AI Ethics: An Abrahamic commitment to the Rome Call- reflections
Rabbi Eliezer Simha Weisz.
Member of the Council of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel
The development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already changing lives
across the world. The Jewish attitude towards AI is, in general, welcoming,in that Judaism sees value in harnessing knowledge to partner with God in
advancing the world. But this is provided that appropriate precautions arealways present so that an individual’s life and autonomy are never at risk.
Religious leaders must be at the forefront of all endeavors to demand that
ethical controls and appropriate safeguards are maintained.
At the outset, it should be emphasized that although we talk of AI – withan emphasis on super intelligence - we must remember that intelligence is
not what makes us human. All human beings are created in the image ofGod, though some members of the human race are more intelligent thanothers. We all have a Holy spark, the Divine soul, which will forever
distinguish us from any man-made instrument.
As the 2nd century Mishna1 highlights, human beings stamp many coinswith one identical seal and all are alike, but the King of Kings, the Holy
Blessed One, “stamps” each person with the seal of the first Man, yet not
one is duplicated. Every one of us differs in intelligence, beauty, color, anda myriad of attributes, but all possess the Divine spark. For that reason,
Man will always be qualitatively superior to any man-made invention.
The notion of a man-made “robot” is not new in Judaism. As early as the4th century, Jewish folklore described the creation of a Golem23: a giant
humanoid fashioned from clay and animated by a fragment of Kabbalistic
text. The most famous version of the legend relates to the creation of aGolem by Rabbi Loew, the leader of the Jewish community in 16th-century
Prague. It was purportedly created to defend the local community, but the1Mishna Sanhedrin 4.5 "when a person stamps several coins with one seal, they are all similar to eachother. But the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, stamped all people with the seal of
Adam the first man, as all of them are his offspring, and not one of them is like another".
2The term is used in the Bible (Psalms 139:16) and in Talmudic literature to refer to an embryonic orincomplete substance.
3In Sanhedrin 65b reported that Rava created a Golem using the mysteries and meditations containedin Sefer Yetzira (Book of Formation- the title of the earliest extant book on Jewish esotericism) and sent
him to Rav Zeira (an expert at the esoteric mysteries of Kabbalah). When the Golem failed to respondto Rabbi Zeria's questions, he realized it was a Golem created by one of the Sages and Rav Zeira ordered
the golem to disintegrate.

1creature escaped from its designer’s control and ran amok until Rabbi
Loew managed to disable it4.
The attitude in Judaism towards the Golem is in contrast to that regarding
Frankenstein’s monster, also a man-made instrument, which could function
autonomously. In Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel of the same name, its creation
is viewed as an abomination against the natural order of the world. The
novel criticizes the hubris of the scientist and his lack of responsibility for
his actions.
Judaism, on the other hand, views the creation of the Golem, withequanimity. No moral judgment is expressed about having designed aGolem, which was to aid the community. If it malfunctioned, the creator
could simply switch it off. There is a body of Jewish religious
jurisprudence dealing with the legal standing of a potential Golem. Can one
add a Golem to be counted as part of the minyan, the quorum of ten malemembers of the congregation for a regular religious service to take place?
Should someone who destroys a Golem be held guilty of murder? Is cruelty
to a Golem to be distinguished from cruelty to animals? The tenor of theseissues reflects a non-judgmental acceptance of the creation of the Golem
and a desire to delineate its consequences for human moral contact. The
premise on which this attitude is built lies in the view that Man is dutybound to use all his capabilities to improve the world and that God
deliberately left room for humans to improve upon his work – but within
ethical limits.
The normal way we read and translate the end of the story of creation in
the Book of Genesis 5(Gen 2:2-3) is: …" and on the seventh day God
finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day fromall the work that he had done. ’’.
However, the actual Hebrew words read, ‘‘which God created to do.’’ …
and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that God created to do.
Instead of “the work that he had done” the words read "the work that God
created to do.”This ties in with the later narrative, describing the creation of the firsthuman beings who were placed in the Garden of Eden “to work it and toprotect it". God did everything up until the seventh day and then rested, but4

The legend became widely known through Rabbi Yudel Rosenberg’s 1909 fiction book Nifl'os Maharal(Wonders of Maharal), Gustav Meyrink’s 1917 novel, and Paul Wegener’s expressionistic film (TheGolem, 1920).
5Genesis 2:2-32

there was still work to be done. That is why God created human beings.
Adam and Eve were ‘‘put in the Garden of Eden to work it and tend to it6’’.
This may be interpreted that Man is obligated to care for what God has
created and to improve on creation to meet human needs.
Thus a rabbinic interpretation is ‘‘that God created for man to make andimprove upon.’’ The implication is that man was given his intelligence toimprove himself and the world he lives in. Of course, he must, takeprecautions so that no harm is caused by his innovations. This principle isderived from the biblical context: ‘‘When you build a new house, you shallmake a battlement for your roof, so that you should not bring blood upon
your house if any men fall from there7’’ We are commanded thatreasonable safety measures be taken. The wall must be sufficiently high toprevent people from accidentally falling off the roof. Furthermore, it must
be strong enough for the average man to lean on without falling.
The example of building a house serves as a paradigm for all noveltechnology. The creation of technology is part of Man’s nature. He must,however, ensure that any dangers inherent in any technology areminimized.
This idea is emphasized in the Talmud and later Jewish writings where we
see that the Rabbis grappled with moral questions of creating AI- theGolem of their time and ultimately destroying their creations. Thus, theimportance of using their knowledge for the advancement of their society
simultaneously demonstrates the need to control such Golems.
Another example of our Sages contending with problems arising from AI
is the fact that the ethical dilemma known as the Trolley Problem8 and first
introduced by Philippa Foot in 1967 had already been discussed by theHalachic Sages, including the scholar the Chazon Ish9 who passed away in1953.
Jewish ethics enable a permissive and positive attitude to scientificinnovation, recognizing that these endeavors are at the heart of the essenceof Man: to improve the world that God created and entrusted to us. Thus,
any new technology would be unethical if it was6

Genesis 2:15
Deuteronomy 22:8
8
The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics where the subject is placed within a paradigm
where there are ethical dilemmas regardless of the choices the subject makes. Can Artificial intelligence
decide ethical dilemmas which are the most ethical courses of action?
9Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz (7 November 1878 – 24 October 1953) see Chazon Ish Hoshen Mishpat 23.
73

potentially harmful and if it could not be controlled by Man, in which caseit would detract from the technology's benefit. Thus the urgency of ourconcern of the ethical challenges posed by technology. Whileacknowledging that every invention has its potential dangers, these risks
are accepted if appropriate safeguards exist to prevent consequential harm.
It is in this spirit we join in the Abrahamic commitment to the Rome Call!

4