Ai vs Christian theology

[Jipsah]

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!

Well, no. Most of what's called AI today is nothing of the sort. It's just possibly better code. AI just sounds so bloody cool that everybody is claiming to use it.

If AI is going to be accepted everywhere, then what about church?

Accepted for what? The weekly newsletter? What would the church use AI for?

Will you accept one day an AI preacher?

I've seen a god many preachers who could easily be replaced with a well trained parrot.

Can there ever be such a thing as an AI Christian?

No, because Christians are people, and AIs are program code running on a computer, end of.

Would an AI christian be recognized by God

Oh please, let's not do science fiction and humanoid robots. C3PO is a puppet. Mr Data is man wearing a lot of makeup. An AI is a piece of computer software, It can no more be a Christian than can a refrigerator or or my wife's scary computerized rie cooker. It's a .EXE file on your computer. It doesn't think, believe, like, dislike, love, hate, feel dream, wonder, or anything remotely like those things. It is a set of instructions excecuted by a computer. Software neither lives nor dies. It just runs, or does not. PERIOD.

as a soul or being that can enter heaven for doing His will and evangelizing, missionary work, even sacrificing itself for
God?

Turn off the teevee, mate.

Will AI lives matter?

There is no such thing as an "AI life".
It's no more alive than your web browser.

 

[Jipsah]

Agreed, but the reality is that ai is or will be capable of replacing humans.

Software has been replacing humans for decades. I recall installing my first automnated telephone attendant that handled a large number of phone lines. The customer had 5 switchboard operators to handle all their phone traffic.
Two weeks later they had only one. A 286 computer in the corner running software that I wrote had replaced the other 4.

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.

They've replaced bank tellers, grocery check-out clerks, warehousemen, telephone canvassers, and video processng techs just to name a few. They haven't replaced everyone in those jobs, but they've reduced their numbers dramatically, None of the software involved with that coud be considered "AI", it's simply deigned to do what those people did.

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.

And here you are telling us now when you've been using the stuff fo decades.

a hammer cannot replace a builder. But if the hammer is an ai hammer capable of building all on it's own, then what?

The AI won't be replacing the hammer, a purpose designed computer driven hammering machine, that doesn't that one thing quickly and perfectly, many times faster and with uncanny accuracy, will replace the human hammer swinger. No AI required. Look at modern automobile assembly plants, and see who, or rather what, is building those cars. That bird has flown, not because of AIs, but because or purpose built "smart" machines that do one thing with mechanical efficiency.

That's what an ai hammer will eventually be able to do.

You don't need the AI for hammering.

Look at what is happening with art. AI is capable of creating incredible art.

Depends on what you consider art. It's still machine manufactured product.

It still lacks some things but it's incredibly competent and looks to be able to easily replace human artists and digital artists.

With phtograpghic perfection. Which is the problem. Photography hasn't replaced painting and sculpture yet.

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.

In other words, Mr. Data is a Mechanical Man. AIs don't "aspire", or "want". They just run, like any other piece of software. SF robots aren't AIs, they're artificial people, (with the possible exception of HAL, who was a bug-ridden AI.

Would you be against Data being your pastor or teacher?

No, because Data is simply an fictional artificial person, not an AI.

So would you be against Data being an evangelist or preacher or pastor but no problem with him being a secular teacher or professor?

Gimme the specs for whaty you want an artifiicial preacher to do and I'll write you the code to do it. Run it on your laptop if you like. No "AI" necessary.

 

[Jipsah]

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.

I'm another old coder/designer/project mangler/ analysta, 30 years at the keyboard and whiteboard (and the Panaboard if you ever saw one of those; greatest thing since sliced bread).. Normies goiong on about AIs mke my head hurt.

 

[Sabertooth]

...project mangler...

Funny.

 

[Kylie]

What I mean is that most people don't actually want anything beyond utility, and the percentage that cares about the art is going downward.

And when I say "art," I'm talking about something more esoteric than the mass produced Hobby Lobby kitsch that AI can turn out easily.

How does art have any "utility" at all? What practical goal does it accomplish?

Well, that was a silly response. I think you know that I meant automation replaces humans in manufacture, and AI-aided automation will replace even more.

Ah, so now you are talking about manufacture, yet just a moment ago you were talking about AI used to create art.

Why do you shift the goalposts?

No, that's not how AI art generation works. It works very similar to how a technically competent-but-not-inspired human operates.

Source please.

 

[Kylie]

Hell is not a punishment, but is just a natural result of those who are only made to be the cause of others getting to go to heaven. Hell is a continuation here in other creations/universes/realities that will be after this, etc, and those ones are not aware of it each time, etc, and it is forever, etc. They are forever permanently just a cause of others getting to go to Heaven, which only ever happens here, etc, and that is forever, etc.

And why would it eliminate God's choosing of some getting to live beyond this, or getting to go to heaven?

God Bless.

Ah, so I don't get to go to heaven, I have to go to hell because I was only here to help others get into heaven.

@Kylie

You will find many, many false teachings about God's wrath.

But you managed to figure out the right one, of course.

People do not go to this kind of hell I told you about because of God's wrath. God the Father has no wrath. Or even any other kind of feeling about anything really. He just was/always is, etc. That's why He has the other Two to express that. So that we may know Him, etc. But He will probably always still have everyone else's judgements being thrown at Him for that, etc.

God the Spirit's wrath was poured out, or was directed to/towards Jesus Christ when he was crucified, or was on the cross, etc, and that fully satisfied that One's wrath, etc. God the Spirit was also made to fully submit to God the Father's will in that moment, just as Jesus did when he submitted to the cross, etc. Jesus went to where the Father always was/has been after that, and left us here with now God the Holy Spirit, just as we have always been here with God the (Holy) Spirit, until he (Jesus) should come back, and it is that One's wrath that we will all be judged by, or will be suffering at that time then, etc. But it will only be a revealing of whom was already predestined which way or either way by the Father, etc. Or of who will be continuing on in heaven, and those who's only purpose anywhere ever is/always was/forever will be, etc, the cause of causing them to go there, etc.

This is why God the Holy Spirit no longer tries to do the kinds of things he was doing, or was trying to do in the OT. Because His wrath was fully satisfied when Jesus died on the cross, and after that in the NT, etc. This is why we don't see or hear very much from Him now in the kinds of ways He used to do, or used to be like in the OT, because it is all fully yielded to God the Father and God the Son now after Jesus died on the cross in the NT, etc.

That's all I'm going to share for now.

God Bless.

Yeah, this is a claim, but there's no support. Not going to convince me.

Just to reiterate, people do not go to this kind of hell that I speak of because of anything they didn't do or did, etc, but only because of the way they were made from before the beginning by God the Father, etc. And also like I said, there are going to be a lot of people probably forever throwing their judgements at Him for that, etc. Well, it won't be forever, but I think you understand what I mean, etc.

God Bless.

So God intentionally makes people in such a way as for it to be impossible for them to get into heaven, and you're okay with this?

 

[Kylie]

Its derivative for sure. But certain aspects of it are completely original, especially when the influence of various prior arts are mixed together in unpredictable ways - plus whatever weird content you demand in your prompt.

Yeah, like people with two heads, or seventeen fingers that grow out of their arms.

Oh, and need I point out that the stuff included in the prompt is NOT part of the AI generated content?

 

[Neogaia777]

Ah, so I don't get to go to heaven, I have to go to hell because I was only here to help others get into heaven.

But you managed to figure out the right one, of course.

Yeah, this is a claim, but there's no support. Not going to convince me.

So God intentionally makes people in such a way as for it to be impossible for them to get into heaven, and you're okay with this?

It's taken me a very, very long time to be even semi-ok with it, and none of us yet still knows how many or how few will or will not be getting into heaven, etc, but coming to the realization that those other ones were or are always necessary for the other ones, and that they are not ever conscious of it each time, has made me kind of ok with it for the most part now, etc.

But, what makes up an individuals programming or make up is everything. If like, for example, if you, as an atheist (I assume) has some very, very good, or very, very personal reasons for not believing, or someone else (a supposed believer) (or maybe a whole certain set or kinds of so-called believers, etc) caused it, or was the number one reason for your not believing, etc, or maybe the way your mind was made (by God mind you) (who already knows all of everything, and already knew it, etc) just won't allow you to accept any kind of believing, etc, then you may get a pass maybe, and you might just get into Heaven anyway despite your not believing, etc, but only God knows how he individually made you, or each one, etc. And you may even get into Heaven ahead of all of those others maybe, who might have been the cause for your maybe not believing maybe, etc.

Because I do very, very much strongly feel that there are going to be a lot or maybe even "very, very many", etc of all the so-called "religious folks", etc, who are all going to be held directly responsible for a lot of non-believers not believing, etc.

But only God knows all of that, or how he made each one, etc, and how he predestined, or predetermined, or already chose/decided each ones make-up, or each ones own and very, very unique path, and what they are or were supposed to learn or gain from it, etc.

But I think we will most definitely see a lot of non-believers in heaven, and will also see some or many who only said they believed, also end up in quote/unquote "hell" also, etc.

But all can only ever go, only according to the way that it has already been written for each one already, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Stephen3141]

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.

When modern Americans say "I want justice!" they are rarely demanding
that the law be followed (regardless of whether or not the laws of the land
are right and just). This argument is made by all sorts of people who want
something else than the letter of the law being followed.

Many of these arguments are, actually unlawful, in the sense that the law
was followed. But many of these arguments are addressing the very nature of
what a fair rule of law OUGHT to be. A concept of JUSTICE, is what should
drive lawmakers in Congress to write just laws.

When I assert that the "AI" tools coming out have no ME module, I am addressing both
the problem that they are not bound to keep the fair rule of law in America that already
exists, but also, that they have no information or algorithms to reason about what is
righteous, or evil. This is a HUGE problem.

 

[Stephen3141]

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.

Your post raises questions that should have been solved, by philosophical
Moral Theory, by reading the discussions of many thinkers about what is
moral/ethical.

And, your post assumes a high degree of intelligence in these "AI" tools, that
does not exist.

Many of these "AI" tools are merely programs that solve some relatively easy
problems, automating what was previously done by human beings. Facial
recognition, is an example. Automation of a task, does not mean that it is
being done by a software program that is artificial intelligence.

Another misunderstanding of this thread, is that the existence of much
"information" online, and the ability to SEARCH it with a software program, does
not mean that software programs can identify what "information" is TRUE, and
what information is FALSE. Finding all sorts of opinions with a search engine, is
a very different problem than evaluating all those opinions. Don't equate these
2 very different problems.
---------- ---------

We see an analogy between human reasoning errors, and "AI" reasoning errors.
In the conspiracy theory websites, there is no credible attempt to verify
whether theories or explanations are TRUE, or not. Explanations are accepted
as TRUE, if they please people. And if they merely fit in with a person's personal
beliefs. But, believing that some proposition id TRUE, is VERY different from
demonstrating that that proposition is TRUE.

With the current "AI" tools, almost none of them have the ability to reason formally
about WHY their conclusion is TRUE. They may deal with massive libraries of
information, but they do not create valid proofs from unquestioned facts, using
unquestioned rules, to arrive at their conclusions. They are usually incapable
of reasoning about CAUSALITY (which is at the core of formal logic), and are
incapable of reasoning even about which premises are RELEVANT, in order to
use relevant information, to formally demonstrate why their conclusions are
correct.

Most of the "AI" tools are incapable of demonstrating why the common "Deep State"
conspiracy theories, are ridiculous. And so, most of the "AI" tools are basically
logically incoherent conspiracy theorists, which measure mathematical correlations
between mounters of information, without knowing which mountains are even relevant
to evaluate, in order to reason about some supposed Conclusion.

 

[Stephen3141]

I think that Thomas would have reacted to the "machine learning" AI
programs in the same way as he reacted to students he taught, who
leapt to conclusions, and could not demonstrate (logically) why their conclusions
were correct.

He would have failed these students. And he would have given these "AI" tools
a failing grade at reasoning.

 

[RDKirk]

When modern Americans say "I want justice!" they are rarely demanding
that the law be followed (regardless of whether or not the laws of the land
are right and just). This argument is made by all sorts of people who want
something else than the letter of the law being followed.

Many of these arguments are, actually unlawful, in the sense that the law
was followed. But many of these arguments are addressing the very nature of
what a fair rule of law OUGHT to be. A concept of JUSTICE, is what should
drive lawmakers in Congress to write just laws.

When I assert that the "AI" tools coming out have no ME module, I am addressing both
the problem that they are not bound to keep the fair rule of law in America that already
exists, but also, that they have no information or algorithms to reason about what is
righteous, or evil. This is a HUGE problem.

Even then, the concept of justice can vary from culture to culture. We have a "winner-take-all" concept of justice in which one person must be declared and the other must be declared wrong.

Back in ancient times under an absolute sovereign king, the concern of the king was to maintain the social order. That's what it was under King Solomon when he made that decision about the two harlots and their two children.

The king was presented with two harlots, a living child, and a dead child. Each harlot claimed the living child as her own and the dead child as the child of the other.

It's an interesting word problem. By identifying the women as harlots, it meant there was no issue of social strata for the king to consider. Neither was from any prominent family with political connections. Neither had wealth to consider or a bribe to offer.

But the king needed to deliver a wise verdict that people would consider equitable and not upset the social order. Two women, two children, one child living and one child dead, the women presenting equally valid claims.

Well, the king could not bring the dead child back to life...but he could kill the living child. So, two women and two dead children: an equitable outcome, because "justice" meant "equitable." In that society, the story could have ended there and Solomon would still have been declared wise beyond measure. Lesson: Make good with your neighbor yourself, don't take it to the king because the king's judgment might not be what you want.

 

[durangodawood]

....
Well, the king could not bring the dead child back to life...but he could kill the living child. So, two women and two dead children: an equitable outcome, because "justice" meant "equitable." In that society, the story could have ended there and Solomon would still have been declared wise beyond measure. Lesson: Make good with your neighbor yourself, don't take it to the king because the king's judgment might not be what you want.

I still cant quite get past the other lesson, which is that the king projects he is willing to kill a completely innocent third party to make a point.

 

[RDKirk]

I still cant quite get past the other lesson, which is that the king projects he is willing to kill a completely innocent third party to make a point.

As I said, it's a different concept of justice. Maintaining a smooth social order was the primary goal.

 

[durangodawood]

As I said, it's a different concept of justice. Maintaining a smooth social order was the primary goal.

Still dont get how the example of the innocent third partys interest in the situation (his actual life) being publicly given zero weight, while calming down two harlots get max priority, would encourage smooth social order. I think everyone would be made more edgy by such a scenario.

Maybe Im simply not supposed to think about the actuality of such a situation, and instead view it as more of an ethical math problem.

 

[Estrid]

I still cant quite get past the other lesson, which is that the king projects he is willing to kill a completely innocent third party to make a point.

Terrible moral example

 

[Estrid]

As I said, it's a different concept of justice. Maintaining a smooth social order was the primary goal.

Yep, good reason for the inquisition too.

The way so many can use religion to
approve atrocities is a problem few theists
seem concerned about.

 

[RDKirk]

Still dont get how the example of the innocent third partys interest in the situation (his actual life) being publicly given zero weight, while calming down two harlots get max priority, would encourage smooth social order. I think everyone would be made more edgy by such a scenario.

Maybe Im simply not supposed to think about the actuality of such a situation, and instead view it as more of an ethical math problem.

The opinions of the harlots was irrelevant, their being only harlots. What mattered was what court officials and other highly placed individuals, as well as the population at large thought of his problem solving logic.

You're right, the life of the child of a harlot was given little weight...those were the times.

My point is that it was a different concept of justice.

 

[RDKirk]

Yep, good reason for the inquisition too.

The way so many can use religion to
approve atrocities is a problem few theists
seem concerned about.

The incident was not a matter of religion. Solomon did not invoke God at all. Hammurabi may well have arrived at the same conclusion.

My point is that it was a different concept of justice.

 

[Stephen3141]

Even then, the concept of justice can vary from culture to culture. We have a "winner-take-all" concept of justice in which one person must be declared and the other must be declared wrong.

Back in ancient times under an absolute sovereign king, the concern of the king was to maintain the social order. That's what it was under King Solomon when he made that decision about the two harlots and their two children.

The king was presented with two harlots, a living child, and a dead child. Each harlot claimed the living child as her own and the dead child as the child of the other.

It's an interesting word problem. By identifying the women as harlots, it meant there was no issue of social strata for the king to consider. Neither was from any prominent family with political connections. Neither had wealth to consider or a bribe to offer.

But the king needed to deliver a wise verdict that people would consider equitable and not upset the social order. Two women, two children, one child living and one child dead, the women presenting equally valid claims.

Well, the king could not bring the dead child back to life...but he could kill the living child. So, two women and two dead children: an equitable outcome, because "justice" meant "equitable." In that society, the story could have ended there and Solomon would still have been declared wise beyond measure. Lesson: Make good with your neighbor yourself, don't take it to the king because the king's judgment might not be what you want.

I don't think that you understand the meaning of "justice".
It does not mean an "equal" outcome.

"Equitable", does not mean "equal".