Artificial Intelligence: Theologians Should Not Leave The Job to the Science Fiction Writers
Later this month I will be giving a short talk at seminary on the use of Gen AI (Generative Artificial Intelligence). The main purpose of the lecture is to guide students in appropriate versus inappropriate use of Gen AI in the seminary environment. I proposed the guidelines for the seminary that was adopted. This is the policy that was put in the Student Handbook:
PBTS prohibits the use of Generative AI (“GenAI”) software to (1) generate content presented by the student as his or her own original content, or (2) modify existing work so that the end result no longer is identifiable as the words or work, in part or in total, of the student.
Uses of generative AI that do not violate the above statement are permitted. These include:
Pre-drafting stage— to evaluate topics, initiate the gathering of sources, and develop outline. Post-drafting stage— to spell-check and correct grammar. GenAI may NOT be used to change tone, style, or make major revisions to work. Again, the words should be the student’s own.Violation of this policy is considered to be academic dishonesty and will be treated like plagiarism in the disciplinary process.
Faculty may choose to be more, or less, restrictive in the use of GenAI in their courses. However, if so, the course syllabus must give clear guidance as to its use. If no such guidance is given, the above seminary policy will apply. Where a student violates the course policy found in the syllabus, this will be treated as academic dishonesty and be disciplined accordingly.
We don’t want to throw away a tool that may be helpful in research and in ministry. We don’t want our students to be unfamiliar with Gen AI, as they go out into the world. Therefore, we seek a nuanced position that utilizes it, potentially, without undermining the overall learning process.
But there are other aspects of AI that should be looked at in Christian seminaries. I will mention it briefly in my presentation, but I won’t dwell on it— not because it isn’t important, but because it is off-topic.
How do we as Christians, as the Church, and as human beings deal with artificial intelligence? What does it mean to be human? How do we embrace human flourishing in a universe where we are becoming not the only created sentient voice?
Many have talked of the day where computers think like humans, interact like humans, feel like humans, are self-aware like humans, and have personal agency like humans. Often in the church the response is something like, “Well, that can’t happen because computers ‘don’t have souls.'”
That may be true… but it is only a guess. We don’t know the limits God has placed on us in terms of creation… and destruction. I have heard the argument that ecological responsibility is so foolish because God is sovereign and so it is pure hubris to think that we can destroy what God has made. Again, however, we are just guessing… and it certainly seems as if our guesses are more self-serving than prescient.
Science Fiction writers have long asked questions about thinking machines. Consider “The Machine Stops” written by E.M. Forster in 1909. This short story is often considered quite amazing in seeing things that have come to fruition in the last few decades. One of my favorite ones that addresses a sentient computer in the “short-short” format story is Frederic Brown’s “Answer.” You can read this VERY SHORT story by CLICKING HERE. “Deep Thought” in Douglas Adam’s writings explores humorously the implications of a sentient computer and the meaning of life. Arthur C. Clarke looks at computers and religion in “The Nine Billion Names of God” and in the computer antagonist, HAL 9000, from “2001: A Space Odyssey.” A sentient computer becomes even a greater threat as Skynet in the Terminator series, as well as in The Matrix. Science Fiction has also looked at religion in a world of high technology in the Dune Series, in Star Wars, as well as the writings of Robert Heinlein and Orson Scott Card.
The fact that Sci-Fi writers have speculated on the future, religion, and technology does not necessarily mean that they do it well…. but they do it, and with often thought-provoking results. Far too often, it seems to me that Christian theologians address possible problems in the future in terms of “It won’t happen” or “God will fix it” or “Christ will return before that all happens.” Could those answers be correct? Of course they could, in my opinion. But that is not the point.
Theology is meant to correlate Divine Revelation with Man’s changing context. It should be addressing the questions and concerns that society has. This suggests that good theologians are not simply looking backward… they should be looking forward– hopefully, cautiously, and speculatively.
The Apocalyptic writing business of Christian writers— applying a rather dubious interpretation to prophetic passages in the Bible— is not necessarily a waste of time. I became disenchanted with them and that particular interpretation of the Bible partly because I first got immersed in them, taking them far too seriously. I would not have found (what I personally decided to be) problems with that view if some people had not first promulgated their ideas. That being said, I wish more theologians did not focus on “Christ could return tomorrow” and would take time to speculate on the implications to us of “Christ may return in 800 years.” If that was the case, what would it mean to be a follower of Jesus Christ, and salt and light in society, 20 years from now, 200 years from now, 750 years from now?
If computers could become “sentient” or “self-aware” (and if we found a way to actually test that… the Turing Test is absolutely useless), what would it mean to explore God and God’s work in the created world together— man and “machine”? We were told by God to serve as a faithful steward over His Creation. How would that apply to our stewarding computer systems that seem to think like us?
We should not leave those questions only to the Sci-Fi writers.
