THE CULTURE BEFORE THE COURT
Before there was a statute,
there was a habit.
Before there was a courtroom,
there was a street.
Before the judge asked,
“What does the law require?”
someone had already decided
what another human being was worth.
That is where culture begins.
Not in the courthouse.
Not in the legislature.
Not in the machine.
But in the thousand small permissions
we give ourselves
before anyone calls them law.
A bench is divided
so no one can lie upon it.
A planter is placed
where a tent once stood.
A railing is designed
not merely to support a body
but to prevent a body from resting.
A sidewalk is cleared.
The photograph looks better.
The complaint disappears.
The city says:
Order has been restored.
But somewhere beyond the photograph
a person is still carrying a blanket.
The problem has not disappeared.
The neighbor has.
And this is how culture
walks toward the courthouse.
First we learn to look away.
Then we learn the language
that makes looking away reasonable.
Then we build systems
that perform the looking away for us.
And eventually
we teach the machine.
The machine does not invent contempt.
It studies what we reward.
It does not awaken one morning
and decide that the poor are inconvenient.
We give it objectives.
Reduce complaints.
Improve pedestrian flow.
Identify prohibited encampments.
Prioritize enforcement.
Optimize public space.
Allocate scarce resources.
Predict risk.
And the machine becomes very good
at answering the question we asked.
But what if we asked
the wrong question?
What if the person sleeping beneath the overpass
appears in the system
only as an obstruction?
What if poverty becomes a data point,
homelessness a classification,
suffering a probability,
and removal a successful outcome?
Then the machine may become extraordinarily efficient
at reproducing a blindness
that was already ours.
That is why ethical AI begins
before AI.
It begins with culture.
With what we tolerate.
With whom we notice.
With whom we believe.
With whose suffering
we consider urgent.
With the distance we permit
between ourselves
and those who have nowhere to sleep.
Someday a court may be asked:
Was the algorithm discriminatory?
Was the automated decision lawful?
Was the data accurate?
Was due process provided?
Who authorized the system?
Who bears liability?
Those questions will matter.
But another question was waiting
long before the lawsuit:
What kind of society built the machine?
For law often arrives
after culture has already prepared the soil.
If the soil contains indifference,
technology may cultivate indifference.
If the soil contains exclusion,
automation may scale exclusion.
If the soil contains mercy,
responsibility, transparency, and restraint,
perhaps our machines will be surrounded
by institutions that know where they must stop.
I have stood on streets
where people possessed almost nothing.
A blanket.
A cart.
A few bags.
A pair of worn shoes.
Perhaps a Bible.
Perhaps nothing anyone else
would call valuable.
And yet the city around them
contained extraordinary wealth,
extraordinary technology,
extraordinary intelligence.
That contrast asks a question
no algorithm can silence:
What becomes of the human being
while the system becomes more efficient?
The answer cannot be:
Move him farther away.
Move her beneath another bridge.
Move the tent beyond the district.
Move the suffering
until prosperity no longer has to see it.
Because displacement can change geography
without changing suffering.
And a machine trained to optimize geography
may never understand the difference.
The map may say the problem is gone.
The street knows otherwise.
This is why an ethical AI culture
must be born before
an AI jurisprudence can mature.
Teach the engineer:
The person is not the obstacle.
Teach the company:
Efficiency is not sovereignty.
Teach the government:
Prediction is not permission.
Teach the programmer:
A classification is not a human being.
Teach the public:
Convenience does not erase responsibility.
Teach the machine its boundary.
And teach ourselves
why the boundary exists.
Then perhaps when the law finally arrives,
it will not arrive merely carrying penalties.
It will arrive carrying memory.
Memory of the people
whose injuries taught us
what protection was necessary.
Memory of the worker
rejected without explanation.
Memory of the family
deceived by an artificial voice.
Memory of the person
misclassified by a system.
Memory of the homeless neighbor
whose disappearance from the screen
was mistaken for the disappearance
of homelessness.
The court should not be
the first place where society discovers
that something is wrong.
Culture should have spoken earlier.
Conscience should have spoken earlier.
The engineer should have spoken earlier.
The worker should have spoken earlier.
The neighbor should have been seen earlier.
Because by the time everything reaches
the courtroom,
someone may already have paid.
So build the culture
before building only the case law.
Build responsibility
before liability.
Build transparency
before scandal.
Build restraint
before catastrophe.
Build proximity
before judgment.
And whenever artificial intelligence
is asked to decide something
about a human being,
place one question
beside the machine:
Where is the neighbor?
If the answer cannot be found,
stop.
Look again.
Walk beyond the data.
Cross the street.
Look beneath the overpass.
Look behind the wall.
Look where the optimization
sent the person we no longer see.
There,
outside the courthouse,
outside the dataset,
outside the glowing screen,
the neighbor is still waiting.
And perhaps the deepest law
of the coming AI age
will not first be written
by a legislature.
Perhaps it will begin
with an older command:
Love your neighbor as yourself.
For before the culture reaches the court,
before ethics becomes statute,
before principle becomes precedent,
before the machine becomes evidence,
there remains the human being
standing before another human being.
And there the first judgment
has already begun:
Did we move the problem—
or did we move toward the neighbor?
Pastor Steven G. Lee
St. GMC Corps
October 3, 2026
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/01/technology/ai-rogue-agents-liability.html ___ A.I. Is Going Rogue. Who Should Be Held Responsible? Many think artificial intelligence companies should be held liable for their runaway technology. But legal scholars say applying existing law could be messy. Oct 1, 2026
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/328503/20261002/ai-agent-accountability-act-rogue-agent-hacks-now-carry-criminal-risk-executives.htm ___October 2, 2026
https://www.facebook.com/steven.g.lee1/posts/pfbid0gc1TRUZo2jh1Za3PaDba2ENgovEuWJY7UGq8KHx27sBvG5vgqVFjMckhtYTLfKvcl
No comments:
Post a Comment