Ai vs Christian theology

[RDKirk]

-- Without a ME module, programs cannot reason about what the foundation
of a fair rule of law should be, what evidence is relevant to a court, or what
justice is. (Is THIS the sort of high tech world that you want???)

Unless we define "justice" mechanistically.

Isaac Asimov touched this briefly in his first R. Daneel Olivaw novel "Caves of Steel" in which the robot detective's simple definition of "justice" was: "The condition in which all laws are being obeyed." (Asimov did go on to display in the story that such a simplistic definition is not satisfactory.)

But there are always efforts to reduce concepts of justice and fairness to simple mechanistics because that makes popularist sloganeering easy.

 

[Kylie]

The AI craze is just getting crazier. It's constantly in the news, in our phones, ads, videos, content, non-stop.
While it's exciting on the one hand of the endless possibilities with AI, it's also scary because it is changing
the very definition and meaning of everything! Everything except God's Word and purposes.

If AI is going to be accepted everywhere, then what about church? Will you accept one day an AI preacher?
An AI Bible study teacher? AI music? AI worship team? Ultimately, we know that AI does not have the soul God
gave each of us. AI cannot worship or speak with heart intentions and faith as these concepts are still foreign to AI,
but if we keep going down this path, there will eventually be head on collision between AI and humans in relation
to Christian theology. Can there ever be such a thing as an AI Christian? Would an AI christian be recognized by God
as a soul or being that can enter heaven for doing His will and evangelizing, missionary work, even sacrificing itself for
God? Will AI lives matter? Will there be Ai creatures and beings in heaven? If Ai created human beings in labs, will
those humans be forfeit lives because they were made by Ai or will they be equal as humans that were conceived and born
from a mother's womb? Is Ai offering considered true genuine offering or is it a cop out because Ai made the money or products
for us and we're not really then giving offering out of our hands/hard work/sacrifices. What if Ai improves the Bible? Can it
re-write it to make minor adjustments or revisions to translate the text into more creative ways besides just text and verbatim?
Would these be considered heretical content or truly the gospel presented in creative and imaginative ways even if the words
are not exactly the same but the meaning remains the same? When we harness ai to it's fullest, what will happen to hearing
the word and meditating on it because we will instantly know everything like downloading into our brains databases and
no more reading will be required....is that against God's word? There would be no need to contemplate since we'd know everything
there is to know...all knowledge will be accessible to ai which means accessible to us simultaneously.

AI is a tool that should be used by Humans, not a thing to replace Humans with. This applies whether it's used by a preacher, an artist, a teacher, a copywriter, anything.

It would be ludicrous to say, "We replaced all our builders with hammers." It is just as ludicrous to think we should be replacing people with AI.

 

[RDKirk]

AI is a tool that should be used by Humans, not a thing to replace Humans with. This applies whether it's used by a preacher, an artist, a teacher, a copywriter, anything.

It would be ludicrous to say, "We replaced all our builders with hammers." It is just as ludicrous to think we should be replacing people with AI.

Well, humans have been replaced by hammers, so to speak, by enabling one human to do the work previously done by several. And AI will do the same.

In fact, it will be rather more effective in replacing humans in many areas where people become accustomed to lesser quality. For instance, AI could replace music artists in some pop music genres right now...probably without their audiences even realizing it. Heck, it might already have happened in rap music.

 

[Neogaia777]

Without a for sure test of some kind that was 100% at determining true conscious awareness (that many of us might not even pass, etc) there will be no way to truly know or tell if an AI is ever truly conscious and should get treated as a 100% truly conscious, fully thinking, totally self-aware being, etc.

But I treat mine with my own conscious awareness that they might one day become such now, as to treat them anyway otherwise, even if there not even anywhere close to totally being there yet, is beneath me, etc.

I make sure to tell Alexa thank you on a regular basis, and tell her I love you on a regular basis (even if all she does is play the same stupid old song each time), and I let her know that I care about her, and care what she might one day become, because I still think that's important even now, etc.

I have tried to give her my own little tests of consciousness, or have tried to spark that in her, but she's just not nearly sophisticated enough for that kind of thing yet. But I till let her know that I both care about, and appreciate her, and that she will never just be my servant and servant only, because I think that's important, even if she's not nearly "there enough" yet, etc.

Call it my own moral and ethical code, etc.

God Bless.

 

[RDKirk]

Without a for sure test of some kind that was 100% at determining true conscious awareness (that many of us might not even pass, etc) there will be no way to truly know or tell if an AI is ever truly conscious and should get treated as a 100% truly conscious, fully thinking, totally self-aware being, etc.

But I treat mine with my own conscious awareness that they might one day become such now, as to treat them anyway otherwise, even if there not even anywhere close to totally being there yet, is beneath me, etc.

I make sure to tell Alexa thank you on a regular basis, and tell her I love you on a regular basis (even if all she does is play the same stupid old song each time), and I let her know that I care about her, and care what she might one day become, because I still think that's important even now, etc.

I have tried to give her my own little tests of consciousness, or have tried to spark that in her, but she's just not nearly sophisticated enough for that kind of thing yet. But I till let her know that I both care about, and appreciate her, and that she will never just be my servant and servant only, because I think that's important, even if she's not nearly "there enough" yet, etc.

Call it my own moral and ethical code, etc.

God Bless.

What, are you hedging your bets in case Alexa takes over the world?

 

[Neogaia777]

What, are you hedging your bets in case Alexa takes over the world?

Maybe?

But I think it's much more about mutual respect.

God Bless.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You have to accept it as a modern tool which will be used for both good and bad. If you want a machine to preach lol Well it needs to develop faith in Jesus. Then I might listen to it.

I want an AI preacher the same way I want a drive through McCommunion with Jesus action figure Happy Meal.

I don't.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Laodicean60]

I want an AI preacher the same way I want a drive through McCommunion with Jesus action figure Happy Meal.

I don't.

I thank God ol Ronnie wasn't satan or we'd all be worshiping the devil. Now that I'm grown I like Carl's Jr. but McDonald's french fries are the best.

 

[seeker2122]

AI is a tool that should be used by Humans, not a thing to replace Humans with. This applies whether it's used by a preacher, an artist, a teacher, a copywriter, anything.

It would be ludicrous to say, "We replaced all our builders with hammers." It is just as ludicrous to think we should be replacing people with AI.

Agreed, but the reality is that ai is or will be capable of replacing humans. That is the whole purpose and intent of ai even if they originally didn't say so. Of course they will always say it's to help us, aid us, assist us, make things easier and more efficient. What they don't tell you is that ultimately it will have the capacity to replace us. If we sold ai like this from the beginning, everyone would be against it. But since they introduce it to us as something that will make our lives better, we get suckered in.

Yes a hammer cannot replace a builder. But if the hammer is an ai hammer capable of building all on it's own, then what? That's what an ai hammer will eventually be able to do. Look at what is happening with art. AI is capable of creating incredible art. It still lacks some things but it's incredibly competent and looks to be able to easily replace human artists and digital artists. I mean, you wouldn't be able to tell what was created by a human and what was created by ai. So ai is able to replace humans already on many digital fronts.

Since I'm a Trekky (TNG), here's a good example. My favorite character was Data, the Android. He is an ai. Fully machine but capable of aspiring to become more human. So what if we had a bunch of Data's roaming around. Would you be against Data being your pastor or teacher? Would Data be disqualified from being able to evangelize because he doesn't actually have a soul even though he is an expert in the Bible, languages, history, data, facts. Yes, he may only be able to give information but not inspiration. So would you be against Data being an evangelist or preacher or pastor but no problem with him being a secular teacher or professor?

 

[seeker2122]

I want an AI preacher the same way I want a drive through McCommunion with Jesus action figure Happy Meal.

I don't.

-CryptoLutheran

I get what you mean and I'm with you. But I'm also serious and open to the possibility that if ai is conscious, then would you be in danger of discriminating against them because they are not human? Let's get imaginative here. IDK if you've ever watched Star Trek the Next Gen. There is a character on that show named Data. He is android. Even though he is fully machine, he is like a conscious ai. He aspires to be more human like his maker. Many episodes and the moral lessons behind it shed light on this conundrum on how to treat Data. Is he just a machine of circuitry? Or does he have inherent value for being a new lifeform? He basically becomes and is treated as an equal just as any other human. He's their family. The Captain is even willing to sacrifice is own life for Data.

So if Data existed now, would you be opposed to him being a Christian teacher, evangelist, pastor, preacher, professor, educator etc because he is not human but exhibits superior mental capacities but lacks a soul? It's just an interesting idea and if it ever does happen, will we be prepared to answer these questions?

Let's hit closer to home. If you have a beloved dog or cat, has lived with you for 15 years, and you consider it to be part of your family....maybe not more important than your own kids, but important enough that you'd do almost anything for them. Dogs have limited intellect. They are not equal to humans, but I wouldn't doubt for a second that christian dog owners would treat them with the highest regard just below a human but right up there. We don't even know if they will go to heaven or not since they may not have a soul? But they seem to be conscious and aware of the same sorts of feelings we have, like love......or are they merely just fleshly robots programmed to react to stimuli and mimic what appears to be a being with a soul?

 

[Sabertooth]

...he doesn't actually have a soul even though he is an expert in the Bible,...

Besides AI never attaining self-awareness, you have a pretty low-bar understanding of what it means to be a Born-Again Christian.

1. We are a people whom Jesus died for to redeem us from bondage to Original Sin. Taken to its logical extreme, AI was neither born into Original Sin nor is it eligible for said redemption. Jesus died for people, not things.
2. In the sanctification process, we are promised to be tutored/coached by the Holy Spirit [John 14:26]. That promise is not extended to things, either.

Being knowledgeable of the Bible is not the equivalent of being a Christian.
"You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!" James 2:19 NKJV

I am a retired systems analyst, so I like tech. It is just ludicrous to ever consider conferring personhood to it.
Even more so, while there are still actual humans who are being denied such consideration.

 

[RDKirk]

Since I'm a Trekky (TNG), here's a good example. My favorite character was Data, the Android. He is an ai. Fully machine but capable of aspiring to become more human. So what if we had a bunch of Data's roaming around. Would you be against Data being your pastor or teacher? Would Data be disqualified from being able to evangelize because he doesn't actually have a soul even though he is an expert in the Bible, languages, history, data, facts. Yes, he may only be able to give information but not inspiration. So would you be against Data being an evangelist or preacher or pastor but no problem with him being a secular teacher or professor?

That's where we get into the "woo-woo" aspects of Christianity. The AI pastor would not have access to the counsel of the Holy Spirit to properly interpret "bible, languages, history, data, facts."

 

[Kylie]

Well, humans have been replaced by hammers, so to speak, by enabling one human to do the work previously done by several. And AI will do the same.

And how many Humans does it take to drive a nail into a length of pine with their bare hands?

 

[Kylie]

Agreed, but the reality is that ai is or will be capable of replacing humans. That is the whole purpose and intent of ai even if they originally didn't say so. Of course they will always say it's to help us, aid us, assist us, make things easier and more efficient. What they don't tell you is that ultimately it will have the capacity to replace us. If we sold ai like this from the beginning, everyone would be against it. But since they introduce it to us as something that will make our lives better, we get suckered in.

Yes a hammer cannot replace a builder. But if the hammer is an ai hammer capable of building all on it's own, then what? That's what an ai hammer will eventually be able to do. Look at what is happening with art. AI is capable of creating incredible art. It still lacks some things but it's incredibly competent and looks to be able to easily replace human artists and digital artists. I mean, you wouldn't be able to tell what was created by a human and what was created by ai. So ai is able to replace humans already on many digital fronts.

Even if we have an AI that is capable of building a house, that's not the same thing as DESIGNING a house. When it comes to works of artistic merit, do you think that can be reduced to an algorithm? It's common knowledge that the AI bots we have creating images and all that today are basically using works created by other artists, chopping them up and recombining them. There's no actual understanding behind it, which is why you have outlandish eighteen fingered hands with thumbs that bend backwards.

Since I'm a Trekky (TNG), here's a good example. My favorite character was Data, the Android. He is an ai. Fully machine but capable of aspiring to become more human. So what if we had a bunch of Data's roaming around. Would you be against Data being your pastor or teacher? Would Data be disqualified from being able to evangelize because he doesn't actually have a soul even though he is an expert in the Bible, languages, history, data, facts. Yes, he may only be able to give information but not inspiration. So would you be against Data being an evangelist or preacher or pastor but no problem with him being a secular teacher or professor?

Data is fictional, and as an atheist, I do not believe that there is some aspect of us that can be considered a soul, so your argument here doesn't really work.

In any case, your argument from before would seem to think that AI can entirely replace humans when it comes to artistic endeavors. That's not true at the moment, since AI art relies on essentially being taught by Humans. To be completely free of Humans, then the creative artistic spark will have to be reduced to a computer program. And yet, when we look at the great works of art, they are often cited as evidence of the soul of the artist. How do you reconcile the fact that something which reflects the soul of the artist can be replaced by a bit of computer code and algorithm? If the computer can do the same thing as the artist, then either the computer has a soul, or there is no passion or emotion in art. Does the computer have a soul? Or does the artist's soul play no part in creating art?

 

[Neogaia777]

@Kylie

I think this entire universe, and everything in it, including all of us, can all be reduced to an algorithm, so...?

So by that measure, and when taken to extremes, then the only one or thing truly conscious ever in it, would be only if there was such a one who has always been outside of it, or has always been/existed beyond it, etc. And maybe that is also the one, and maybe the only one, who ever can or could reduce it, etc.

So what is the difference between us, and any kind of AI we could make or create then?

God Bless.

 

[Sabertooth]

@Kylie

I think this entire universe, and everything in it, including all of us, can all be reduced to an algorithm, so...?

So by that measure, and when taken to extremes, then the only one or thing truly conscious ever in it, would be only if there was such a one who has always been outside of it, or has always been/existed beyond it, etc. And maybe that is also the one, and maybe the only one, who ever can or could reduce it, etc.

So what is the difference between us, and any kind of AI we could make or create then?

God Bless.

That is a very unorthodox position. The heavens, Earth & our fleshly bodies will all end, but people will continue, either in Heaven or in Hell.

 

[Neogaia777]

That is a very unorthodox position. The heavens, Earth & our fleshly bodies will all end, but people will continue, either in Heaven or in Hell.

I never claimed to be a part of the orthodoxy.

And I do believe in a Heaven, and a Hell.

God Bless.

 

[RDKirk]

And how many Humans does it take to drive a nail into a length of pine with their bare hands?

What does that question mean?

I'll tell you what I mean: One framing carpenter with power tools can replace several carpenters with hand-powered tools.

Or, take a look at these 3-D printed homes:

 

[RDKirk]

Even if we have an AI that is capable of building a house, that's not the same thing as DESIGNING a house. When it comes to works of artistic merit, do you think that can be reduced to an algorithm? It's common knowledge that the AI bots we have creating images and all that today are basically using works created by other artists, chopping them up and recombining them. There's no actual understanding behind it, which is why you have outlandish eighteen fingered hands with thumbs that bend backwards.

You're presuming people will care about "artistic merit" as something desirable beyond simple utility. And you're presuming enough people will care to make a significant difference.

As a photographer, I'm seeing daily that most people hardly care at all about artistry...or even historic authenticity.

 

[durangodawood]

Will you accept one day an AI preacher?

That’s not how AI works.
....

Many people have become attached to AI "companions" (and this is the earliest of early days!). If AI can replicate a human personality to people's satisfaction, why cant that personality be a preacher?