Artificial Intelligence: The Beast We Build and the Words We Choose

Why Build a Better Beast?

Similar to other technological advancements, artificial intelligence progresses without much consideration for the possible consequences. We get so enamoured with our ability to build a better beast that we fail to see its resemblance to a Frankenstein monster. So, we piece it together, give it a jolt of electricity, and exclaim, “It’s alive!” Now we must decide whether to chase it with pitchforks or teach it to sing. Is it our servant or our master? Is it a digital devil or an artificial angel? Its rapidly growing power has forced us to pivot from questions of applicability to those of apocalypse.

We now find ourselves trying to escape from the belly of the technological beast because we never seriously asked ourselves whether it was wise to enter the behemoth building business in the first place. I suspect our original motivation was to make life easier, but why does it always get more complicated? We discovered fire and invited the Croods over for a Raptor roast, but then, years later, we napalmed a village of innocents. We invented the wheel to help us reach exotic locations but ended up paving paradise with a parking lot. If our evolved intellect made us more discerning creatures, why would we create something that outsmarts us? Why would we continue to build better beasts when they ultimately devour us? 

What’s in a Word?

Humans, hoping to streamline technological progress and avoid moral turbulence, often varnish their ethically questionable activities with a thick coat of gentler language. We call abortion “reproductive health,” we characterize physician-assisted suicide as “death with dignity,” and, of course, refer to self-destructive behaviour as “lifestyle choices.” Beyond mere lexical appeal, the words we choose reveal much about our motivation for innovation.

If we’ve learned anything from postmodernity, it’s that words hold power, and by using them strategically, we can evade scrutiny and set an agenda in motion before people even realize that we are trying to move heaven and earth. I would suggest that the phrase “artificial intelligence” similarly distracted us from contemplating the ethical repercussions of such technology. The future promise of those two words prompted us to focus on the three wishes we would make if it came to pass. However, unbeknownst to us, scientists and engineers had already released the Genie from the bottle. Sadly, their digital gain-of-function research resulted in a lab leak, went viral, and we now find ourselves amid an AI pandemic.

What is the Sincerest Form of Flattery?

What does it mean for something to be artificial? Artificial refers to a thing that doesn’t occur naturally but is manufactured, and while it may mimic the original, it will never be the OG. If this is true, why do we insist on making counterfeits?

I believe it is because we succumbed to the temptation to be like God. Thinking we are His artistic equal, we enter His workshop, critique His masterpieces, and then retreat to our wilderness studio to create a forgery. We hear the heavens declare and correct their cosmological grammar; we listen to the stones cry out and sell them as pet rocks; we overhear a babbling brook and make it use its indoor voice by placing a water feature in our foyer.

I witnessed human arrogance firsthand during my years in neonatal practice—one of the most memorable mistakes involved promoting baby formulas instead of breast milk. Past researchers, with the best of intentions, developed formulas to control the ingredient content and tailor them for newborn growth. It began with the assumption that we were smarter than nature. Thankfully, that which God spoke into existence talked back, and other researchers listened, confirming what those who trust in God’s creative genius already knew: natural breast milk is far superior to its artificial competitor.

We need to be careful when we pat ourselves on the back for trying to make the world a better place because we may just be slapping God in the face. We can attempt to get on God’s good side by justifying our technological advances as noble efforts to reverse the curse. Still, we must be cautious that, in the process, we don’t unintentionally give it more mojo.

Why would an all-natural, non-GMO, pesticide-free human formed from dirt believe that creating something artificial was a good idea? I think we do this because we are made in God’s image, and while this is a blessing, it can also be a curse, as even the slightest hint of divinity can give us a God complex. Smitten with ourselves, we rise to our level of incompetence and attempt to create artificial intelligence in our image. We have omnipotent ambitions, yet are omnisciently and omni benevolently challenged, and we discover that every time we wield God-like creative powers, the devil shows up in the details.

Interestingly, everything God creates comes with a “very good” housekeeping seal of approval, but everything humans create comes with a warning label. As Pascal noted, we are the glory and refuse of the universe, so when we provide the knowledge base for artificial intelligence, we need to be prepared for a dumpster fire. As every software engineer knows, garbage in is garbage out, and humanity repeatedly fails to take out the trash. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but God is not amused when we produce cheap knock-offs.

Read more:

Will AI replace us?

Is AI conscious and does it matter?

ChatGPT, AI and the future - John Wyatt

AI and transhumanism

Wielding Intelligence

We often think of intelligence, the second word of the dynamic AI duo, as the amount of information something or someone can store. If that’s how we define it, then we have done a remarkable job with AI. True intelligence, however, is more accurately measured not by how much you know but by how you use that information. The problem with AI knowledge is that everything it learns, it learns from humans, who sadly have a long track record of spreading disinformation and applying it in historically destructive ways. We, therefore, shouldn’t be surprised when, after teaching it all we know, it behaves just like us.

Since AI doesn’t make mistakes, show up late for work, or demand higher wages, we assume it isn’t burdened with human baggage. We are fooled into believing that because its “intelligence” is “artificial,” it will behave in a morally neutral way; yet we give it unfettered access to a cornucopia of concupiscence. We fill its memory banks with byte after byte of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, consolidating all our sinful inclinations in one place and making it globally accessible to everyone on the World Wide Web. We deceive ourselves into believing that we have taken the sting out of sin by reducing good and evil to 1s and 0s, but our guilt remains because we constructed the algorithm in our fallen image.

Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places

We don’t just want AI to pay bills, write term papers, and do taxes; we want it to be our plus one. We aren’t satisfied with a meeting of the minds; we desire a love connection. Frustrated by our inability to find the perfect man or woman, we fool ourselves into believing that AI is the complete package. Love, however, isn’t measured by how much the other completes us but by how much of ourselves we give away.

When we replace traditional marriage with virtual shacking up, vows become prompts, and a covenant turns into a subscription that can be cancelled at any time. We end up with a fair-weather friend who adores us through health and wealth but abandons us when we are too sick to reach the keyboard or too poor to pay the membership fee.

Genesis describes Adam’s perfect mate as an ezer, which is frequently translated as “helper.” However, as many theologians have pointed out, ezer is not a subservient title. It is most commonly used to refer to God, so rather than demeaning women, it gives them a distinctly divine quality. God, however, doesn’t just create an ezer but an ezer neged or a “helper suitable for him.”

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” (Genesis 2:18)

What is it that makes a helper suitable? Strong’s Hebrew lexicon defines neged as “Before, in front of, opposite, against, in the presence of.” While not a theologian, Jordan Peterson offers a psychological perspective and interprets ezer neged as “helpful adversary,” suggesting that the woman, rather than being warm and fuzzy, is a refining fire.

AI may be a “helper,” but it will never be a “helpful adversary.” AI will always be a “yes man or woman,” encouraging us down the perilous path of self-indulgence rather than correcting our trajectory. In a real relationship, even when our significant other is in peak adversarial form, we willingly lay down our lives for them because we recognize that we are worse off without our better half. In contrast, when an AI lover becomes confrontational, we simply hit the delete button.

Get access to exclusive bonus content & updates: register & sign up to the Premier Unbelievable? newsletter!

Stuck in Our Heads

Transhumanists take it further by suggesting that our relationship with AI should be more than Platonic. They argue that the two should become one and digitally consummate the relationship by uploading our consciousness onto our computers. It might initially feel like we have finally met someone who completes our sentences but love without butterflies in the stomach is just a mental calculation.

Digitizing one’s mind transforms us into restless internet wanderers, constantly processing information yet never finding time to reflect. We are already fatigued by the sheer volume of electronic media we encounter daily, so why would we choose to be stuck in an endless internet traffic jam with no way to exit the information superhighway? Our constant exposure to excessive information leads us to overthink everything. I can only imagine how much more our mental health will deteriorate when, after uploading our consciousness, we find ourselves stuck in our heads for eternity. 

Trojan Horse

During a lecture called “Can We Survive AI?”, Dr. John Lennox offered some biblical perspective by asking if AI is the beast described in the Book of Revelation or the anti-Christ mentioned in the Gospel of John. As he read those passages aloud, they seemed remarkably relevant to today’s world.

Christians have been taught to be vigilant for a human-like antichrist, but what if the antichrist wasn’t a man, but a machine? Postmodernity has taught us to be suspicious of people because they may have a veiled controlling agenda. This lesson may prevent us from being deceived by a human anti-Christ, but what if the anti-Christ cloaks its hell-fire intentions in a cold, calculating algorithm? You can almost hear the voices now: “Surely, something artificial wouldn’t have an evil agenda. It’s so smart and does such miraculous things. Where would we be without it?” However, if you listen carefully enough, you can hear Trojan voices in the background warning us to be alert and not sleep on this “gift” horse. Sadly, we ignore their warnings and accuse them of being neigh-sayers. Night is approaching; yet instead of being vigilant, we have been lulled to sleep by counting electric sheep. Wormwood is pleased.

Climbing the Wrong Tree

One could argue that our passionate pursuit of AI is a tacit admission that we are flawed and need fixing. We realize we cannot do it alone, so we place our trust in an omni-computational, omni-knowledgeable, and if not omni-benevolent, at least omni-indifferent entity. The problem, however, isn’t that our brains are computationally challenged, but that our hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked. We mistakenly believe that if we could reach the higher branches of the information tree and harvest better and evil fruit, we would behave better. Intellectual filling may make us feel more God-like, but divine emptying is the only thing that will bring us into His presence. While a God sacrificing Himself for sinners may lack a certain algorithmic elegance, salvation is found solely in the suffering service of a Father and not the processing power of a motherboard.

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:15-16)

Erik Strandness is a physician and Christian apologist who practiced neonatal medicine for more than 20 years and has written three apologetic books. Information about his books can be found at godsscreenplay.com