美国肯塔基大学行政管理人员戴维·杜尔曼（David Durman）近日获得一项工作场所宗教便利安排，允许他在履行工作职责时不必亲自使用人工智能工具。这一案例受到广泛关注，因为杜尔曼并非传统宗教信徒，而是一名自我认同为“人文主义者”的无神论者。
杜尔曼表示，人文主义是一套关于人类经验以及人与世界关系的价值体系，其核心在于促进个人和集体的福祉与发展，同时鼓励人们不断改善自己以及周围人的生活。他认为，人工智能的使用与自己的核心信念存在冲突。
随着AI技术逐渐渗透到日常工作和生活之中，杜尔曼开始寻求法律层面的保护。他随后联系了美国人文主义协会（AHA），这一推动世俗人文主义理念的非营利组织帮助他研究如何获得免于使用AI的工作保障。
在解释自己的立场时，杜尔曼认为，人们之所以能够成为有道德判断能力的人，是因为能够主动运用自己的思维能力。如果越来越多的思考过程被人工智能取代，人类的批判性思维和独立判断能力将受到削弱，而这将对个人道德发展产生负面影响。
本周早些时候，美国人文主义协会发表的一份声明进一步披露了杜尔曼的理由。他在声明中指出，人工智能正在影响许多人的谋生能力，其巨大的能源消耗和环境成本可能对人类社会和地球生态造成长期危害。同时，他认为AI对人类创作成果的大规模利用，也正在威胁艺术、文学等维系社会繁荣的重要文化领域。
虽然人文主义通常不被视为传统宗教，但它长期吸引着那些对神或超自然力量持怀疑态度的人群。这些人希望通过科学思维和道德原则建立自己的价值体系，而非依赖宗教信仰。
美国人文主义协会律师亚历山德里娅·惠斯肯斯表示，对于人工智能与人类尊严关系的担忧并不限于某一种信仰体系。无论是天主教教义、普救主义还是人文主义，都可能形成类似的道德关切。她强调，人文主义者和无神论者同样受到美国相关法律的保护，在职场中也拥有申请合理便利安排的权利。
据介绍，杜尔曼是目前已知首位以人文主义身份成功获得AI使用豁免的员工，也是少数公开谈论这一过程的人之一。他表示，自己之所以采取行动，部分原因是受到另一位案例当事人的启发。此前，一名持一神普救派信仰的软件工程师艾琳·莫斯（Erin Maus）也曾成功获得类似保护，从而无需在工作中使用人工智能工具。
杜尔曼表示，申请豁免并不是为了影响他人是否使用AI，而是为了坚持自己的价值观和道德信念。他强调，这件事本质上与个人良知有关，是对自身原则的坚持。
这一案例也反映出，随着人工智能逐渐成为职场基础工具，美国有关宗教自由、良知权利以及技术应用边界的讨论正在进入新的阶段。未来，类似围绕AI使用义务与个人信念冲突的案例，可能会变得越来越常见。
本文由 AI图鉴自动抓取并翻译，版权归原作者所有；如需查看原文请点下方链接。
David Durman, an administrative staff member at the University of Kentucky in the United States, has recently been granted a workplace religious accommodation arrangement that allows him to perform his duties without having to use artificial intelligence tools in person. This case has received widespread attention because Durman is a non-traditional religious believer and an atheist who identifies himself as a “humanist”.
Durman stated that humanism is a system of values about human experience and human relations with the world, centred on promoting individual and collective well-being and development, while encouraging people to constantly improve their lives and those around them. In his view, the use of artificial intelligence conflicted with his core beliefs.
As AI technology gradually permeated daily work and life, Durman began to seek legal protection. He then contacted the American Humanist Association (AHA), a non-profit organization that promotes secular humanism, to help him study ways to secure protection from the use of AI.
In explaining its position, Durman argued that people were able to become people with moral judgement because they were able to use their mental abilities on their own initiative. If more and more processes of thinking are replaced by artificial intelligence, the critical thinking and independent judgement of humankind will be weakened, which will have a negative impact on the moral development of individuals.
The reasons for Durman were further disclosed in a statement issued earlier this week by the American Humanist Association. In his statement, he noted that artificial intelligence was affecting the livelihood of many people, whose enormous energy consumption and environmental costs could cause long-term harm to human society and the Earth ' s ecology. At the same time, he considers that the large-scale use of the results of human creation by AI is also threatening important cultural areas that sustain social prosperity, such as art and literature.
While humanism is not usually regarded as a traditional religion, it has long attracted those who have doubts about the power of God or paranormal. They want to build their own value systems through scientific thinking and ethical principles, rather than relying on religious beliefs.
Alecandria Wheskens, a lawyer for the American Humanist Association, stated that concerns about the relationship between artificial intelligence and human dignity were not limited to one belief system. Similar moral concerns may arise from Catholicism, universalism or humanism. She stressed that humanists and atheists were equally protected by United States law and had the right to apply for reasonable accommodation in the workplace.
Durman was described as the first known employee to succeed in obtaining an AI exemption in a humanist capacity, and one of the few to speak openly about the process. He indicated that his action was inspired in part by another case. Prior to this, Erin Maus, a software engineer with a universalist faith, had been able to obtain similar protection from the use of artificial intelligence tools at work.
According to Durman, the exemption was requested not to affect the use of AI by others, but to uphold their values and moral convictions. He stressed that the matter was intrinsically related to the individual ' s conscience and upheld its own principles.
This case also reflects the new stage of discussions in the United States on freedom of religion, the right to conscience and the boundaries of technology application as artificial intelligence becomes a fundamental tool in the workplace. In the future, cases such as the conflict between the obligation to use AI and individual beliefs may become more common.
Auto-fetched and translated by AI Atlas. All rights belong to the original author.