Robot Conversions

(text-style: "outline")+(css: "font-size:200%") [Robot Conversions] <img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Invasion%21_%284141370417%29.jpg/1200px-Invasion%21_%284141370417%29.jpg" width="512" height="340"> [[ENTER]]

Well, more or less. Most people think you face the Earth, but a few people think the correct answer is to face the nearest shuttleport as that is, technically, the fastest way to get to Jerusalem. But honestly, it's all a matter of minhag. [[Back|ENTER]]

Okay, here is our mission, should we choose to accept it. In order to figure out what halacha (click:"halacha")[(the Jewish legal system)] has to say about Jewish Artificial Intelligence, all we need to do is figure out what halacha thinks about "Jewish" "Artificial" and "Intelligence". The whole is quite literally equal to the sum of its parts. Ready to go? [[Yeah!]] [[No...]]

So when I say robot, what exactly do I mean? If you are picturing a Roomba converting to Judaism or even Siri responding to "Hey, Siri, do you want to be Jewish?" with a "yes", that would be very far from what I have in mind. Someone like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_(Star_Trek)">Data</a> from Star Trek, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-3PO">C3PO</a> from Star Wars, or everyone's favorite <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Murderbot_Diaries">SecUnit</a> from *The Murderbot Diaries* would be more correct. This kind of Artificial Intelligence is known as artificial general intelligence or strong AI. It's AI with human-level capacity for thinking. This is in contrast to weak AI or narrow artificial intelligence. Narrow AI is something like the autocorrect function on your phone - it has precisely one job to do - predict the next word you are going to use - and it does it well. (click: "well")[Okay, maybe not well. Well enough? Well enough for us to laugh at? It's hard to be a narrow AI!] Ready to go back? [[Sure!|ENTER]] [[Actually, wait, I want to learn more about AI.]]

Wonderful! That's how I got into this research in the first place. Are you looking for a quick article to read before launching back into the shiur or are you so distracted that you're interested in book recommendations? Article please! (click:"Article please!")[You got it! See if this gives you some more information. <a href="https://www.springboard.com/blog/narrow-vs-general-ai/">Narrow versus General AI</a>] Book please! (click:"Book please!")[Awesome, one of my favorite recent reads is Janelle Shane's <a href="https://bookshop.org/books/you-look-like-a-thing-and-i-love-you-how-artificial-intelligence-works-and-why-it-s-making-the-world-a-weirder-place/9780316525244">*You Look Like a Thing and I Love You*</a> for more information about how AI works] [[Back to the beginning!|ENTER]]

Wonderful! Where do you want to start?* [[What constitutes Jewish?|Jewish]] [[What constitutes Artificial?|Artificial]] [[What constitutes intelligence?|Intelligence]] (click:"*")[ ---- Just as a note, while this shiur can be...(live: 1s)[(either: "read", "played", "experienced")] in any order, the order of options on a page nearly always reflects the order in which I teach it. But you can always mix it up! That's what this whole medium is about!]

Hmm, okay. That's fair. The hardest part of this medium is that I don't actually know WHY you're not ready. Did you want to know more about [[Artificial Intelligence|What is Artificial Intelligence]]? Are you skeptical about why this kind of halachic stuff [[matters]]? Are you realizing that you're not really interested in a shiur, but love the idea of a [["Choose Your Own Adventure"-style story]]? Are you just [[not in the mood]]?

Fair enough. It's unlikely anyone will need to answer this question in the immediate future. And yet one could say the same thing about science fiction in general. Science fiction, even when it's about the future or alternate realities, is also always about the present. Maybe it's about who we are becoming if we continue on our current trajectory or maybe it's about imagining possibilities. So I'll challenge you to ask yourself what this series of texts might have to say to our current moment, what issues they might also apply to. Fair enough. [[Let's get started|Yeah!]] [[Also]]

Fabulous, welcome to the world of IF! (click: "IF")[(Interactive Fiction)] You may be familiar with IF from the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books or, maybe, you've run into text adventure games at some point in your life. (If you are of the right age, you maybe even played them.) These are all stories that are told in such a way where the reader has an element of choice about what happens next. They can construct their story out of multiple branching paths or choose the direction and even the ending.* If you want to learn more and maybe look at some examples, <a href="https://iftechfoundation.org/frequently-asked-questions/">The Interactive Fiction Technology Foundation</a> is a good place to start. ---- (click:"*")[One could argue that all stories are interactive ficiton. After all, there's nothing STOPPING you from reading a whodunit backwards and going through the whole thing after you've already read the ending. IF, however, is intended to be read this way. But I digress.]

That sounds eminently reasonable. After all, it is (current-date:) and in these times, sometimes we just need a break. Have you considered taking a break and: Going outside for a walk? Making or acquiring a hot beverage and drinking it? Reading a good book? Reading a bad but beloved book? Putting on a song and singing along? Talking to a friend? The shiur will be here when you're ready for it. ------------------------------------------------ [[I'm ready, let's go back to the beginning!|Welcome]]

Also... Shiurim like this are a fantastic way of learning to think Halachically within a hypothetical framework. That is, without real-world consequences. That means that there aren't teshuvot already extant that address this question and so we are free to try to forge the way forward, secure in the knowledge that our conclusions won't impact some robot's life. Sound good? [[Yeah!]] No (click:"No")[I'm kind of out of ideas, then. Do you want to go back and explore some other things you can learn about? [[Yeah, sure|No...]] ]

Traditionally speaking, there are two ways to become Jewish. One is to be born to a Jewish mother, which is rather difficult for an artificial intelligence, no matter how advanced. The other is to convert. Cool, what does one need to do to convert? To answer that question, we can turn to different sources. We can either look at narrative examples of actual converts or of the halachic texts that address the process? [[Narrative texts on conversion]] [[Halachic texts on conversion]]

So, you might think that halacha doesn't have all that much to say about robots. And, okay, yes, you'd be right. But what we do talk about is the idea of an artificial person. You may know it better by its yiddish name, The Golem. There's a much earlier mention of an artificial man than the Golem and we find this story in the Talmud, in Tractate Sanhedrin, page 65b. [[Let's look at the Talmud.]] [[Look, I came here for a golem and a golem is what I want to learn about.]] (click:"The Golem")[ ---- Yes, we are contractually obligated to mention the golem every time anything involving Judaism and fantasy/speculative fiction comes up. You...do know what the golem is, right? (link:"DUH")[ Okay, phew, go back to the text at hand and decide what to learn next. ] (link:"Umm, I think so")[ You know, man made out of clay, legends differ on whether it was animated by the name of God or by the word אמת (truth) written on its forehead, was supposed to defend the Jews of the city from pogroms, sometimes got out of control...that golem? Yep! (click:"Yep!")[Okay, good. Back to the text.] ] (link:"...No?")[ Really?? (link:"Really really.")[ Huh. Cool! Okay, in Jewish lore from the 16th century or so onward, the golem is a man made out of clay, and the legends differ on whether it was animated by the name of God or by the word אמת (truth) written on its forehead, it was supposed to defend the Jews of the city from pogroms, sometimes got out of control. And that's pretty much enough to go on. Feel free to scroll back up to the text. ] (link:"Nah, I just wanted to see what would happen if I said no.")[Ahh, a completionist. I know your type. Go ahead and find out.]]]

So how do we determine what constitutes intelligence? Like within AI research itself, we have the problem that we need standards for determining what sort of behavior constitutes intelligence. Let's start with the following proposition. Humans are intelligent (mouseout:"intelligent")[(despite all evidence to the contrary)]. Or rather, Human intelligence is the barometer by which all other forms of intelligence are measured. So in order to understand what halacha thinks about artificial intelligence, we have to examine what halacha thinks about human intelligence. [[Onto the Ramban!]]

Let's examine the story of Ruth, the Moabite woman who follows her mother-in-law, Naomi, back to the Israelite nation when the latter chooses to return to her people. Naomi urges her daughters-in-law to go back to their fathers' houses and one of them, Orpah, complies. But Ruth responds thus: ==> טז וַתֹּאמֶר רוּת אַל־תִּפְגְּעִי־בִי לְעָזְבֵךְ לָשׁוּב מֵאַחֲרָיִךְ כִּי אֶל־אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכִי אֵלֵךְ וּבַאֲשֶׁר תָּלִינִי אָלִין עַמֵּךְ עַמִּי וֵאלֹהַיִךְ אֱלֹהָי׃ יז בַּאֲשֶׁר תָּמוּתִי אָמוּת וְשָׁם אֶקָּבֵר כֹּה יַעֲשֶׂה יְהוָה לִי וְכֹה יֹסִיף כִּי הַמָּוֶת יַפְרִיד בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵךְ׃ יח וַתֵּרֶא כִּי־מִתְאַמֶּצֶת הִיא לָלֶכֶת אִתָּהּ וַתֶּחְדַּל לְדַבֵּר אֵלֶיהָ׃ ''רות, א:טז-יח'' <== See the English translation. (click-replace:"See the English translation.")[16 But Ruth replied, “Do not urge me to leave you, to turn back and not follow you. For wherever you go, I will go; wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. 17 Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus and more may the LORD do to me if anything but death parts me from you.” 18 When she saw how determined she was to go with her, she ceased to argue with her;] <a href="https://www.sefaria.org/Ruth.1.16?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=he">(See this source on Sefaria)</a> Take a moment to look at this conversion narrative. If you are the kind of person who likes to write out their thoughts, definitely take this moment to do so. * What does Ruth commit to? * How would you describe her process of conversion? * Does she need to take any action? * In what way might she be a model for future converts? [[Ready to go on?|Reflections on Ruth]]

Let's take, as a paradigm of conversion, Rambam (mouseover: "Rambam")[aka Maimonides] in the Mishneh Torah. While not the only scholar to discuss conversion, his approach will be enough for us to grasp the basic principles. ==> וְכֵן לְדוֹרוֹת כְּשֶׁיִּרְצֶה הָעַכּוּ"ם לְהִכָּנֵס לִבְרִית וּלְהִסְתּוֹפֵף תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה וִיקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֹל תּוֹרָה צָרִיךְ מִילָה וּטְבִילָה וְהַרְצָאַת קָרְבָּן. וְאִם נְקֵבָה הִיא טְבִילָה וְקָרְבָּן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טו טו) "כָּכֶם כַּגֵּר". מָה אַתֶּם בְּמִילָה וּטְבִילָה וְהַרְצָאַת קָרְבָּן אַף הַגֵּר לְדוֹרוֹת בְּמִילָה וּטְבִילָה וְהַרְצָאַת קָרְבָּן: ''רמבם משנה תורה, הלכות איסורי ביאה יג:ד'' <== (link:"See this text in English")[Throughout the generations, any non-Jew who wants to enter the covenant and come in under the 'wings of the Presence of God' accepts upon him or herself the yoke of Torah - he needs circumcision, immersion and a Temple offering. If female, she needs only immersion and an offering, as is said "As for you, so for the foreigner." That's to say, just as you (entered via) circumcision, immersion and an offering, so too the foreigner (shall enter via) circumcision, immersion and an offering.] <a href="https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Forbidden_Intercourse.13.4?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=he">(See this text on Sefaria)</a> Take a moment to look at this approach to conversion and, as always, feel free to write down your thoughts or think aloud as you go through. * What does Rambam require that one commits to? * What actions does he require converts take? * Which is more important - immersion, offering and, when relevant, circumcision or the the acceptance of the yoke of Torah? [[Ready to go on?|Reflections on Rambam]]

Now that you've had a chance to reflect, I'll also offer a few of my thoughts. Ruth's narrative is all about intention. She exercises her will and states that she will make Naomi's people her own. There's no mention of any action...or perhaps it is the act of following Naomi that is itself the moment of conversion? In any event, the path towards joining Naomi's people that Ruth seems to take is one where she states her intention to belong. And then, to all appearances, she does. Ready to go on? [[Sure, let's talk about the laws of conversion!|Halachic texts on conversion]] [[I already looked at the halachic sources, let's move on!]]

Now that we've seen both sources, I want to ask two questions: 1. How do they differ? (link:"Your intrepid guide's thoughts on the difference between Rambam and Ruth")[There are two main differences that I see. The first is the necessity for action that Rambam requires. And the second is whether "your people shall be my people and your God my God" is fundamentally the same as "accepting upon oneself the yoke of Torah". One of those is about identity while the other is about obligation. Is one inherent in the other? Are they merely different sources and times gesturing towards the same idea?] 2. From these sources, what does it mean to become Jewish? (link:"Your intrepid guide's thoughts on what these sources say about conversion")[Both sources have, almost as a prerequisite, a declaration of will. One declares that they intend to be a part of the Jewish people, with all that that entails, and then takes some action to prove that declaration. By Rambam's time, that action is the ritual of conversion. But, at the end of the day, to choose to be //Jewish// is to //choose// to be Jewish.] So what shall we do next? [[Artificial!|Artificial]] [[Intelligence!|Intelligence]] [[I've looked at all the sources, let's go to the end!]]

So, having developed your thoughts, I want to mention that Rambam seems to be taking a dual approach. On the one hand, one needs commitment. On the other hand, all the commitment in the world will not matter if one doesn't immerse and, if relevant, circumcise. On the other hand, the absence of the Temple sacrifice does not seem to prevent the Jewish people from accepting new converts. So perhaps it's a matter of the feasible. Perhaps robots will be waterproof in the year 3000. Ready to go on? [[Yes, what's next?|I already looked at the halachic sources, let's move on!]] [[I still need to look at narrative texts about conversion|Narrative texts on conversion]] (mouseout:"hand")[ Observant readers will have noted that I appear to have three hands in this passage. Perhaps I borrowed one. Perhaps I am, in fact, a five-armed robot writing to you from the future. There's really no way to know...]

One more source, actually. This is from the Shulchan Aruch, R. Yosef Karo's codification of Jewish law, where he talks about the process of conversion. ==> גוי קטן אם יש לו אב יכול לגייר [אותו] ואם אין לו אב ובא להתגייר או אמו מביאתו להתגייר בית דין מגיירין אותו שזכות הוא לו וזכין לאדם שלא בפניו בין קטן שגיירו אביו בין שגיירוהו ב"ד יכול למחות משיגדיל ואין דינו כישראל מומר אלא כגוי: **שו״ע יו״ד רסח:ז** <== (link:"See the English translation")[A non-Jewish minor, if he has a [living] father, the father can convert him. And if he does not have a father and he comes to convert, or if his mother brings him to convert, a beit din can convert him, because it’s a merit to him, and we can give people merits even when they are not present. Whether he is a minor who is converted at his father’s behest, or whether he was converted by a beit din, he can protest his conversion when he older. We do not consider him to be an apostate Jew, but rather a non-Jew.] <a href="https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Yoreh_De'ah.268.7?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en">(See this text on Sefaria)</a> What does it mean to say יכול למחות, that he is allowed to protest? Under no other circumstances`*` can a conversion be undone; according to Jewish law, conversion has a "no-backsies" element and one cannot return to being a non-Jew. The salient feature here is that this convert was a child when someone else - either their parent or the courts - converted them. The parents or courts assumed that it would be in the best interest of the child to convert them, but once that kid reaches adulthood, they get to decide for themselves. Even if they already immersed and, if relevant, were circumcised, it's almost as though they need to affirm, with their own will, that they are accepting Judaism upon themselves (as per Rambam's formulation) or committing to the Jewish people (as per Ruth). So what do you think happens between childhood and adulthood that changes the situation? [[I've thought about it, go on]] (click:"*")[ --- `*` There is a debate going on in the Israeli rabbinate about whether people who converted without committing to the Israeli rabbinate's idea of what it means to be an observant Jew are actually Jewish. This is, to put it very bluntly, a sin on the part of the rabbinate and goes against the very long halachic history of accepting conversions once they are done. The point at which one should question a convert about their commitment is when they are a prospective convert, *not afterwards*.]

Here you go! ==> הנה הבריאה ההיא שהיא בצורת האדם כו' ולא שיהי' בה נשמה ולא נפש ולא רוח אלא חיות בעלמא עכ"ל ונסתייע סברתי' סיוע שיש בו ממש שכיון שאין בו אפילו נפש אדם אין לו עסק וענין עם דברים הטעונים עשרה או שלשה נפשות מישראל **שו״ת חבם צבי, צג** <== (link:"See the English translation")[“Although this creature (the Golem) has the appearance of a man, it has neither psyche nor soul nor spirit, and is merely alive. And since this creation does not even have the soul of a person, it cannot be a part of Jewish ritual.” This provides support to the previous idea that since the Golem lacks even the soul of a person, it has no business or relevance being part of that which requires 10 or even 3 Jews. ] (click:"חבם צבי")[ The Chacham Tzvi is Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch ben Yaakov Ashkenazi, born in 1656 and died in 1718. He was the rabbi of Amsterdam and his grandfather married into the family of the [[R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem of Chelm]] who, among other things, created the Golem. ] (click:"שו״ת")[Pronounced "shoot", it stands for שאלות ותשובות, or Responsa, collections of questions that rabbis were purportedly asked and how they answered those questions. It is...hmm...unlikely that someone actually wrote to the Chacham Tzvi and said "we're perennially short a tenth person for our minyan, can't we golem a guy up and use that instead?" and far more likely that, like many of his contemporaries, the Chacham Tzvi asked himself the questions he wanted to answer, whether or not someone had approached him with that question.] So...which direction does this text lean in? * What criteria does the Chacham Tzvi develop for a person being part of Jewish ritual? * Do you think the Chacham's Tzvi's position is different from that of the Talmud? If so - how? * Bonus question: Isn't it cool that a 17th century was ALSO interested enough in this question that he actually wrote about it? So now what? [[I've looked at both texts, what's next?|Next section]] [[Let's look at the Talmud.]]

==> רבא ברא גברא שדריה לקמיה דר' זירא הוה קא משתעי בהדיה ולא הוה קא מהדר ליה אמר ליה מן חבריא את הדר לעפריך **מסכת סנהדרין סה ע׳ ב** <== (link:"See the English translation")[Rava created a person. Rava sent him to Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira would speak to him, but he would not respond. So Rabbi Zeira said to him “You must have been created by one of the learned group. Return to your dust.”] <a href="https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.65b.17?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en">(See this text on Sefaria)</a> So, Rava created what is, basically, an artificial person. And used it to run errands. (click:"errands")[(Rava invented the first Amazon delivery drone, prove me wrong.)] And Rabbi Zeira...destroys it. Which suggests that Rabbi Zeira, at least, doesn't consider artificial constructs to be alive as he has no compunction disintegrating it. [[What's going on here?]]

The crucial moment in the exchange here seems to be when Rabbi Zeira asks and the artificial man cannot respond. I want to be very careful reading this, because, on the one hand, the text is clearly connecting the capacity to speak with being fully human.`*` And, at the same time, I think that speech doesn't actually mean the capacity to form words with one's mouth, but speech is standing in for the ability to communicate and be in community with others. That what Rabbi Zeira is expecting from the artificial man is the capacity to respond to him in some fashion - whatever that might look like for that individual - and that because the artificial man utterly fails to percieve anything outside of its predetermined mission (its programming, if you will), Rabbi Zeira determines that it is not really a person and so [[disintegrates]] it. So take a moment to note your thoughts about the following questions: * What is this text telling us about artificial creations? * Under what circumstances would you count this for or against converting artificial intelligence? Ready to move on? [[Yes, you mentioned a golem..?|Look, I came here for a golem and a golem is what I want to learn about.]] [[I already heard about the golem, let's go to the next section|Next section]] (click:"*")[ --- `*`Ramban, who you may or may not have encountered yet, says something similar as well. It's a common idea, especially in medieval times. We'll talk about that.]

Yeah...that's the other thing. While - from our perspective - the disintegration of the artificial man is the pivot on which the question of personhood stands, I'm pretty convinced that, in the story, it's meant as a dig at Rava. Just above this story in the Talmud, Rava claims "אי בעו צדיקי ברו עלמא," "if the righteous willed it, they could create the world". By proving that the artificial person is not, in fact, a person, Rabbi Zeira is undermining Rava's claims to righteousness. Anyway, [[back to the previous page|What's going on here?]]

Given both of these approaches to what halacha thinks about artificial beings counting as Jewish, there does seem to be a consensus towards no. Case closed, right? (click:"right?")[ Of course not, why would we even be here? The thing these two texts have in common is the assumption that they make about the autonomy of the artificial man. Neither golem is able to do anything it has not been programmed to do. A robot that is programmed to ask to convert is clearly no good. But what about a robot that is //intelligent// enough to know what it is asking for when it asks to be //Jewish//? So which of those should we take on next? [[Intelligence!|Intelligence]] [[Jewish!|Jewish]] [[I've looked at all the sources, let's go to the end!]]]

I know what you're thinking (mouseout:"thinking")[(okay, I don't really, I'm guessing)], didn't the Maharal of Prague create the golem? Look, golem-making was a fairly popular past-time. And by popular, I mean that the Jewish communities of Europe were nearly always in danger from pogroms and so many cities would have legends of the magical protector, the Golem, created for them by their rabbis. The Maharal, Rabbi Judah of Prague, is the most famous. Rabbi Eliyahu Ba'al Shem (click:"Ba'al Shem")[(Master of the Name - the name of God)] of Chelm may be the first. The Chacham Tzvi does not touch on this story at all, but his son, Rabbi Yaakov Emden, tells it in one of his own works. ==> אגב אזכיר כאן מה ששמעתי מפה קדוש אמ"ה ז"ל מה שקרה באותו שנוצר ע"י זקנו הגראב"ש ז"ל כי אחר שראהו הולך וגדל מאד נתיירא שלא יחריב העולם על כן לקח ונתק ממנו השם שהי' דבוק עדיין במצחו וע"י זה נתבטל ושב לעפרו. אבל הזיקו ועשה בו שריט' בפניו בעוד שנתעסק בנתיקת השם ממנו בחזק'. <== "I’ll tell you the story I heard from my father, about the golem created by the genius R. Eliyahu Ba’al Shem, who—after he saw it was growing larger and larger—grew afraid lest he destroy the world and so he went and removed the name from its forehead and that cancelled out its life and it returned to dust. But it harmed him and left a mark on his (R Eliyahu’s) forehead since he had to remove the name by force." In that same work, Rabbi Emden also tries to clarify what exactly is going on with the idea that the golem listens to commands and notes that, even if it obeyed commands, like a dog, that wouldn’t be enough to signify humanity. In his understanding, there’s something inherent to the Golem that it can only obey commands, it is not a “bar da’at” - a person capable of discernment. To be human is to be able to say "No". [[Back|Look, I came here for a golem and a golem is what I want to learn about.]]

So lets go all the way back to (link:"Bereishit")[(link:"Genesis")[Bereishit]], to the creation of man, where Ramban (click:"Ramban")[(Nachmanides)] explains what he understands to be the levels of intelligence. Ramban attaches his comments to following verse: ==> וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם עָפָר מִן־הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה׃ **בראשית, ב:ז** <== (link:"See the English translation")[`[`T`]`he LORD God formed man from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.] <a href="https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.2.7?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en">(See the text on Sefaria)</a> God creates man and Ramban is using the language of the verse - נשמת חיים or the breath of life - to shift into a discussion about different kinds of souls. (click:"souls")[ The Hebrew word נשמה means both breath and soul. So when Ramban reads "the breath of life," he reads it as "the soul of life" and then wonders, aloud, what other kinds of souls there are.] ==> כי באדם שלש נפשות, נפש הגדול כצומח או תאמר בזו כח הגדול, ובו עוד נפש התנועה שהזכירה הכתוב בדגים ובחיה ובכל רומש על הארץ, והשלישית הנפש המשכלת…אבל אונקלוס אמר: והות באדם לרוח ממללא. נראה שדעתו כדברי האומרים שהם נפשות שונות, וזאת הנפש המשכלת אשר נפחה השם באפיו היתה בו לנפש מדברת. **רמב״ן על התורה, בראשית ב:ז, ד״ה וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים** <== (link:"See the English paraphrase")[There are three souls that God gave humankind when man was created. The first is the soul of growth, like that which imbues plants and that allows all things to grow. The second is the soul of movement, like that which imbues animals and allows all things to move about. And the third is the soul of knowledge (sapience) […] which Onkelos explains is the power of speech that God breathed into man’s nostrils.] <a href="https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.2.7?lang=bi&aliyot=0&p2=Ramban_on_Genesis.2.7.1&lang2=bi">(See the full text on Sefaria)</a> So, rather than thinking in terms of hierarchy, Ramban is thinking in terms of quantity. Rocks don't have a soul. Plants have one soul that lets them grow, animals have two - one that lets them grow and another that lets them move. And humans have a third that is unique only to people - knowledge or speech. Quick question - have you looked at the texts in the Artificial section yet? [[Yes|Ramban and Chacham Tzvi]] [[No|Mere Ramban]]

So, as you already know, Rabbi Zeira uses the same distinction as Ramban to determine whether the artificial person that Rava created is, in fact, a person. I mentioned there that I think the Gemara is using speech metonymically to refer to the capacity to communicate. That it was because the artificial man only responded to Rava's commands like a wind-up toy or an automaton rather than engaging with Rabbi Zeira that it was not alive. You could map that onto Ramban's hierarchy of souls and say that Rabbi Zeira determined that the artificial man lacked a נשמת חיים and so was not human. [[A Serious Caveat]]

So what exactly is Ramban doing here with the "soul of knowledge" and Onkelos's translation of it as רוח ממללה or "soul of speech"? Equating knowledge with speech is a complicated thing; I think speech is meant to serve metonymically for the ability to communicate. That is, it's not the capacity for a specific set of vocal cords to speak a specific language that Ramban is drawing attention to, but the ability to communicate with others. What separates us from plants and animals is our ability to communicate. [[A Serious Caveat]] (click:"communicate")[ --- Look, I've spent a lot of time around dogs and cats and I defy anyone to argue that they do not communicate and they merely move. We know a lot more about cognition and animal communication than Ramban did. This encroaches on our sense of human's biological superiority, but it doesn't, I think, change our sense that there is some kind of human intelligence that separates us from other animals. Perhaps its merely that humans are the only species that can agonize about this question and THAT is what sets us apart. Intelligence is not the ability to speak, but the ability to wonder.]

Give me a moment to get up on the nearest soapbox... Taking the connection between alive-ness and speech at its face value is extremely ableist. Part of the reason that I'm pushing for a definition that is about communication and community is because: a) elsewhere in the Gemara, it's clear that humanity is not determined by the capacity to speak and b) I think the message needs to be understood more broadly. To communicate is to be in community and there are multiple ways of communicating and being in community. It is up to all of us to recognize forms of communication that are not the kind that comes most easily to us and not make the mistake of thinking that people who don't communicate like we do are not people. This comes more easily to some people than others - those of us who use assistive devices can recognize that not everyone needs a keyboard or a laser pointer or vocalization. But for those people who rarely encounter others who communicate differently than they do, this can be a much more difficult exercise. But that does not excuse or exempt us from doing so. [[So where does that leave us?]]

Take a moment to reflect on the following two questions: * What do you think Ramban would think about artificial intelligence? * If you assume intelligence is something that humans have, would you define נשמת חיים (a living soul) differently from Ramban? Is it about intelligence at all? What do you think makes us human? Not hard questions at all, right? So where do you want to go now? [[I've looked at all the sources, let's go to the end!]] [[Artificial]] [[Jewish]]

Alright, we're here at the end. We've looked at what it takes to be Jewish, the way that artificial people have historically been treated in Halacha, and the relationship between intelligence and personhood. And, finally, we've examined cases that deal with the relationship between these disparate ideas. We have, that is, looked at sources that will allow us to make the decision whether this robot, coming to us of their own free will, can be accepted as a candidate for conversion. [[So...will you accept them as a convert?]]

(set: $answer to (prompt:"Will you accept them as a convert?", "")) (if: $answer is 'yes' or 'Yes' or 'YES' or 'yes!' or 'Yes!' or 'YES!')[Awesome! I'll admit, that's kind of my inclination as well. My feeling is that the texts emphasize *will* as the defining features of conversion. Once it gets into the dicier realm of who is a person, in the halachic sense, it seems like the texts talk about a soul - which we have no access to - but which is itself manifest by the ability to communicate and be a part of community. I wonder, then, if we think AIs have personhood enough to convert, does that mean we think they have souls? [[Thank you so much for learning with me!]]] (else-if: $answer is 'no' or 'No' or 'NO' or 'no!' or 'No!' or 'NO!')[Cool cool. I'll concede, as much as I kinda want the answer to be yes, the texts do seem to lean heavily on the idea that there is something inherent in human beings that makes us special and makes us, unique out of all created beings, able to take on the obligations of being Jewish. We say that the Torah was not given to angels (which, by the way, the angels were pretty angry about), but to humans because it is humans who can perform the commandments in the Torah. Perhaps the same is true of robots. [[Thank you so much for learning with me!]]] (else:)[You know, one of the hardest things about deciding matters of Jewish law is that, when someone comes to you, you have to answer their question. Just type the word yes or no, depending on which side you're leaning towards. [[Do or do not, there is no try.]]]

Well, fellow time-traveler into the future of halacha, I hope you feel like you've learned a great deal on this adventure. We thought about some fascinating issues, way out there in the year 3000 with our advanced AI friends. And regardless of how you decided then, I think the most important takeaway for us, here in the 21st century(click:"21st century")[ (aka the 58th century)], is the obligations we have towards the very real people - by any definition - who we interact with on a daily basis. It's hard - especially when we do so much on computers - to remember just how *real* and important every single human being is. This world is filled with people who are wishing and wanting and willing the future into existence. And it's also filled with community and connection and obligation. We can ask what it is we owe our robot friends, but let's also not forget to ask what it is we owe to each other and even our own souls! (if: (weekday:) is 'Friday')[Shabbat Shalom!](else:)[Have an amazing day!] --- This (link:"Interactive Shiur")[Interactive Shiur or Choose Your Own Adven-shiur, if you will] was brought to you by Liz Shayne and the Interactive Fiction writing software Twine. You can find Liz on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/LizShayne">@LizShayne</a>, via email at <a href="mailto:eshayne@yeshivatmaharat.org">eshayne@yeshivatmaharat.org</a>, or on the students' page on the <a href="https://www.yeshivatmaharat.org/scholar/shayne/liz">Yeshivat Maharat website</a>. You can learn more about Twine <a href="https://twinery.org/">here</a>.

(set: $answer to (prompt:"Will you accept them as a convert?", "")) (if: $answer is 'yes' or 'Yes' or 'YES' or 'yes!' or 'Yes!' or 'YES!')[Awesome! I'll admit, that's kind of my inclination as well. My feeling is that the texts emphasize will as the defining features of conversion and, once it gets into the dicier realm of who is a person, in the halachic sense, it seems like the texts talk about a soul - which we have no access to - which is itself manifest by the ability to communicate and be a part of community. I wonder, then, if we allow think AIs have personhood enough to convert, does that mean we think they have souls? [[Thank you so much for learning with me!]]] (else-if: $answer is 'no' or 'No' or 'NO' or 'no!' or 'No!' or 'NO!')[Cool cool. I'll concede, as much as I kinda want the answer to be yes, the texts do seem to lean heavily on the idea that there is something inherent in human beings that makes us special and makes us, unique out of all created beings, able to take on the obligations of being Jewish. We say that the Torah was not given to angels (which, by the way, the angels were pretty angry about), but to humans because it is humans who can perform the commandments in the Torah. Perhaps the same is true of robots. [[Thank you so much for learning with me!]]]

In this shiur, we will attempt to answer the age-old question that has been bothering us for lo these many generations: Can a robot convert to Judaism? Imagine, for a moment, that it is the year 3000. Global climate change has finally been properly addressed, green cities are thriving, the observant community on Mars has figured out which [[direction to face while praying]], and we have created [[robots capable of thinking for themselves|What is Artificial Intelligence]]. In fact, one of them has thought so much, they have decided that they want to convert to Judaism. You, my friend, have been asked whether this robot can, in fact, convert to Judaism. So let's find out! [[Go on]]