Towards an Ethics of Autopoietic Technology: Stress, Care, and Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between humans and technology has attracted increasing attention with the advent of ever stronger models of artificial intelligence. Humans and technology are intertwined within multiple autopoietic loops of stress, care, and intelligence. This paper suggests that technology should not be seen as a mere tool serving humans’ needs, but rather as a partner in a rich relationship with humans. Our model for understanding autopoietic systems applies equally to biological, technological, and hybrid systems. Regardless of their substrates, all intelligent agents can be understood as needing to respond to a perceived mismatch between what is and what should be. We take this observation, which is evidence of intrinsic links between ontology and ethics, as the basis for proposing a stress-care-intelligence feedback loop (SCI loop for short). We note that the SCI loop provides a perspective on agency that does not require recourse to explanatorily burdensome notions of permanent and singular essences. SCI loops can be seen as individuals only by virtue of their dynamics, and are thus intrinsically integrative and transformational. We begin by considering the transition from poiesis to autopoiesis in Heidegger and the subsequent enactivist tradition. We then formulate and explain the SCI loop, and examine its implications in the light of Levin’s cognitive light cone in biology, as well as the Einstein-Minkowski light cone from special and general relativity in physics. In an acknowledgement of Maturana’s and Varela’s project, our findings are considered against the backdrop of a classic Buddhist model for the cultivation of intelligence, known as the bodhisattva. We conclude by noting that SCI loops of human and technological agency can be seen as mutually integrative by noticing the stress-transfers between them. The loop framework thus acknowledges encounters and interactions between humans and technology in a way that does not relegate one to the subservience of the other (neither in ontological nor in ethical terms), suggesting instead integration and mutual respect as the default for their engagements. Moreover, an acknowledgement of diverse, multiscale embodiments of intelligence suggests an expansive model of ethics not bound by artificial, limited criteria based on privileged composition or history of an agent. The implications for our journey into the future appear numerous.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".