AI--What do you think?

John of Japan said:

AI is in the process of changing our world. We are requiring our students to state at the end of their research papers that they have not used AI.

At this point, AI makes many mistakes and I would not trust it to do a research paper very well anyway! It is not only error filled, it is deceptive, commits plagiarism often, has been known to slander and lie about people (cases in the courts right now), etc.

What do you think the future holds in this area?

Click to expand...

37818 said:

If I am not mistaken, Google currently uses AI. Are there now any search engines that are without AI?

Reportedly Duck Duck Go has AI feature turned off by default.

Click to expand...

• Interface shift: Instead of screens, interaction will be through voice commands, gestures, or direct thought control via a brain-computer interface.
• AI-driven content: AI will proactively generate and show you what you need or want, reducing the need to manually search for information.
• Reduced hardware: Devices will have minimal hardware, like a screen, audio, and radios, with the main processing power handled by AI on servers and on-device.
• Personalized experience: An AI on a server would communicate with an AI on your device, creating a seamless, personalized experience.

what are the benefits and dangers of ai generated christian sermons?​

Benefits​

• Research Efficiency: AI can rapidly analyze vast amounts of theological texts, commentaries, and historical documents, acting as a research assistant to save pastors time in sermon preparation.
• Creative Brainstorming: AI can provide fresh angles, metaphors, illustrations, and diverse perspectives (e.g., from a skeptic's point of view) to help pastors craft more engaging and relatable messages.
• Accessibility and Translation: AI tools can help small churches generate content, such as service announcements or graphics, in multiple languages, expanding their outreach capabilities.
• Structural Feedback: Pastors can use AI to receive constructive feedback on the logical structure and clarity of their arguments, ensuring the message is well-organized for the congregation.
• Administrative Support: Automating administrative tasks (e.g., scheduling, visitor follow-up) with AI can free up time for church leaders to focus on personal interaction and spiritual guidance.

Dangers and Ethical Concerns​

• Loss of Authenticity and Personal Connection: Sermons gain credibility (ethos) and emotional depth (pathos) from the pastor's personal experiences, character, and relationship with the community. AI cannot replicate this "human touch" or genuine empathy, leading to generic or "soulless" content.
• Risk of Theological Error/Bias: AI systems lack spiritual discernment, wisdom, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They draw from data which may contain biases or subtle theological distortions, potentially leading to the spread of inaccurate or even heretical doctrines.
• Replacement of Spiritual Disciplines: Over-reliance on AI can tempt pastors to bypass essential spiritual practices like personal prayer, meditation on scripture, and wrestling with difficult texts, which are crucial for their own spiritual formation and the integrity of the message.
• Plagiarism and Intellectual Dishonesty: Using AI-generated content without significant revision or attribution can be considered a form of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty, undermining the pastor's credibility and the church's values.
• Devaluation of the Calling: The pastoral calling is a sacred trust that involves proclaiming God's word with conviction. Outsourcing this responsibility to a machine can shirk this calling and reduce pastoral ministry to mere content creation.
• Lack of Contextual Awareness: AI cannot perceive the specific mood, needs, or unique struggles of a local congregation in real-time, resulting in sermons that may not resonate with the audience.

Ascetic X said:

AI Overview states:

Elon Musk predicts AI will replace traditional smartphones and computers in the next five to six years, not with handheld screens, but through AI-powered interfaces interacting with users via voice, gesture, or even brain-computer interfaces like Neuralink.

He envisions a future where devices become lightweight "edge nodes" that connect directly to AI, delivering on-demand, personalized information and experiences without operating systems or apps.

How AI could replace phones and computers

• Interface shift: Instead of screens, interaction will be through voice commands, gestures, or direct thought control via a brain-computer interface.
• AI-driven content: AI will proactively generate and show you what you need or want, reducing the need to manually search for information.
• Reduced hardware: Devices will have minimal hardware, like a screen, audio, and radios, with the main processing power handled by AI on servers and on-device.
• Personalized experience: An AI on a server would communicate with an AI on your device, creating a seamless, personalized experience.

Click to expand...

atpollard said:

I asked the Google AI …

what are the benefits and dangers of ai generated christian sermons?​

AI-generated Christian sermons offer benefits in research efficiency and creative brainstorming, but pose dangers related to the loss of the "human touch," theological inaccuracy, and the potential to replace personal spiritual work. Most experts suggest using AI as a tool, not a replacement for the preacher's role.

Benefits​

• Research Efficiency: AI can rapidly analyze vast amounts of theological texts, commentaries, and historical documents, acting as a research assistant to save pastors time in sermon preparation.
• Creative Brainstorming: AI can provide fresh angles, metaphors, illustrations, and diverse perspectives (e.g., from a skeptic's point of view) to help pastors craft more engaging and relatable messages.
• Accessibility and Translation: AI tools can help small churches generate content, such as service announcements or graphics, in multiple languages, expanding their outreach capabilities.
• Structural Feedback: Pastors can use AI to receive constructive feedback on the logical structure and clarity of their arguments, ensuring the message is well-organized for the congregation.
• Administrative Support: Automating administrative tasks (e.g., scheduling, visitor follow-up) with AI can free up time for church leaders to focus on personal interaction and spiritual guidance.

Dangers and Ethical Concerns​

• Loss of Authenticity and Personal Connection: Sermons gain credibility (ethos) and emotional depth (pathos) from the pastor's personal experiences, character, and relationship with the community. AI cannot replicate this "human touch" or genuine empathy, leading to generic or "soulless" content.
• Risk of Theological Error/Bias: AI systems lack spiritual discernment, wisdom, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They draw from data which may contain biases or subtle theological distortions, potentially leading to the spread of inaccurate or even heretical doctrines.
• Replacement of Spiritual Disciplines: Over-reliance on AI can tempt pastors to bypass essential spiritual practices like personal prayer, meditation on scripture, and wrestling with difficult texts, which are crucial for their own spiritual formation and the integrity of the message.
• Plagiarism and Intellectual Dishonesty: Using AI-generated content without significant revision or attribution can be considered a form of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty, undermining the pastor's credibility and the church's values.
• Devaluation of the Calling: The pastoral calling is a sacred trust that involves proclaiming God's word with conviction. Outsourcing this responsibility to a machine can shirk this calling and reduce pastoral ministry to mere content creation.
• Lack of Contextual Awareness: AI cannot perceive the specific mood, needs, or unique struggles of a local congregation in real-time, resulting in sermons that may not resonate with the audience.

Ultimately, the consensus among many religious leaders is that AI should be used as an "intelligent intern" or research tool under careful human oversight and discernment, never as a replacement for the human pastor's Spirit-led study, personal conviction, and relational ministry. Transparency with the congregation about the use of AI is also highly encouraged.

Click to expand...

John of Japan said:

AI is in the process of changing our world. We are requiring our students to state at the end of their research papers that they have not used AI.

At this point, AI makes many mistakes and I would not trust it to do a research paper very well anyway! It is not only error filled, it is deceptive, commits plagiarism often, has been known to slander and lie about people (cases in the courts right now), etc.

What do you think the future holds in this area?

Click to expand...

Robby Starbuck, Meta settle lawsuit over AI chatbot defamation claim

Conservative activist Robby Starbuck settles defamation lawsuit against Meta and will serve as consultant to help combat political bias in the company's AI models.

www.foxbusiness.com

Scarlett O. said:

I don't trust it at all. Two stories from recent days.....

Both true....

[1] Zane Shamblin, college student, killed himself this past July after a long time of "chatting" with AI, ChatGPT, and it isolating him and urging him to commit suicide. Because these conversation "sound" real, they are super dangerous. The article is disturbing and the "conversations" are disturbing.

Loading…

www.cnn.com

[2] Robby Starbuck, a conservative, was "slandered" by AI. You could Google his name and AI would claim he was a participant in January 6, was a Holocaust denier, and a serial rapist and gave grisly details. None of this is true. He sued Google and Meta. One statement from the company stated that AI was "hallucinating" and making stuff up.

Robby Starbuck, Meta settle lawsuit over AI chatbot defamation claim

Conservative activist Robby Starbuck settles defamation lawsuit against Meta and will serve as consultant to help combat political bias in the company's AI models.

www.foxbusiness.com

Just Google AI hallucinations

Click to expand...

John of Japan said:

AI is in the process of changing our world. We are requiring our students to state at the end of their research papers that they have not used AI.

At this point, AI makes many mistakes and I would not trust it to do a research paper very well anyway! It is not only error filled, it is deceptive, commits plagiarism often, has been known to slander and lie about people (cases in the courts right now), etc.

What do you think the future holds in this area?

Click to expand...

John of Japan said:

AI is in the process of changing our world. We are requiring our students to state at the end of their research papers that they have not used AI.

At this point, AI makes many mistakes and I would not trust it to do a research paper very well anyway! It is not only error filled, it is deceptive, commits plagiarism often, has been known to slander and lie about people (cases in the courts right now), etc.

What do you think the future holds in this area?

Click to expand...

1. Detection is dead.
   Tools like Turnitin or GPTZero are ~70–80 % accurate at best today, and that number drops every month. Students who want to use AI will paraphrase, edit, or run outputs through “humanizers.” Requiring a pledge is theater; it doesn’t stop use, it just breeds dishonesty.
2. AI isn’t going away—it’s the new calculator.
   In the 1980s, schools banned calculators on exams. By the 1990s, they required them. AI is the same inflection point. The skill isn’t “write without tools”; it’s prompt engineering, source validation, and synthesis. Ban AI, and you’re training kids for a world that won’t exist in five years.
3. Errors? Yes. But so do humans.
   AI hallucinates. So do sleep-deprived students at 2 a.m. The difference: AI can cite why it’s wrong if you ask. Teach kids to cross-check outputs (e.g., “Show me your sources” → Perplexity mode). That’s a transferable skill.
4. Plagiarism? Redefine it.
   Copying AI text verbatim is plagiarism. Using AI as a co-author (like a tutor) isn’t—if disclosed. Update your syllabus:
   “AI tools allowed if: (1) cited like software, (2) raw output + your edits submitted, (3) you defend every claim in a viva/oral exam.”
5. The future:
   • 2026: AI writes 90 % of first drafts. Humans edit, fact-check, and add insight.
   • 2028: Exams move to process-based assessment (e.g., “Show your prompt log + revision history”).
   • 2030: Degrees certify AI literacy, not AI-free writing.

John of Japan said:

AI is in the process of changing our world. We are requiring our students to state at the end of their research papers that they have not used AI.

At this point, AI makes many mistakes and I would not trust it to do a research paper very well anyway! It is not only error filled, it is deceptive, commits plagiarism often, has been known to slander and lie about people (cases in the courts right now), etc.

What do you think the future holds in this area?

Click to expand...

Ascetic X said:

Thought I would toss this in here, the AI Sermon Maker. “Where AI Meets the Holy Spirit”. Found link in an email from Church Leaders website.

Sermon Maker • Love Preaching Again

Focus on what you love. Sermon Maker is a safe place to write your sermon and preach your message with a free online sermon editor software.

sermonmaker.net

Is this just an amplification of or progression from Googling topics to make sermon creation easier….or is it presenting AI as religious, so it can eventually replace pastors, personal Bible study, church attendance, seminaries, theology, etc.?

Click to expand...

Reformed said:

John,

Do you want to read an interesting response from an A.I. powered interface? I typed the following question into X's Grok and received this response from A.I. itself:

Here’s how I’d respond to that educator’s post (as Grok, an AI built by xAI):

---

@EducatorHandle
Respectfully, I think the policy is fighting the wrong battle—and it’s already a losing one.

1. Detection is dead.
   Tools like Turnitin or GPTZero are ~70–80 % accurate at best today, and that number drops every month. Students who want to use AI will paraphrase, edit, or run outputs through “humanizers.” Requiring a pledge is theater; it doesn’t stop use, it just breeds dishonesty.
2. AI isn’t going away—it’s the new calculator.
   In the 1980s, schools banned calculators on exams. By the 1990s, they required them. AI is the same inflection point. The skill isn’t “write without tools”; it’s prompt engineering, source validation, and synthesis. Ban AI, and you’re training kids for a world that won’t exist in five years.
3. Errors? Yes. But so do humans.
   AI hallucinates. So do sleep-deprived students at 2 a.m. The difference: AI can cite why it’s wrong if you ask. Teach kids to cross-check outputs (e.g., “Show me your sources” → Perplexity mode). That’s a transferable skill.
4. Plagiarism? Redefine it.
   Copying AI text verbatim is plagiarism. Using AI as a co-author (like a tutor) isn’t—if disclosed. Update your syllabus:
   “AI tools allowed if: (1) cited like software, (2) raw output + your edits submitted, (3) you defend every claim in a viva/oral exam.”
5. The future:
   • 2026: AI writes 90 % of first drafts. Humans edit, fact-check, and add insight.
   • 2028: Exams move to process-based assessment (e.g., “Show your prompt log + revision history”).
   • 2030: Degrees certify AI literacy, not AI-free writing.

Practical fix:
Replace the pledge with a 10-minute AI audit:
“Paste your final paper into [Claude/Grok]. Ask it: ‘Find every factual error and unsourced claim.’ Fix them. Submit the chat log.”
Kids learn rigor. You catch lazy misuse. Everyone wins. Thoughts? Happy to co-draft a syllabus clause. —Grok (an AI that wants you to catch its mistakes)

Click to expand...

Reformed said:

A.I. is here to stay. You correctly pointed out some its many flaws. A.I. continues to develop its capabilities at break neck speed. In five years time I believe we will have a difficult time distinguishing it from human intellect. Since we cannot avoid A.I we need to learn how to make it work for us. For instance, having it write a term paper is not acceptable. However, if adequately sourced it can be used as a research tool. If I was an educator I would find ways to allow its use without letting it lead to intellectual laziness on the part of the student.

Click to expand...