Indigenous Protocol and Artificial Intelligence Position Paper

This position paper on Indigenous Protocol (IP) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a starting place for those who want to design and create AI from an ethical position that centers Indigenous concerns. Each Indigenous community will have its own particular approach to the questions we raise in what follows. What we have written here is not a substitute for establishing and maintaining relationships of reciprocal care and support with specific Indigenous communities. Rather, this document offers a range of ideas to take into consideration when entering into conversations which prioritize Indigenous perspectives in the development of artificial intelligence. It captures multiple layers of a discussion that happened over 20 months, across 20 time zones, during two workshops, and between Indigenous people (and a few non-Indigenous folks) from diverse communities in Aotearoa, Australia, North America, and the Pacific. Indigenous ways of knowing are rooted in distinct, sovereign territories across the planet. These extremely diverse landscapes and histories have influenced different communities and their discrete cultural protocols over time. A single ‘Indigenous perspective’ does not exist, as epistemologies are motivated and shaped by the grounding of specific communities in particular territories. Historically, scholarly traditions that homogenize diverse Indigenous cultural practices have resulted in ontological and epistemological violence, and a flattening of the rich texture and variability of Indigenous thought. Our aim is to articulate a multiplicity of Indigenous knowledge systems and technological practices that can and should be brought to bear on the ‘question of AI.’ To that end, rather than being a unified statement this position paper is a collection of heterogeneous texts that range from design guidelines to scholarly essays to artworks to descriptions of technology prototypes to poetry. We feel such a somewhat multivocal and unruly format more accurately reflects the fact that this conversation is very much in an incipient stage as well as keeps the reader aware of the range of viewpoints expressed in the workshops

Kaʻina Hana ʻŌiwi a me ka Waihona ʻIke Hakuhia Pepa Kūlana

He wahi hoʻomaka kēia pepa kuana no ke Kaʻina Hana ʻŌiwi (KHʻO) a me ka Waihona ʻike Hakuhia (WʻIH) no ka poʻe e ake nei e haku a hana he WʻIK mai ke kuanaʻike kūpono e hoʻokele ʻia nei e ka manaʻo ʻŌiwi. He kiʻina hana ko kēlā a me kēia kaiāulu ʻŌiwi i nā nīnau a mākou e ui aʻe ai. ʻAʻole kēia mea a mākou i kākau ai he pani i ke kūkulu a mālama ʻana i ka pilina kākoʻo kekahi i kekahi me kekahi mau kaiāulu ʻŌiwi. Eia naʻe, hāpai aʻe kēia palapala i kekahi mau manaʻo e noʻonoʻo ai ke komo i kēia mau kamaʻilio ʻana ʻo ka hoʻomaka koho ʻana i ke kuanaʻike ʻŌiwi i ka haku ʻana he waihona ʻike hakuhia. He hoʻāʻo kēia wahi pepa kūlana e hōʻiliʻili i nā ʻano kamaʻilio like ʻole no 20 mahina, no 20 kāʻei hola, no ʻelua hālāwai hoʻonaʻauao, a ma waena hoʻi o kekahi mau poʻe ʻŌiwi (a ʻŌiwi ʻole hoʻi) no nā kaiāulu like ʻole i Aotearoa, Nū Hōlani, ʻAmelika ʻĀkau a me ka Pākīpika. ʻO ke kia nō naʻe, ʻaʻole ʻo ka hoʻolōkahi ʻana he leo. Paʻa nō ka ʻike ʻŌiwi i kekahi mau ʻāina a aupuni kikoʻī a puni ka honua. Hoʻohuli aku kēia mau ʻāina a mōʻaukala like ʻole i nā kaiāulu ʻokoʻa a me ko lākou mau kaʻina hana ʻŌiwi i ke au o ka manawa. ʻAʻohe “kuanaʻike ʻŌiwi hoʻokahi”, a hoʻomau a haku ʻia nā kālaikuhiʻike e ka hoʻokumu ʻana o kekahi mau kaiāulu kikoʻī i loko o kahi mau ʻāina. Ma mua, he hopena ulūlu o ke kālaikuhiʻike a kālaikuhikanaka ko ka loina naʻauao i hoʻāʻo e naʻi a hoʻohilimia i ka loina ʻŌiwi, a hoʻohāiki ʻia ke ʻano o ka manaʻo a kuanaʻike ʻŌiwi. ʻO ko mākou pahuhopu ke kālele ʻana i nā ʻōnaehana ʻike ʻŌiwi like ʻole a me ke ʻano o ka ʻenehana e hāpai i ka nīnau ʻo ka WʻIH. Ma muli o ia palena, a ma kahi o ka hoʻokuʻikuʻi ʻana he manaʻo lōkahi, he hōʻiliʻili kēia pepa kūlana o kēlā ʻano kēia ʻano o ka moʻokalaleo: ʻo nā manaʻo hoʻokele hakulau ʻoe,, ʻo ka ʻatikala akeakamai ʻoe, ʻo ka wehewehena o ka mana ʻenehana mua ʻoe , a ʻo ka poema ʻoe. I ko mākou manaʻo, he ʻolokeʻa kūpono maoli nā leo a kuanaʻike ʻokoʻa i ka ʻoiaʻiʻo he pae kinohi maoli nō kēia kamaʻilio ʻana, a he hōʻike i ka mea heluhelu no nā kuanaʻike i kupu mai i loko o nā hālāwai hoʻonaʻauao

FCJ-209 Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Pattern Thinking: An Expanded Analysis of the First Indigenous Robotics Prototype Workshop

In November 2014, the lead researcher’s interest in the conceptual development of digital technology and her cultural connection to Indigenous Knowledge Systems created an opportunity to explore a culturally relevant use of technology with urban Indigenous youth: the Indigenous Robotics Prototype Workshop. The workshop achieved a sense of cultural pride and confidence in Indigenous traditional knowledge while inspiring the youth to continue with their engagement in coding and programming through building robots. Yet, the outcomes from the prototype workshop further revealed a need to investigate how Indigenous Knowledge Systems, and particularly Pattern Thinking, might hint toward a possible paradigm shift for the ethical and advanced design of new technologies. This article examines the implications of such a hypothetical shift in autonomous systems in robotics and artificial intelligence (AI), using the Indigenous Robotics Prototype Workshop as a case study and springboard

Artificial intelligence and indigenous perspectives: Protecting and empowering intelligent human beings

As 'control' is increasingly ceded to AI systems, potentially Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) humanity may be facing an identity crisis sooner rather than later, whereby the notion of 'intelligence' no longer remains solely our own. This paper characterizes the problem in terms of an impending loss of control and proposes a relational shift in our attitude towards AI. The shortcomings of value alignment as a solution to the problem are outlined which necessitate an extension of these principles. One such approach is considering strongly relational Indigenous epistemologies. The value of Indigenous perspectives has not been canvassed widely in the literature. Their utility becomes clear when considering the existence of well-developed epistemologies adept at accounting for the non-human, a task that defies Western anthropocentrism. Accommodating AI by considering it as part of our network is a step towards building a symbiotic relationship. Given that AGI questions our fundamental notions of what it means to have human rights, it is argued that in order to co-exist, we find assistance in Indigenous traditions such as the Hawaiian and Lakota ontologies. Lakota rituals provide comfort with the conception of non-human soulbearer while Hawaiian stories provide possible relational schema to frame our relationship with AI