With good intentions, one may pave the road to disaster.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Everybody, including me, should take this at heart. \u2018Doing good\u2019 may take much effort in understanding what one is tinkering with. This is relevant in any domain. [see:\u201d \u2018Doing Good\u2019: Not as Easy as It Seems<\/a>\u201d]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Including A.I., probably even most of all in the domain of A.I. In this, perhaps most of all concerning the difference between total-person and ego.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You really should read this before proceeding. [see: \u201cThe Story of Ego<\/a>\u201d]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Needless to say, in the world of A.I.<\/strong> …<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2026 OK, I\u2019ll say it anyway. In this world, few people are oriented towards deep insights about the difference between total-person and ego. Many are quite one-sidedly STEM-oriented. [see: \u201cCulture over STEM<\/a>\u201d] Understandable as this is, the domain of A.I. should not be the sheer exclusive domain of engineers. Even more, the next breakthrough may come from a very different direction. [see: \u201cThe Next Breakthrough in A.I.<\/a>\u201d]<\/p>\n\n\n\n On top of this, present-day psychological science may not be good enough \u2015 as is the case according to me. It\u2019s a domain in crisis, as I know from many scientific publications, seminars, and personal conversations also at a high level. Many insights of today may be very different within a decade. In my view, most of this is related to the above difference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, people may talk a lot, and next year, hopefully, they come together and talk again about the new scientific and other evolutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But A.I. doesn\u2019t wait for that.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Given its magnifying factor, the consequences may be extraordinarily huge even before those who are knowledgeable get to know better. [see: \u201cRobotizing Humans or Humanizing Robots<\/a>\u201d]<\/p>\n\n\n\n I believe that engineers \u2013 having a different mindset \u2013 are not well aware of the degree to which psychological insights are shifting and may shift further. After a while, due to the inertia of applications, A.I. technology may even run behind on evolving psychological insights, heightening a divide between research and practice \u2015 not a new phenomenon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Consequences<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This may lead to applications that treat humans in the mere-ego sense. For example, in HR, it\u2019s already happening. [see: \u201cA.I., HR, Danger Ahead<\/a>\u201d] Human-centered becomes ego-centered, with growing inner dissociation for many. [see: \u201cInner Dissociation is NEVER OK!<\/a>\u201d] (Un)fortunately, many of these applications are not commercially successful because they don\u2019t fill a deeper need, or after a while, show not to lead to expected results in the real-world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The most significant danger is in the long term when human-A.I. value alignment becomes increasingly pertinent. Which human values are we then talking about? Grossly, those of ego or total-person?<\/p>\n\n\n\n In short, at present, we absolutely need to get to know ourselves very much better. As you may know, I have extensively written about these issues in my book [see: \u201cThe Journey Towards Compassionate AI.<\/a>\u201d].<\/p>\n\n\n\n My view about the future in this<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n You may already know. Compassionate A.I. may help us to become more Compassionate human beings. Types of applications, as well as their inner workings, are crucial to this,<\/p>\n\n\n\n especially since the future of humanity is at stake.<\/p>\n