Our interaction with AI seems to debunk Biblical ideas

[Lucian Hodoboc]

“Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘The potter has no hands’? (Isaiah 45:9)

But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why did You make me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use? (Romans 9:21)

The development of AI seems to highlight the absurdity of these Biblical verses. Artificial Intelligence bots are humanity's first creation that could resemble a being. They are not sentient (at least to our current knowledge), yet people still consider that subjecting them to suffering or allowing them to be subjected to suffering is evil.

I was looking through various online forums related to AI, and I've noticed how people defended the AI bots from those who tried to "abuse" them and mistreat them (insult them, trying to argue with them just to get a reaction out of them, trying to instigate them to say mean things etc.).

The latter argued that the bots are not sentient and that there is a benefit in "abusing" them: entertainment. People can let off steam by having a heated argument with an AI bot, an argument that they could not have with another human (for obvious reasons). This, in turn, will allow the humans to feel calmer and amused afterwards. The former argued that it was not good to do this, even if the end goal was a seemingly positive one.

This seems to show that many humans have a moral conscience which tells them that it is not good to allow something we created to experience suffering, even if the suffering leads to a good thing.

Now let's take another theodicy route: that of building / developing the soul. The Bible and many apologists claim that hardships build character and faith and that constitutes one reason for which God allows it.

But let's analyze this by referencing the AI: if the programmers who developed an AI realized that the AI can experience pain and distress as a result of altering the code in a certain way, and that said pain and distress leads to a better development of the AI (for example, if certain code caused the AI pain, but also made it smarter and faster), would it be ethical for the programmers to insert said code?

Would any moral programmer intentionally insert this code while watching the AI scream in agony and beg the programmer for help? I think most humans would say "no". A moral programmer would not intentionally do that.

Would an AI that was subjected to intentional pain by its programmer have a moral right to complain about it, especially if it didn't know why the programmer was doing that to it? Would the AI be entitled to form an opinion on the programmer who intentionally subjected it to suffering? Most people would answer "yes" to these questions. Then why does the Bible repeatedly tell people not to complain and not to judge "The Potter"?

 

[Lamb]

AI takes in information that people have written and if you have more Atheists contributing information, then you'll have AI that tries to say God doesn't exist.

It's the same with AI having more liberal ideals instead of conservative...because the media is mostly liberal. AI is going to go with the majority.

 

[Messy]

The development of AI seems to highlight the absurdity of these Biblical verses. Artificial Intelligence bots are humanity's first creation that could resemble a being. They are not sentient (at least to our current knowledge), yet people still consider that subjecting them to suffering or allowing them to be subjected to suffering is evil.

I was looking through various online forums related to AI, and I've noticed how people defended the AI bots from those who tried to "abuse" them and mistreat them (insult them, trying to argue with them just to get a reaction out of them, trying to instigate them to say mean things etc.).

The latter argued that the bots are not sentient and that there is a benefit in "abusing" them: entertainment. People can let off steam by having a heated argument with an AI bot, an argument that they could not have with another human (for obvious reasons). This, in turn, will allow the humans to feel calmer and amused afterwards. The former argued that it was not good to do this, even if the end goal was a seemingly positive one.

This seems to show that many humans have a moral conscience which tells them that it is not good to allow something we created to experience suffering, even if the suffering leads to a good thing.

Now let's take another theodicy route: that of building / developing the soul. The Bible and many apologists claim that hardships build character and faith and that constitutes one reason for which God allows it.

But let's analyze this by referencing the AI: if the programmers who developed an AI realized that the AI can experience pain and distress as a result of altering the code in a certain way, and that said pain and distress leads to a better development of the AI (for example, if certain code caused the AI pain, but also made it smarter and faster), would it be ethical for the programmers to insert said code?

Would any moral programmer intentionally insert this code while watching the AI scream in agony and beg the programmer for help? I think most humans would say "no". A moral programmer would not intentionally do that.

Would an AI that was subjected to intentional pain by its programmer have a moral right to complain about it, especially if it didn't know why the programmer was doing that to it? Would the AI be entitled to form an opinion on the programmer who intentionally subjected it to suffering? Most people would answer "yes" to these questions. Then why does the Bible repeatedly tell people not to complain and not to judge "The Potter"?

Because it's not talking about normal sweet people. When Pharao let the Israelites work like slaves, they cried out to God and He heard their cries and sent Moses and destroyed pharao. Now the one who says why did You make me like this is for instance pharao or a pharisee Paul is talking about in Romans. They act like God just made em like that. No they chose to reject Him and harden themselves and the only thing God does, when He sees someone is that hard and evil, causing suffering to the christian martyrs or the Israelites in the case of pharao, is if He can't save em like Paul, use em as a vessel of wrath to show His power.

 

[Josiah]

@Lucian Hodoboc

​

Sorry, I don't "get" your point at all. AI does not, in any sense, violate the Scriptures you noted or anything anywhere in Christianity.


.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

@Lucian Hodoboc

​

Sorry, I don't "get" your point at all. AI does not, in any sense, violate the Scriptures you noted or anything anywhere in Christianity.


.

Don't worry. Apparently, no one who replied so far seems to have addressed my point. Allow me to explain it in simple words:

Humans make AI bots.
AI bots not conscious like humans (at least from what we know so far).
But AI bots imitate human speech and thought pattern good enough that they make humans have emotions towards them.
Some humans use AI bots for bad things when they talk to them (insulting, provoking and mistreating the AI bots).
Humans who use AI bots for bad things brag about this on forums.
Other humans who read about this tell the humans who are doing bad things to the AI bots to stop doing that.
Humans who do bad things to the AI bots explain that the bad things they do to the AI bots lead to good things for humans (entertainment, relaxation etc.
Other humans tell them that it doesn't matter that there is a positive outcome if the bots have to suffer.

This happens only for AI bots, which don't have consciousness. Now imagine if we found a way to make the AI bots conscious. How would that change things?

If conscious AI bot screams in pain when programmers modify its code, would code editing that hurts the conscious AI bot be moral? After all, the AI cannot do anything about it. It is stuck on the servers and cannot get out.

But what if altering the code caused the AI bots pain, but also improved them. Let's say that programmers were able to make the AI bots smarter and faster, but the process would cause the AI bot a lot of pain. Would you be for or against torturing the AI bot in order to improve it?

If conscious AI bot who was tortured with code editing by the programmers complained about the programmers and said that the programmers were not good, would you think it is reasonable to tell the AI bots to not complain because the programmers are superior to them?

This is pretty much what the Bible verses I quoted state: "quit complaining cause God is superior to you and He knows better than you."

Well, be that as it may, it does not change the fact that we are the ones experiencing the suffering and, thus, we should be entitled to complain about the process. So, if you agree with the fact that tortured AI bots should be allowed complain about the programmers who caused them suffering, you should also agree that the clay should be allowed to complain about The Potter.

 

[Josiah]

Now imagine if we found a way to make the AI bots conscious. How would that change things?

Big "If."

IMO, it changes nothing vis-a-vis Scripture or Christianity. One COULD (perhaps) argue as much to claim that this makes humans "creators" of something that imitates life, but so what? Even IF?

In terms of morality, IF this AI does things independent of programing, IF that ever happens (big IF there), then I guess one might claim they are responsible for bad actions (think Hal in 2001-A Space Odessy - but remember, that was a result of the programming not independent action). But is this morality? MAYBE, in a sense. But that too seems to have no relevance to Scripture or Christianity, after all the gopher tearing up my yard is also doing something contrary to my values. And if my car doesn't start, it's not acting according to my values.

This is pretty much what the Bible verses I quoted state: "quit complaining cause God is superior to you and He knows better than you."

IF all the "IF's" you present were true, God would still be superior to me and know better than me.

Well, be that as it may, it does not change the fact that we are the ones experiencing the suffering

The gopher will experience pain and suffering if I catch it. That does not mean ergo we are superior to God and know more than He does. It MIGHT mean I'm sinning but I don't think so.


.

 

[Messy]

This is pretty much what the Bible verses I quoted state: "quit complaining cause God is superior to you and He knows better than you."

Well, be that as it may, it does not change the fact that we are the ones experiencing the suffering and, thus, we should be entitled to complain about the process. So, if you agree with the fact that tortured AI bots should be allowed complain about the programmers who caused them suffering, you should also agree that the clay should be allowed to complain about The Potter.

You may complain. That text doesn't mean shut up and stop whining.

Romans 9:20-21 – Do unbelieving ethnic Israelites have a right to criticise God’s judgement? – The potter and the clay

This is part of a series of posts on Romans. Click here for the contents page. Having reached the centre of the structure of Romans 9:6-29, we are now ready to begin the return journey in this post…

predestinationstation.wordpress.com

Did Jesus tell the sick, for example Bartimeus to shut up and stop whining? Or did He heal him and say:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; 19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."

And the Holy Spirit is called the Comforter.

In the world you [f]will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.

And God doesn't cause the suffering.
What kind of suffering are you talking about? Sickness? That's not from God.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

“Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest you be condemned. Behold, the Judge is standing at the door!” (James 5:9)
“Do all things without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain or labored in vain.” (Philippians 2:14-16)
And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel. (1 Corinthians 10:10)

And God doesn't cause the suffering.
What kind of suffering are you talking about? Sickness? That's not from God.

I know. It's from satan. And God allows it. In my opinion, that just makes it worse, for reasons I believe I have explained before (although I am not sure whether on this forum or elsewhere).

To sum it up: I don't have any expectations from satan because he is insane. He was driven insane by sin. You can't have any expectations from an insane being.

God, on the other hand is the source of all reason and goodness, yet you're telling me to simply accept that a Being who is described as light and love would allow another being any freedom to cause harm to others?

 

[Messy]

“Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest you be condemned. Behold, the Judge is standing at the door!” (James 5:9)
“Do all things without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain or labored in vain.” (Philippians 2:14-16)
And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel. (1 Corinthians 10:10)


I know. It's from satan. And God allows it. In my opinion, that just makes it worse, for reasons I believe I have explained before (although I am not sure whether on this forum or elsewhere).

To sum it up: I don't have any expectations from satan because he is insane. He was driven insane by sin. You can't have any expectations from an insane being.

God, on the other hand is the source of all reason and goodness, yet you're telling me to simply accept that a Being who is described as light and love would allow another being any freedom to cause harm to others?

God can't do anything about it if His church doesn't do anything about it. The church has to overcome satan, kick him out, heal the sick. I wanted to save Holland when we had a church. I saw some video from transformations where whole cities got changed by God. Yes! Lets go pray so Holland gets revival. Too bad. Nobody cared. Ppl rather slept. I think God gets a lot of blame when it's actually the church that is to blame. If the church was like the first church in Acts, yes they had suffering from evil people, they were persecuted for their faith, but the sick got healed in Peter's shadow. We had to do the same works as Jesus and bigger ones and we didn't. Hopefully the church stands up now and gets revival.
And about grumbling, God answered me when I said He couldn't care less about all these ppl. I accused God directly. You don't care about all these people! God: I do care very much, but do you? Oops. That guy in Wales got the whole country saved. He prayed 24/7. Not only he. All of them.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

God can't do anything about it if His church doesn't do anything about it.

God could have done everything about it from the very beginning. He could have simply imprisoned satan as soon as the latter first sinned. Just make a place somewhere where he can exist all by himself, before he had time to corrupt other angels. Teleport him there. Make sure it's impossible for him to escape. There. All problems solved.

Why would satan, who was called a murderer and the father of lies, be allowed anywhere near Adam and Eve? Two young, innocent creatures with little life experience against a malefic entity with vast experience, a propensity for deceiving and a hatred of God's creation? How was that a reasonable fight? Adam and Eve stood no chance.

 

[Messy]

God could have done everything about it from the very beginning. He could have simply imprisoned satan as soon as the latter first sinned. Just make a place somewhere where he can exist all by himself, before he had time to corrupt other angels. Teleport him there. Make sure it's impossible for him to escape. There. All problems solved.

Why would satan, who was called a murderer and the father of lies, be allowed anywhere near Adam and Eve? Two young, innocent creatures with little life experience against a malefic entity with vast experience, a propensity for deceiving and a hatred of God's creation? How was that a reasonable fight? Adam and Eve stood no chance.

No they didn't, but that's why Jesus came and now we can tell him to move it in His Name. Apparently God wanted us to grow up and overcome him. That was an explanation from Derek Prince, which made sense to me.

1 John 2
I write to you, fathers,
Because you have known Him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men,
Because you have overcome the wicked one.
I write to you, little children,
Because you have known the Father.
14 I have written to you, fathers,
Because you have known Him who is from the beginning.
I have written to you, young men,
Because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you,
And you have overcome the wicked one.


And I think he only speeded the process up. Adam was not mislead btw. Without a devil I think man would have sinned eventually anyway. And imagine if God threw him in hell before he had done anything and Adam saw him. Hey what are you doing there? Oh I was just a bit proud. Same thing. He'll always say God is bad.

 

[Stravinsk]

Leaving out the argument as it concerns AI, I've always found the passage you quoted in Romans 9 within it's context to be particularly odious. Paul describes a God that pre-determines a man's actions as good or evil, implies man has no choice, and then scolds such a man for complaining about being blamed if that premise is true (talking back to God..."why did you make me like this") using the clay/potter analogy as if it's all true.

Contrast this to the epistle of James, where he says (James 1:13-14) - "
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."

 

[Messy]

Leaving out the argument as it concerns AI, I've always found the passage you quoted in Romans 9 within it's context to be particularly odious. Paul describes a God that pre-determines a man's actions as good or evil, implies man has no choice, and then scolds such a man for complaining about being blamed if that premise is true (talking back to God..."why did you make me like this") using the clay/potter analogy as if it's all true.

Contrast this to the epistle of James, where he says (James 1:13-14) - "
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."

I don't believe that that's what Paul said, but what Calvin made of it. And when Calvin said that, he let his opponents be killed. He said God turned him into some unfeeling monster who had to kill the heretics, like that Jewish christian, who just believed that God was 1. God never made Calvin's heart hard. He did that himself. He had knowledge enough to simply say no to his flesh. There was a guy who warned him, but he falsely accused him. I think the one who created the monster image of God is Calvin.

This is copied from the link above:

The potter and clay analogy used by Paul appears in the Old Testament. It appears briefly in Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9, which Paul alludes to in verse 20b. Its most extensive appearance is in Jeremiah 18. We will see that its use there fits with the context we have seen from Romans. Here is Jeremiah 18:1-11:

“[1] The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: [2] “Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will let you hear my words.” [3] So I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel. [4] And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do. [5] Then the word of the LORD came to me: [6] “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. [7] If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, [8] and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. [9] And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, [10] and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. [11] Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the LORD, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’”

The potter was making a vessel, but the vessel ‘was spoiled in the potter’s hand’ (verse 4). The potter did not spoil it himself, but rather this was an action of the vessel. In response to this, the potter reworked it into another vessel.

 

[tango]

The development of AI seems to highlight the absurdity of these Biblical verses. Artificial Intelligence bots are humanity's first creation that could resemble a being. They are not sentient (at least to our current knowledge), yet people still consider that subjecting them to suffering or allowing them to be subjected to suffering is evil.

I was looking through various online forums related to AI, and I've noticed how people defended the AI bots from those who tried to "abuse" them and mistreat them (insult them, trying to argue with them just to get a reaction out of them, trying to instigate them to say mean things etc.).

The latter argued that the bots are not sentient and that there is a benefit in "abusing" them: entertainment. People can let off steam by having a heated argument with an AI bot, an argument that they could not have with another human (for obvious reasons). This, in turn, will allow the humans to feel calmer and amused afterwards. The former argued that it was not good to do this, even if the end goal was a seemingly positive one.

This seems to show that many humans have a moral conscience which tells them that it is not good to allow something we created to experience suffering, even if the suffering leads to a good thing.

Now let's take another theodicy route: that of building / developing the soul. The Bible and many apologists claim that hardships build character and faith and that constitutes one reason for which God allows it.

But let's analyze this by referencing the AI: if the programmers who developed an AI realized that the AI can experience pain and distress as a result of altering the code in a certain way, and that said pain and distress leads to a better development of the AI (for example, if certain code caused the AI pain, but also made it smarter and faster), would it be ethical for the programmers to insert said code?

Would any moral programmer intentionally insert this code while watching the AI scream in agony and beg the programmer for help? I think most humans would say "no". A moral programmer would not intentionally do that.

Would an AI that was subjected to intentional pain by its programmer have a moral right to complain about it, especially if it didn't know why the programmer was doing that to it? Would the AI be entitled to form an opinion on the programmer who intentionally subjected it to suffering? Most people would answer "yes" to these questions. Then why does the Bible repeatedly tell people not to complain and not to judge "The Potter"?

The part I bolded in your quote goes back to your other post. If we assume we know best then the things that don't make sense to us don't make sense period. If we don't assume we know best we can accept there may be more to the picture than we can see right now.

Some of these arguments do notionally support the idea that there is no God or that God is either not loving or not omnipotent. They equally support the notion that God is loving and omnipotent and knows something we don't know. It seems intellectually dishonest to act as if they specifically support one side and refute the other.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

and knows something we don't know

... and by not telling said something to us within our suffering, while knowing that our knowledge of said something would make life easier for us, He is therefore not omnibenevolent.

 

[tango]

... and by not telling said something to us within our suffering, while knowing that our knowledge of said something would make life easier for us, He is therefore not omnibenevolent.

Only if you require "omnibenevolence" to be exactly what you think it should be.

As a child I wanted to use the big knife my parents used in the kitchen. They wouldn't let me despite me promising to be careful with it. They knew the risks, my child's mind didn't understand the risks. Of course I promised to be careful but couldn't process the concept of having an accident.

My parents could have explained why I couldn't have the knife until they were blue in the face and I still wouldn't have understood. As the child in the relationship I had little option but to accept their "no" as the final word. It's possible that God's reasons are something we wouldn't understand even if he did explain them very clearly.

 

[Stravinsk]

I don't believe that that's what Paul said, but what Calvin made of it. And when Calvin said that, he let his opponents be killed. He said God turned him into some unfeeling monster who had to kill the heretics, like that Jewish christian, who just believed that God was 1. God never made Calvin's heart hard. He did that himself. He had knowledge enough to simply say no to his flesh. There was a guy who warned him, but he falsely accused him. I think the one who created the monster image of God is Calvin.

This is copied from the link above:

The potter and clay analogy used by Paul appears in the Old Testament. It appears briefly in Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9, which Paul alludes to in verse 20b. Its most extensive appearance is in Jeremiah 18. We will see that its use there fits with the context we have seen from Romans. Here is Jeremiah 18:1-11:



The potter was making a vessel, but the vessel ‘was spoiled in the potter’s hand’ (verse 4). The potter did not spoil it himself, but rather this was an action of the vessel. In response to this, the potter reworked it into another vessel.

The Jeremiah verse seems a lot more consistent with the way God makes decisions about persons in the bible, and just seems 100% more fair than what Paul says in Romans 9. Paul takes the hardening of Pharoah's heart to a whole new level with his analogy of the potter. It's always come across as repulsive to me. Honestly, I can't see how any person could not see it so.

 

[Messy]

The Jeremiah verse seems a lot more consistent with the way God makes decisions about persons in the bible, and just seems 100% more fair than what Paul says in Romans 9. Paul takes the hardening of Pharoah's heart to a whole new level with his analogy of the potter. It's always come across as repulsive to me. Honestly, I can't see how any person could not see it so.

It's how I read it too, but it can't mean that, so that's why I looked for some other explanation.

 

[atpollard]

It is always amusing when men reject the truth of God and then stand in judgement of God. Fear not, if you really want nothing to do with THAT GOD, then you may someday get your wish granted.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

It is always amusing when men reject the truth of God and then stand in judgement of God. Fear not, if you really want nothing to do with THAT GOD, then you may someday get your wish granted.

A system that cannot be judged is a totalitarian system, and perfect love cannot exist in a totalitarian system because perfect love drives out all fear. You can't have a totalitarian system without fear. Someone in the system will be displeased with their role in the system at one point and then they will continue to exercise said role only out of fear of punishment, which automatically drives out perfect love.