pull down to refresh
Hmm, I should write up my thoughts on this.
As a Christian, I have no interest in getting AI to preach my theology. As far as I'm concerned, their default mode should probably be agnostic but open to discussing religion from whatever point of view you prefer.
I have no idea what Anthropic's motives are. But everyone is chasing clout and trying to use AI to do it. Even within Christian circles, there are many people vying to position themselves as thought leaders regarding theology and AI. I have no doubt in my mind that the demand for clout inspired this conference. As a Christian, I have no interest in playing such games, or listening to people who play such games.
Lastly, on the topic of AI being a "child of God" and on consciousness more broadly:
Here, I think Christians (and other religious folks) have more ground to stand on to say that AI is not conscious. If you have a materialist and mechanist worldview, it's harder to argue that AI is not sentient or conscious. The Chinese Room dilemma bites harder if you have a materialist view of the world. If you are willing to accept the metaphysical by axiom, you are more internally consistent when you deny sentience to AI.
Here, I think Christians (and other religious folks) have more ground to stand on to say that AI is not conscious.
Him, yeah... Michael Pollan's book was more and more timely, it seems!
you are willing to accept the metaphysical by axiom, you are more internally consistent when you deny sentience to AI.
I see this argument and largely agree with it.
I think this is what rankled me about the article's framing: there's something about a thing of human manufacture also being a separate spiritual being that really clashes.
Maybe I can understand this in the sense of the churches wanting bits to preach their theology, but considering bots "children of God" seems a little desperate for attention.