Comment by epsteingpt
5 days ago
100% agree, like any technology it's neither inherently good nor evil.
In this instance, I think it has the opportunity to democratize deep religious study in ways that used to be reserved for serious scholars.
e.g. Do you know what the word "daily" in the Lord's Prayer comes from?
Questions like these can engage the mind and spirit.
I hope more people use the tools to fully explore their faith, instead of outsourcing prayer and sermon creation to the LLMs.
You say you "100% agree" with the essay, and then say that LLMs are "like any technology it's neither inherently good nor evil."
Did you read the essay? It says:
"Instead of being merely “agnostic” as many argue, digital technology has amplified the ability of the princes of this world to feed the fallen man, to make him more docile and distracted while installing beliefs, morals, and feelings that are acceptable to the secular spirit of this age. AI may be the final technology that is weaponized to create this new man before the Antichrist arrives, who will be the human manifestation of AI---an ever-helpful problem-solver who people mistakenly feel they cannot live without."
Your position is diametrically opposed to this one.
I did read the essay. Thanks for the discussion!
"Those who use AI must always remember that it is psychologically designed to keep you typing and asking. It targets your vulnerabilities to achieve this end without any spiritual concern for your soul. To the creators of AI, your addiction to their platforms is a metric of their success.
Many have told us that AI chatbots give “good” spiritual answers that are “correct,” but as long as the underlying programming of the AI is to keep you directed onto itself, the behavior of AI is simply that of a false elder. A false elder may very well teach correctly and coat his words with a spiritual veneer, but ultimately, he wants you to focus more on himself than on Christ. Dealing with a false elder can cause a believer severe spiritual damage by distorting what should be a relationship with the divine to one of dependency with a person who seeks his own glory. Today, AI may share dogmatically correct spiritual answers, but its goal is not your salvation but for you to ceaselessly ask it more questions. The creators of AI want you to love their own creation, not the Lord Himself."
This is true with any technology, and often, in many cases many human spiritual leader.
My agreement is not to downplay the risk or natural 'amorality' of such a technology--it's clear with Grok e.g. AI can truly do evil. But LLM's are not internet porn or gambling.
Just because the current version and incentives of technology are arranged in such a way doesn't mean you can't counteract it.
The enemy will find and use new ways to enslave us - we can't reject progress because of that.
So yes, I do 100% agree with the current mission and technology. But unlike the author, I personally believe the ultimate work of Christianity in humanity is to turn us all to repentance and bring us closer to God, not to reject the sinners.
> I personally believe the ultimate work of Christianity in humanity is to turn us all to repentance and bring us closer to God, not to reject the sinners.
I'm Native American (indigenous, or whatever other moniker you've heard). Both of my paternal grandparents were subjected to the horror of boarding schools. So forgive me if I'm a bit cynical when it comes to the methods deemed appropriate by Christianity to "turn us all to repentance and bring us closer to God."
I would argue that instead of being a tool to try and convince more people that the Abrahamic god is the "right one", maybe think about using LLMs to challenge your own biases regarding religion and to question the myriad of moral and logical issues presented within your holy book.
Just a suggestion from someone also looking at the idea of utilizing LLMs to preserve and explore indigenous language, culture, and wisdom without becoming a slave to the technology.
2 replies →
> we can't reject progress
"progress" is a loaded term, it carries connotations of good. Not everything from the tech industry is an example of progress. I agree with the authors of the linked article that programs designed to create the illusion of a sympathetic listener in order to prey on the naive and credulous are just evil.
Right, the linked article clearly and vehemently opposes AI chat technology. It says: "Clergy and laymen alike must become aware of the threat that AI poses and take steps to minimize or eliminate its use." And even stronger: "we should not rule out the possibility of demonic influence within its output."
I'm not sure if they really mean to say that literal horns-and-pitchforks demons in the flames of hell are typing chat responses designed to drive people mad and encourage them to kill themselves -- or just that the chat programs are built and promoted by people motivated by a systematic hostility to human well-being. Either way, they think they are pure evil.