What I find particularly interesting here is that Nussbaum’s compassion is not reduced to “more empathy”. It involves interpretation and evaluative judgement: what do I recognise as serious, undeserved and relevant to another’s flourishing?
From a relational perspective, that raises another question: how is my capacity to recognise the suffering of the Other itself shaped by the relational field I am in: including its history, the present situation and anticipated futures?
There is also a subtle danger in speaking about 'the Other': I can make the other person the object of my moral perception, while overlooking that their presence also changes my own position, and therefore what I am able to perceive, think, and do.
This becomes particularly interesting with AI. AI does not need to “have compassion” to affect compassion. It can change the conditions under which we perceive needs, possibilities and responsibility.
An additional question could be "How does AI change the conditions under which we recognise one another and which uses of AI support or constrain that capacity?"
Yes, and I think that is exactly where it gets interesting. AI can generate suggestions about context, but that is not necessarily the same as recognising context relationally.
The question for me is what happens when we start relying on AI’s interpretation of a relational field that we are ourselves part of.
There is a distinction here between describing context and recognising context from within a relationship that I think is worth exploring further.
Partially agree. Context is also much more than relational. And relying on suggestions by AI would lead to a shortcoming. What you suggest is not really what I wanted to focus on in this post. It would have taken it into a different direction. Not denying of course the interesting question on AI here. But context goes well beyond relational.
What I find particularly interesting here is that Nussbaum’s compassion is not reduced to “more empathy”. It involves interpretation and evaluative judgement: what do I recognise as serious, undeserved and relevant to another’s flourishing?
From a relational perspective, that raises another question: how is my capacity to recognise the suffering of the Other itself shaped by the relational field I am in: including its history, the present situation and anticipated futures?
There is also a subtle danger in speaking about 'the Other': I can make the other person the object of my moral perception, while overlooking that their presence also changes my own position, and therefore what I am able to perceive, think, and do.
This becomes particularly interesting with AI. AI does not need to “have compassion” to affect compassion. It can change the conditions under which we perceive needs, possibilities and responsibility.
An additional question could be "How does AI change the conditions under which we recognise one another and which uses of AI support or constrain that capacity?"
It certainly would be a significant question to ask. I left it out deliberately as it would take me in a different direction.
For future consideration.
One issue. Is AI capable of recognizing the context? Key reason why I didn’t pursue the thoughts you are sharing.
Yes, and I think that is exactly where it gets interesting. AI can generate suggestions about context, but that is not necessarily the same as recognising context relationally.
The question for me is what happens when we start relying on AI’s interpretation of a relational field that we are ourselves part of.
There is a distinction here between describing context and recognising context from within a relationship that I think is worth exploring further.
Partially agree. Context is also much more than relational. And relying on suggestions by AI would lead to a shortcoming. What you suggest is not really what I wanted to focus on in this post. It would have taken it into a different direction. Not denying of course the interesting question on AI here. But context goes well beyond relational.