Does Artificial Intelligence Pose a Threat to Belief in God?

[Danmark]

We have created AI that can play chess better than world champions. We have machines that can create poetry. When man creates a 'thinking machine,' a machine that can learn on its own, what questions does this raise about religious belief? The discovery of the heliocentric universe and the theory of evolution have represented profound threats to traditional religious thought.

"The creation of non-human autonomous robots would disrupt religion, like everything else, on an entirely new scale. "If humans were to create free-willed beings, says Kelly, who was raised Catholic and identifies as a Christian, absolutely every single aspect of traditional theology would be challenged and have to be reinterpreted in some capacity.

Take the soul, for instance. Christians have mostly understood the soul to be a uniquely human element, an internal and eternal component that animates our spiritual sides."
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ty/515463/

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 17 by Danmark]

So, you are suggesting that God made man so man could invent a machine that thinks better that God.

No. I am not sure how you came to that conclusion based upon what I said.

That seemed to me exactly what you were saying with your "Well one off the top of my head would be that the human form was a means to an end so to speak.
In which case, the human form was perfect for the job" since I understood you to claim that God created that 'human form.'

[William]

[Replying to post 21 by Danmark]

That seemed to me exactly what you were saying with your "Well one off the top of my head would be that the human form was a means to an end so to speak.
In which case, the human form was perfect for the job" since I understood you to claim that God created that 'human form.'

My lack of understanding your conclusion, was based on your comment;

So, you are suggesting that God made man so man could invent a machine that thinks better that God.

Your comment seems to neglect inclusions of my observations in post #9 where I said;

"Does Artificial Intelligence Pose a Threat to Belief in God?" that it would somehow convince me that GOD does not exist? No it wouldn't. What it does show me though is the pattern of creativity. In the biblical sense, the idea that GOD creates humans in his own image, and then man creating machines in man's image...well therein is a particular pattern, yes?

And;

I also think that human beings have never got it right about GOD in the first place because they come from that totally ignorant position to begin with and have to grow into ideas of GOD, adopting this and that, dropping off those ideas which prove non-applicable etc...whereas GOD is always in the position of knowing exactly who IT is, in relation to human beings.

So I am at a loss to see how you think I am saying that GOD is less intelligent that Its Creation in the first place?
Rather I was speaking of natural enough patterns.

Perhaps you are conflating my idea of GOD with the biblical idea of GOD? I mentioned the biblical idea of GOD simply to highlight a known concept regarding 'GOD creating forms in his own image' but even so I still can't see where you misunderstood me in that I was saying this equates to GOD being 'less intelligent' than that which GOD creates.

Perhaps it is your mistake because the heading of the OP reads "Does Artificial Intelligence Pose a Threat to Belief in God?" you are focused only on one particular idea of GOD?

You should re-read post#2 as this should help you understand that there are many ideas of GOD, not just the biblical one.

[OnceConvinced]

"A whole bunch of metal has exploded itself into a room and lay there for for a long, long LONG L-O-N-G time... and has by natural processes (and a series of happy coincidences) evolved into AI that can play chess better than world champions"?

This is an extremely lame attempt to describe the history of the universe and the evolution. Do you really think you've accurately described the processes involved or are you purposely creating an absurd strawman?

Indeed a strawman and one Christians use all the time (or ones similar). A bunch of metal has no ability to grow or mutate. Nor does it have any ultimate purpose or goal in mind. Metal is an inanimate object without any urges or inclinations at all. Christians seem to like using the metaphor of a pile of inanimate objects (like bricks, lego or metal) and think it's a valid comparison. It shows a complete misunderstanding of evolution. There is no way a bunch of metal could evolve as it's not living. It's a very terrible and inaccurate analogy of life evolving.

The other issue I have is with the word "coincidences". Nope, no coincidence, just natural processes and inevitable outcomes of millions of years of evolution, in an environment which sustains it.

[Mithrae]

"A whole bunch of metal has exploded itself into a room and lay there for for a long, long LONG L-O-N-G time... and has by natural processes (and a series of happy coincidences) evolved into AI that can play chess better than world champions"?

This is an extremely lame attempt to describe the history of the universe and the evolution. Do you really think you've accurately described the processes involved or are you purposely creating an absurd strawman?

Indeed a strawman and one Christians use all the time (or ones similar). A bunch of metal has no ability to grow or mutate. Nor does it have any ultimate purpose or goal in mind. Metal is an inanimate object without any urges or inclinations at all.

Considering the OP's emphasis on 'free-willed beings' and the 'soul,' isn't that rather the point? We've had machines that can accept input, process information and display or trigger a mechanical response for well over a century now. Since they are designed and built by humans, the future existence of machines that can rapidly process information in a less linear fashion on a wider range of functions hardly poses some big new threat to any philosophical view. All it shows is that complex systems like that can be built by intelligent designers.

Personally I kind of hope that along with mere information processing, AIs will somehow, somewhere along the line also evolve subjective experience. But that's not a given by any stretch of the imagination. Without subjective experience, there is little real difference between an incorporeal super-intelligent AI whose only function is to learn video games and challenge the human pros to excel themselves and a super-intelligent AI in a convincing humanoid body with more general functions. Much as we might anthropomorphize the latter (anthropopsychize?), as innumerable science fiction shows teach us it takes more than just intelligence to suppose that machines have got whatever it is we've got.



Here's a further thought: Much as I'm a big fan of the future of computing and AI, it's worth remembering that while computers might one day have better general intelligence than humans, in terms of design optimisation and efficiency they're not even close, sucking up some hundred thousand times as much power to get the same work done.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... vs-brains/ (2011)

[bluethread]

I don't see that AI poses a threat to my belief in Adonai. however, it does pose an interesting dilemma for the humanist. If indeed humans are the highest form of life and must, therefore, be preserved at all costs. How does one gauge AI. Is it that which emulates humanity or that which replaces humanity. If it emulates humanity, what is it's purpose? Will humanists have to rethink the notion of slavery, or will they have to reject the anthropocentric basis of their philosophy. If it replaces humanity, how does that serve to preserve humanity?

[Danmark]

I don't see that AI poses a threat to my belief in Adonai. however, it does pose an interesting dilemma for the humanist. If indeed humans are the highest form of life and must, therefore, be preserved at all costs. How does one gauge AI. Is it that which emulates humanity or that which replaces humanity. If it emulates humanity, what is it's purpose? Will humanists have to rethink the notion of slavery, or will they have to reject the anthropocentric basis of their philosophy. If it replaces humanity, how does that serve to preserve humanity?

I really don't know what you mean when you use the word 'humanist.' Nothing you've written here is consonant with anyone I know. The word seems to be thrown about by religionists as some kind of il defined pejorative for anyone who does not embrace the religion of the one who denigrates others using 'humanist' as if it were an expletive.

The main reason I raise the issues in the OP is the fact that humans have created machines that outperform humans and other animals in narrowly defined tasks. However, there is nothing man made that comes close to being able to replicate even a simple house cat.

The intriguing question is whether AI will ever be able to attain consciousness, as well as 'How would we know this happened?'

We are a long way from this happening.
'In his article "Artificial Consciousness: Utopia or Real Possibility" Giorgio Buttazzo says that despite our current technology's ability to simulate autonomy, "Working in a fully automated mode, they [the computers] cannot exhibit creativity, emotions, or free will. A computer, like a washing machine, is a slave operated by its components."'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_consciousness

I simply find the idea interesting. Since humans have already created machines that can outthink humans who some think were designed by a god, what happens if humans construct machines that also attain consciousness? IF that ever happens, I suggest it has implications for our ideas about whether a god exists. It also has implications for the argument about whether there is anything magical or supernatural about the supposed spirit or pneuma that God placed in man that makes him more than a machine or qualitatively more than other animals.

But even without the production of consciousness in machines, we are left with the verity that man has designed and produced machines that at least in narrowly defined parameters, are superior to the 'designs' of God (using the language of creationists).

[1213]

We have created AI that can play chess better than world champions. We have machines that can create poetry. When man creates a 'thinking machine,' a machine that can learn on its own, what questions does this raise about religious belief? ...

By what I know, machines do what they are programmed to do. I dont see any reason to see that as a problem. All though, it can lead to very dangerous situations, if the machine is programmed badly.

[dianaiad]

I don't see that AI poses a threat to my belief in Adonai. however, it does pose an interesting dilemma for the humanist. If indeed humans are the highest form of life and must, therefore, be preserved at all costs. How does one gauge AI. Is it that which emulates humanity or that which replaces humanity. If it emulates humanity, what is it's purpose? Will humanists have to rethink the notion of slavery, or will they have to reject the anthropocentric basis of their philosophy. If it replaces humanity, how does that serve to preserve humanity?

I really don't know what you mean when you use the word 'humanist.' Nothing you've written here is consonant with anyone I know. The word seems to be thrown about by religionists as some kind of il defined pejorative for anyone who does not embrace the religion of the one who denigrates others using 'humanist' as if it were an expletive.

You mean...the way people use "cult" when they don't like whatever theistic belief system they don't agree with?

The main reason I raise the issues in the OP is the fact that humans have created machines that outperform humans and other animals in narrowly defined tasks. However, there is nothing man made that comes close to being able to replicate even a simple house cat.

The intriguing question is whether AI will ever be able to attain consciousness, as well as 'How would we know this happened?'

Alan Turing came up with a test for that. No machine has passed it yet. I'm not sure one will within my lifetime, anyway. Someday, perhaps...but that's a tougher test than it might seem at a passing glance.

We are a long way from this happening.

Yep, we are.

'In his article "Artificial Consciousness: Utopia or Real Possibility" Giorgio Buttazzo says that despite our current technology's ability to simulate autonomy, "Working in a fully automated mode, they [the computers] cannot exhibit creativity, emotions, or free will. A computer, like a washing machine, is a slave operated by its components."'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_consciousness

....which raises the question of whether we have any machines that really can write poetry? Personally, I haven't seen a computer devised poem that actually is one. Even the chess master type computers are not emulating human consciousness or thought processes. Indeed, chess is more about humans trying to be computers; there are a finite (if very large) number of moves and reactions to moves in any game of chess. There really isn't any subjective, human intuitiveness about that game.

..........but that could be sour grapes. I can't play chess worth diddly squat.

I simply find the idea interesting. Since humans have already created machines that can outthink humans who some think were designed by a god, what happens if humans construct machines that also attain consciousness? IF that ever happens, I suggest it has implications for our ideas about whether a god exists.

For some it would. Not for me. Indeed, for ME it would be a fairly natural progression.

It also has implications for the argument about whether there is anything magical or supernatural about the supposed spirit or pneuma that God placed in man that makes him more than a machine or qualitatively more than other animals.

But even without the production of consciousness in machines, we are left with the verity that man has designed and produced machines that at least in narrowly defined parameters, are superior to the 'designs' of God (using the language of creationists).

Different from, not superior to. There ARE humans-savants-who can beat the computers that beat the chess masters, though they, like the computers they would play against, may not have many talents in other areas of human experience.

I think, personally, that when we DO create a true AI, it will not think the way we do at all; while it may well 'out think' most of us in some ways, it will not do so in others.

You know...like real people do now? For instance, most eight year olds can out do me in arithmetic, but I'm a whiz at fixing doctoral dissertations for PhD candidates in disparate fields when they find out that science is one thing, but writing about it is quite another. If mere humans are so different in the way they think, why should having a computer that can out play everybody at chess be scary?

What scares ME is this claim that a computer can write poetry. Gahhh. I went to the 'bot or not?" website, which asks the reader to decide which of several pairs of poems was written by a human rather than a computer.

It wasn't exactly hard to tell which was which, and trust me; I'm no poet.

[Goat]

Alan Turing came up with a test for that. No machine has passed it yet. I'm not sure one will within my lifetime, anyway. Someday, perhaps...but that's a tougher test than it might seem at a passing glance.

Well, honestly, your wait is over, and has been for a bit

An AI passed the test back in 2014

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27762088

Now, it doesn't mean that the machine was self aware, but it sure could fool some people.

[dianaiad]

Alan Turing came up with a test for that. No machine has passed it yet. I'm not sure one will within my lifetime, anyway. Someday, perhaps...but that's a tougher test than it might seem at a passing glance.

Well, honestly, your wait is over, and has been for a bit

An AI passed the test back in 2014

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27762088

Now, it doesn't mean that the machine was self aware, but it sure could fool some people.

I'm aware of this claim...and it has been debunked, rather completely. You can go chat with this particular 'bot (Eugene...) and see for yourself that it absolutely does not pass the Turing test. I have, and this particular 'chatbot' (not a computer, but rather a program) has canned answers that repeat themselves word for word, are nonsensical, and it doesn't remember the flow of conversation. It's rather easy to tell that it's not a human interacting with you. It pretends to be a 13 year old boy, a very impertinent and snarky 13 year old boy, and doesn't succeed.


Here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140 ... tter.shtml

However, this is a bit off topic. I think the point I was attempting to make is that although we haven't created a real 'artificial intelligence' that is self aware and can 'consciously' make choices, we probably will, someday--and that being able to do so doesn't disprove a Creator God's existence at all. Doing so wouldn't even cause a ripple, for instance, in my own belief system. It will cause some ethical dilemmas, but no world shaking religious upheavals, at least, not for me.