they don't replace a person reviewing a site as a person would. Troubleshooting is much more effective and, when wrong, doesn't create any work that has to be un-done later. Design is right out. The results are bad, but most importantly it interrupts the understanding that is built during the process of design.

We're meant to understand our client and their products and their customers, and it is through the metacognitive process of design that we gain that understanding. If the process is just as crucial to the work as the output, AI is the wrong tool.

If the process is just as crucial to the work as the output, AI is the wrong tool.