Anthropology and AI

[John of Japan]

In systematic theology, anthropology is the branch that deals with us humans. There are multiple reasons taught us by anthropology that ensure that AI can never really replace any human who ministers for the Lord Jesus Christ. Here are just a few reasons.

1. An AI program does not have a soul, which is given by God at conception.
2. An AI program cannot be spiritual, since that requires a spirit and an AI program cannot have a spirit.
3. God created us humans, and then us humans created AI. Therefore, AI will always be inferior to God's created humans.
4. Serving Christ involves following His call and guidance. An AI program cannot do this.
5. As disciples of Jesus Christ we are to disciple others (Matthew 28:18-20) and multiple the kingdom of God. AI cannot do this. "But the word of God grew and multiplied" (Acts 12:24).
6. As Christians, we are to mentor others in the faith. AI cannot do this. "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2).
7. Serving Christ must be done with the filling and power of the Holy Spirit, which is impossible to an AI program, which is human-created. An AI can only be filled with human programming.

Many, many more theological points can be made, but this gets it started.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

But once AI has taken over the job of teaching anthropology, this will all change.

 

[Van]

Could AI replace "any human" who "ministers" for Christ Jesus? Yes. It depends on what is meant by "ministers."

False teachers minister, but some might be replaced by accurate teachers aided by AI.

AI threatens some translators and their teachers, not missionaries, pastors, and ambassadors of Christ.

 

[canadyjd]

AI, with algorithms developed by godless heathen, will undermine Christian ministries and bring persecution to Christians.

peace to you

 

[John of Japan]

Could AI replace "any human" who "ministers" for Christ Jesus? Yes. It depends on what is meant by "ministers."

False teachers minister, but some might be replaced by accurate teachers aided by AI.

The OP does not use the term "ministers." That is your term. Please answer the OP.

AI threatens some translators and their teachers, not missionaries, pastors, and ambassadors of Christ.

The OP is not about non-Christian translators and teachers.

 

[Scarlett O.]

AI threatens some translators and their teachers, not missionaries, pastors, and ambassadors of Christ.

Van, this makes no sense to me and in fact, seems insulting as I have taught the Bible for over 40 years.

How does AI threaten me? Be specific please.

 

[percho]

In systematic theology, anthropology is the branch that deals with us humans. There are multiple reasons taught us by anthropology that ensure that AI can never really replace any human who ministers for the Lord Jesus Christ. Here are just a few reasons.

1. An AI program does not have a soul, which is given by God at conception.
2. An AI program cannot be spiritual, since that requires a spirit and an AI program cannot have a spirit.
3. God created us humans, and then us humans created AI. Therefore, AI will always be inferior to God's created humans.
4. Serving Christ involves following His call and guidance. An AI program cannot do this.
5. As disciples of Jesus Christ we are to disciple others (Matthew 28:18-20) and multiple the kingdom of God. AI cannot do this. "But the word of God grew and multiplied" (Acts 12:24).
6. As Christians, we are to mentor others in the faith. AI cannot do this. "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2).
7. Serving Christ must be done with the filling and power of the Holy Spirit, which is impossible to an AI program, which is human-created. An AI can only be filled with human programming.

Many, many more theological points can be made, but this gets it started.

JOJ

Hope this isn't to far off the OP if at all. 36 minutes. I believe someone will use AI for the restructure of the nature of man. Was going to post this last night but did not. Is it relative?

George Webb Interview - AI-Created Drugs, The Fake "China Lab" & Being Primed With A "Life Switch" (bitchute.com)

 

[John of Japan]

JOJ

Hope this isn't to far off the OP if at all. 36 minutes. I believe someone will use AI for the restructure of the nature of man. Was going to post this last night but did not. Is it relative?

George Webb Interview - AI-Created Drugs, The Fake "China Lab" & Being Primed With A "Life Switch" (bitchute.com)

I listened to a little bit of this, and it is relative to this discussion. But theologically I would say that if AI can somehow restructure human nature, that would make it a Creator (capital "C"), or in some small way equal to God.

Notice Point 3 in the OP:
"God created us humans, and then us humans created AI. Therefore, AI will always be inferior to God's created humans." Since we human beings cannot change human nature, none of our creations will be able to do so, since it is evident that a created thing must be inferior to a creator.

So, what will happen in any attempt of AI to change human nature is a degradation. That is, whatever comes from such an AI effort will be an inferior human (health, intelligence, etc.) than what God made.

 

[percho]

I listened to a little bit of this, and it is relative to this discussion. But theologically I would say that if AI can somehow restructure human nature, that would make it a Creator (capital "C"), or in some small way equal to God.

Notice Point 3 in the OP:
"God created us humans, and then us humans created AI. Therefore, AI will always be inferior to God's created humans." Since we human beings cannot change human nature, none of our creations will be able to do so, since it is evident that a created thing must be inferior to a creator.

So, what will happen in any attempt of AI to change human nature is a degradation. That is, whatever comes from such an AI effort will be an inferior human (health, intelligence, etc.) than what God made.

I totally agree. I believe Satan through; with the world-rulers of the darkness of this age; has man about to the following again; Gen 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do, - but this time God is going to correct things by the return of Jesus.

 

[Van]

Van, this makes no sense to me and in fact, seems insulting as I have taught the Bible for over 40 years.

How does AI threaten me? Be specific please.

I say AI does not threaten ambassadors of Christ, and you say that seems insulting. Fine

 

[Van]

The OP does not use the term "ministers." That is your term. Please answer the OP.

The OP is not about non-Christian translators and teachers.

I addressed the OP.
I did not limit my comments to translators and teachers.
Could AI replace "any human" who "ministers" for Christ Jesus? Yes. It depends on what is meant by "ministers."
False teachers minister, but some might be replaced by accurate teachers aided by AI.
AI threatens some translators and their teachers, not missionaries, pastors, and ambassadors of Christ.
Translators and teachers are "serving" the purpose of their job, whether for Christ or for the realm of darkness.

 

[John of Japan]

The word "minister" in the KJV translates diakonia (διακονία). Gingrich defines it: "domestic Lk 10:40. Service, office, ministry Ac 1:17; 20:24; Ro 12:7; 1 Cor 12:5; 2 Cor 5:18. Aid, support, distribution Ac 6:1; 11:29; d)."

The verb for "to minister" is diakoneo (διακονέω). Gingrich has: "1. wait on someone at table Lk 12:37; 22:26f; J 12:2.—2. serve generally, lit. and fig. Mt 4:11; Mk 10:45; Ac 19:22; 2 Ti 1:18; 1 Pt 1:12; wait on Mt 27:55. Take care of Ac 6:2; 2 Cor 3:3. Help, support Mt 25:44; Lk 8:3; Hb 6:10.—3. serve as deacon 1 Ti 3:10, 13."

So, here's the picture. Can an AI robot wait on tables or wash someone's feet? Sure. Can it be filled with the Spirit so it does it humbly with a servant's attitude? Nope.

 

[John of Japan]

Anyone here ever read Isaac Asimov's I Robot? (Watching the movie doesn't count. It's too different.) If so, consider the Three Robotic Laws Asimov put forth: "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."

This was genius! And it is to this day the primary fictional approach to an AI robot. But here's the catch. Asimov was an atheist! And he was pretty ignorant about the Bible, too. (Read his really ignorant Asimov's Guide to the Bible sometime.) Now go back and look at my OP where I wrote:

"God created us humans, and then us humans created AI. Therefore, AI will always be inferior to God's created humans."

As ignorant as Asimov was about spiritual things, he had the common sense to make his AI robots completely subservient to humans. They could not act with human direction. I think that's actually a realistic look at what will happen in the AI field as time goes on.

AI programs cannot have a will, which was created by God. so they cannot act on their own without human direction.

PS Asimov's fiction is actually quite good. I read a bunch of his novels when I was young. He completely left out the spiritual aspects, but was a great writer, and did not use swearing or depict inappropriate male-female relationships.

 

[37818]

As a side note, Googles in house AI, not a public AI.

Stuped me, I misread the article. The Google engineer Lemoine, who is also ordained as a mystic Christian priest. Google let him go for his AI sentient claim.

I got it wrong.




https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/ai-consciousness-how-to-recognize-1.6498068

 

[John of Japan]

As a side note, Googles in house AI, not public AI, has gotten it"self" ordained as a mystic Christian priest.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/ai-consciousness-how-to-recognize-1.6498068

Very interesting, but impossible. (But thanks for the link!) Man cannot create sentience; that is the Creator's prerogative.

Isaac Asimov invented a "positronic brain" to give the AI robots he depicted sentience. But the details on how such a "brain" would work were very hazy. Frankly, I believe a "positronic brain" to give sentience to an AI program or robot is theologically impossible--thus this thread.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm about to disciple a believer for about an hour, and then play chess with him for another hour. AI plays chess pretty well, because that game is logical. But the man I am discipling is not always logical! Upshot: It is impossible for AI to disciple anyone, since discipleship is built on relationships: human to human, human to God.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

… The Google engineer Lemoine, who is also ordained as a mystic Christian priest. Google let him go for his AI sentient claim. …

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/ai-consciousness-how-to-recognize-1.6498068

Hilarious, yet sad. One must buy into sci-fi nonsense in a major way to be so deceived. From the quotes in the article, a great many educated folk are borderline believers in this stuff already.

In answer to the title of the article, A Google engineer says AI has become sentient. What does that actually mean? it means someone’s good sense has pulled an Elvis and "left the building."

Or, also a possibility, someone saw a good opportunity to deceive the masses and seized on it.
Beware the AI psychic.

 

[37818]

. . . let him go . . .

. . . put him on paid leave . . .

 

[John of Japan]

Hilarious, yet sad. One must buy into sci-fi nonsense in a major way to be so deceived. From the quotes in the article, a great many educated folk are borderline believers in this stuff already.

In answer to the title of the article, A Google engineer says AI has become sentient. What does that actually mean? it means someone’s good sense has pulled an Elvis and "left the building."

Or, also a possibility, someone saw a good opportunity to deceive the masses and seized on it.
Beware the AI psychic.

So I looked up this guy, and learned his "ordination" was from the "Universal Life Church," which gives them out on the Internet. And he claims to be a Gnostic. Yadayadayada. I wouldn't trust him with anything important, such as information about AI sentience.

 

[percho]

Anyone here ever read Isaac Asimov's I Robot? (Watching the movie doesn't count. It's too different.) If so, consider the Three Robotic Laws Asimov put forth: "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."

This was genius! And it is to this day the primary fictional approach to an AI robot. But here's the catch. Asimov was an atheist! And he was pretty ignorant about the Bible, too. (Read his really ignorant Asimov's Guide to the Bible sometime.) Now go back and look at my OP where I wrote:

"God created us humans, and then us humans created AI. Therefore, AI will always be inferior to God's created humans."

As ignorant as Asimov was about spiritual things, he had the common sense to make his AI robots completely subservient to humans. They could not act with human direction. I think that's actually a realistic look at what will happen in the AI field as time goes on.

AI programs cannot have a will, which was created by God. so they cannot act on their own without human direction.

PS Asimov's fiction is actually quite good. I read a bunch of his novels when I was young. He completely left out the spiritual aspects, but was a great writer, and did not use swearing or depict inappropriate male-female relationships.

Or as the Book does not say,

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is AI, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of AI, that thou visitest him?