Robotic Priests

N

Aussie Pete said:

The problem is that human nature cannot be replicated artificially. How could you create an AI sinner? How could it be saved? How could you program conscience? Or free will?

Click to expand...

I hope we can always tell the difference because that's the goal. Not being able to distinguish real from imitation is an AI goal.
It is starting to sound a bit diabolical.

Eloy Craft said:

N

I hope we can always tell the difference because that's the goal. Not being able to distinguish real from imitation is an AI goal.
It is starting to sound a bit diabolical.

Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of the singularity?

Eloy Craft said:

Wouldn't a human nature be required to be a priest? Would an imitation suffice?

Click to expand...

Hypothetically, let's say we were technologically capable of replacing every cell in a human body with an artificial version; and can fully digitize the human mind. The result is a fully artificial life that was biologically human--is there still a human nature? Is a person's humanity linked to the particular bits of matter that make up the body? Is it the firing of the synapses in the brain? Is it an emerging property of a person that is somehow more than the sum of its parts?

These are incredibly important and deep questions that need to be asked. I'm not attempting to answer them here, simply suggesting that there are deep questions--questions that will likely go a lot deeper than "Can a machine be alive?" to those that force us to question even ourselves in some ways.

What is human nature anyway? In the statement of faith drawn up at the Council of Chalcedon we confess that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully human. He has a human physis, a human nature, "of a rational soul and body". Thus at Chalcedon the way they sought to describe the Mystery of the Incarnation is by articulating Jesus Christ as a single and undivided Hypostasis and Person, who is "of two natures": God and human.

Is human nature our bodily flesh? Well, yes; but that's not what it is exclusively. Even while apart from the body during bodily death we are still human. So not body only, but soul and body. What is the rational soul exactly? Good question. That is itself a whole new slew of questions.

The deep intent of salvation, of redemption, isn't that human beings go to heaven; but that God is fixing the world, God is going to redeem and save all of creation. Anything made by human beings is still part of God's creation. Can artificial life have a soul? Is there anything which would stop it from having a soul? That is why I wrote earlier that I would be in no position to deny that it has a soul; but I don't know that I am in any better position to say positively that it does. I don't even know that there can be answers to a lot of these questions on this side of the Eschaton.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't understand why (if programmed with enough intelligence) some sort of AI entity couldn't replace a member of the clergy depending on the dynamics of the religion.

For instance, the more "robotic"/"regimented" a church's services are, the easier they are to automate (just like any other task).

Building a delivery system that offers up visual and audio stimuli, as well as storing holy book text, and writing rules around it are things that aren't out of reach for modern technology.


Replika

It still needs some polishing obviously and if you see any videos of people testing this app out, it's still "not quite there yet" and needs more work.

But at the rate tech & AI are advancing, it's not out of the realm of possibility that a much more refined version of this tech could show up in the next decade.

J. King said:

Found this train wreck of an article on BBC, and am kinda interested to hear that I'm not alone in being horrified by this. I had to pause it multiple times to make it all the way through. It just made me cringe. Would you find inspiration in a robotic priest? If you were hurting, would you feel comfort in talking to Alexa-priest?

I did like the bit about a program suggesting religious exercises. That seemed like a nice application of the technology, but please promise me that no robot will deliver my eulogy!

God and robots: Will AI transform religion?

Click to expand...

Major facepalm!
That's about the stupidest thing I've heard today.

ThatRobGuy said:

don't understand why (if programmed with enough intelligence) some sort of AI entity couldn't replace a member of the clergy depending on the dynamics of the religion.

Click to expand...

Why would anyone want to listen to a machine? Let alone confess to a machine? That's like talking to your car.

ThatRobGuy said:

I don't understand why (if programmed with enough intelligence) some sort of AI entity couldn't replace a member of the clergy depending on the dynamics of the religion.

Click to expand...

It would be missing the Holy Spirit. The Bible tells us that where two or three are gathered in the name of Jesus,Holy Spirit will be present.

renniks said:

Why would anyone want to listen to a machine? Let alone confess to a machine? That's like talking to your car.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to "confess" anything to a member of the clergy either.

As far as "what people would listen to"...I think there's solid evidence that people trust technology more than people.

Which scenario do you think happens more often?

A person hears another person say something, then looks it up on a search engine to see if it's accurate? Or the other way around?


For instance, if I came on here and made a claim that "Red cars get pulled over the most for speeding". What would your instincts be with regards to trying to verify or refute that statement? Would you Google it? Or would you start calling various police departments up and asking random officers for a breakdown of speeding tickets by car color?

Unless a person is fortunate enough to have a social circle that includes experts in every single subject known to man, they're relying more on technology for information verification than they are people that they know personally

That's the just the nature of technology in the computer age. Technological solutions are better aggregators of data than a person's social circle could ever be.

ThatRobGuy said:

I wouldn't want to "confess" anything to a member of the clergy either.

As far as "what people would listen to"...I think there's solid evidence that people trust technology more than people.

Which scenario do you think happens more often?

A person hears another person say something, then looks it up on a search engine to see if it's accurate? Or the other way around?


For instance, if I came on here and made a claim that "Red cars get pulled over the most for speeding". What would your instincts be with regards to trying to verify or refute that statement? Would you Google it? Or would you start calling various police departments up and asking random officers for a breakdown of speeding tickets by car color?

Unless a person is fortunate enough to have a social circle that includes experts in every single subject known to man, they're relying more on technology for information verification than they are people that they know personally

That's the just the nature of technology in the computer age. Technological solutions are better aggregators of data than a person's social circle could ever be.

Click to expand...

People want a caring person for a pastor not a computer.
Why even go to worship if you are just listening to a machine? You can do that at home.
Worship isn't just information.

renniks said:

People want a caring person for a pastor not a computer.
Why even go to worship if you are just listening to a machine? You can do that at home.
Worship isn't just information.

Click to expand...

Well, without getting too far down a rabbit hole that may or may not violate forum rules... many pastors out there are just "providing information" that makes people feel good or telling them information they want to hear. And in many cases, people are listening to "a machine".

A person being charismatic and appealing to the emotions of people isn't a unique skillset only held by the clergy.

The thing that Tony Robbins and Joel Osteen have in common, is that they're both good at making people "feel something" to the degree that they're willing to give them money to hear them talk.

But let's be honest here, the draw isn't "the person" themselves. Many people who have a draw towards a particular clergyman, would turn on them on a dime if they started saying something they disagreed with.

For instance, many people who "felt a special connection to their pastor" would bail on them almost immediately if that pastor voiced an opinion they disagreed with.

ThatRobGuy said:

Well, without getting too far down a rabbit hole that may or may not violate forum rules... many pastors out there are just "providing information" that makes people feel good or telling them information they want to hear. And in many cases, people are listening to "a machine".

A person being charismatic and appealing to the emotions of people isn't a unique skillset only held by the clergy.

The thing that Tony Robbins and Joel Osteen have in common, is that they're both good at making people "feel something" to the degree that they're willing to give them money to hear them talk.

But let's be honest here, the draw isn't "the person" themselves. Many people who have a draw towards a particular clergyman, would turn on them on a dime if they started saying something they disagreed with.

For instance, many people who "felt a special connection to their pastor" would bail on them almost immediately if that pastor voiced an opinion they disagreed with.

Click to expand...

Maybe in the health and wealth crowd. But most of us don't expect to agree with everything a pastor says. There's room for theological nuances.
And his speaking ability isn't as important as his sincerity and dedication to scriptural integrity.

A robotic priest to preach to robotic people as the new form of artificial life w/o the Holy Spirit or the need of God for anything. Just a perpetual machine-like functioning world, all to do the will of it’s programer. What more could satan wish for?

Eloy Craft said:

N

I hope we can always tell the difference because that's the goal. Not being able to distinguish real from imitation is an AI goal.
It is starting to sound a bit diabolical.

Click to expand...

God is in control. If man gets too far ahead of himself, God will put an end to it. God will not permit His universe to be populated with the sinful human race, whatever Elon Musk thinks. Musk is an amazing man, but he's not God.

ThatRobGuy said:

I don't understand why (if programmed with enough intelligence) some sort of AI entity couldn't replace a member of the clergy depending on the dynamics of the religion.

For instance, the more "robotic"/"regimented" a church's services are, the easier they are to automate (just like any other task).

Building a delivery system that offers up visual and audio stimuli, as well as storing holy book text, and writing rules around it are things that aren't out of reach for modern technology.


Replika

It still needs some polishing obviously and if you see any videos of people testing this app out, it's still "not quite there yet" and needs more work.

But at the rate tech & AI are advancing, it's not out of the realm of possibility that a much more refined version of this tech could show up in the next decade.

Click to expand...

In Christianity, or at least traditional Christian practice and theology, ritual isn't just ritual. It's more than just a regimented X, Y, Z. It's about people sharing together in the gifts of God's grace which are given to us.

We speak of the Sacraments, also called Mysteries. Sacrament because these are sacred points of contact between God and us; where God's grace is actively at work doing something for us and in us. Mysteries because though from the outside they may seem like mundane things, mundane religious ritual; these are understood to be the works, word, and power of God and His grace making contact with us in immensely profound ways.

It's why something like a drive-thru Communion is considered incredibly sacrilegious by most Christians. We expect those who minister to be people who minister--that there is a personal dimension in every point of Christian worship and practice.

A highly intelligent machine can't provide that; because it's more than just raw computation power, it's about personhood.

A machine that doesn't have faith can't be a Christian, a machine without faith therefore cannot be entrusted with the Keys of God's kingdom to minister and serve and exercise those Keys in the Church through the preaching of the Word and administering of the Sacraments.

There are, therefore, deep philosophical and theological questions about artificial intelligence that go far beyond just the "intelligence" part.

-CryptoLutheran

Handmaid for Jesus said:

Have you ever heard of the singularity?

Click to expand...

I've familiar with the math term.

Aussie Pete said:

God is in control. If man gets too far ahead of himself, God will put an end to it. God will not permit His universe to be populated with the sinful human race, whatever Elon Musk thinks. Musk is an amazing man, but he's not God.

Click to expand...

Elon Musk chases a false plan of salvation.

Eloy Craft said:

Elon Musk chases a false plan of salvation.

Click to expand...

Like Gates, Bezos, Jack Ma, Zuckerberg and the rest of the human race. Apart from those who are born again.

Classic projection. Just cuz believers seek salvation doesn't mean a non-believer is seeking salvation. I'd wager most non-believers don't believe there is a salvation to be sought.

Tinker Grey said:

Classic projection. Just cuz believers seek salvation doesn't mean a non-believer is seeking salvation. I'd wager most non-believers don't believe there is a salvation to be sought.

Click to expand...

I was thinking in terms of people looking towards space exploration as offering human life it's primary meaning.