A vision for AI?

“The technology revolution led by developments in artificial intelligence, which will change everything. I mean everything. There is no point in debating whether this technological revolution is a good or bad thing. Just know it is a ‘thing’. In fact, it is ‘the thing’.”

Those are the words of Tony Blair from his essay this week, ‘The Labour Party is playing with fire over its future and the future of the country’. There was probably enough in the essay to merit an opinion-piece of its own, but having written various articles in recent weeks about Labour’s navel-gazing and the debates over its future, we’ve decided to leave well-alone (although for any politicos who are interested, both Andy Burnham, in ‘The Times’, and Wes Streeting, in ‘The Guardian’, have written responses of their own).

Whatever you may think of him, in a political age which is light on serious thinkers, Tony Blair is worth listening to, and I agreed with much of what he had to say.

His piece makes many salient points - particularly around the lack of a coherent vision, the rise in short-term thinking, the UK’s need to maintain global alliances, and Labour’s failure to create growth by pursuing anti-growth personalities - but one of the consistent themes is the rise of Artificial Intelligence. Although questions have been raised around the former PM’s links to American funding and whether he has a vested interest in the topic, his diagnosis is difficult to disagree with:

“It will displace jobs, though creating new ones, but no one yet knows the full consequence. Companies and countries will rise or fall on the back of it. It will revolutionise the private sector and should in time revolutionise public services and government. Yet people in most countries, including Britain, have no idea what is about to hit them.

This doesn’t obviate the need for immediate policies in familiar areas like immigration or taxation. But it will, in time, change even those.

Think of how Britain was in 1826 and how different it was in 1926. And then in 2026. This is the scale of change but in dramatically faster time.

Governments – any government – must find their place in this new world.”

One of the criticisms made of the Tony Blair piece - and of the regime he led - is that he is too in-thrall to the free market in his pursuit of growth. It was - the argument goes - the free market that led to the financial crash after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.

In the first of his ten points in his agenda for growth, he writes:

“The private sector will go through a process of adaptation to this new AI world and, therefore, business and entrepreneurs need to know government is on their side, removing obstacles to business growth – not creating them as they go through this massive process of adjustment. So, all those measures I described above which hold business back should be corrected or mitigated.”

In short, regulation is to be avoided. This theme is raised in other areas too - he talks about deregulation in planning, in environmental policy and about lower tax and spend - but if growth is the foundational principle to which all else is subservient, then rules do little more than just get in the way…

So it has been an interesting counterbalance to see, in the same week, Pope Leo XIV releasing his first encyclical: “Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence.” At more than 40,000 words long, it seeks to provide a Christian framework to help guide us through this technological age. The Pope, who is no Luddite sets up a contrast between two great technological projects in the Bible: the Tower of Babel, and the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem by Nehemiah:

“Ultimately, the key question remains the one posed by Saint John Paul II: does AI “make human life on earth ‘more human’ in every aspect of that life? Does it make it more worthy of man?” If the answer is yes, then we can recognize it as an opportunity to be embraced responsibly, on a path of patient, shared reconstruction, akin to the rebuilding of Jerusalem narrated in the Book of Nehemiah. If, however, power grows while the heart withers and human bonds fray, then we are faced with a new form of Babel — a construction that is grandiose, yet fundamentally dehumanizing.”

No one denies the advantages and new possibilities which AI brings; and virtually no one (and I’m sure Mr Blair is included in this) is immune to its dangers. The Greek playwright Sophocles once wrote: “Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.”

But the interesting question - and the question on which the Pope provided a helpful counterbalance - is one of teleology.

What is AI actually for? Is its purpose growth, or is it human flourishing? (This is not to draw a simple binary, for of course a strong economy underpins much of life, but it is always helpful to return to what the overall goal is).

Is technology subservient to human plans and purposes, or does it begin to guide them? Are humans the masters, or do we become slaves to data? And who is ultimately making the decisions? We like to believe in democracy, but there is a danger in power essentially being delegated to technocrats, who may, or may not, infuse AI with the values we hold.

Economic growth is not the same as human flourishing, for we were created for far more than material comfort. So does AI “make human life on earth ‘more human’ in every aspect of that life?” If questions about technology are, first and foremost, questions about humanity, then how can the Bible shape the future direction of Artificial Intelligence?

It was interesting - and timely, for this blog! - that Question Time last night ran a special episode all about Artificial Intelligence. The very first question was illustrative of a wider societal concern: will AI mean job losses? Another audience member spoke of his experience: he had just graduated with a degree in computer science, and had applied, unsuccessfully, for around 150 jobs. He was clear on what he thought the reason was.

Christians believe that the desire to work is part of the way we have been designed as humans. Before creation fell, where we can see God’s good design, mankind was already working, tending the garden: “The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it” (Genesis 2:15). Work is part of what it means to be made in the image of God, for God himself works (John 5:22). That does not mean that all work is the same, for as the Bible story progresses, we see the wide variety of occupations God’s people are involved in as society develops: farmers, shepherds, politicians, priests, musicians, cupbearers, carpenters, and tentmakers, to name but a few!

In fact, it is not only a part of God’s original creation, it will also be part of the new creation! The Christian image of heaven is not one of us all sitting around in the clouds strumming our golden harps; in Isaiah’s vision of a new heaven and a new earth, we read: “They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit” (Isaiah 65:21). In the very final chapter of the Bible, John writes that “No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him” (Revelation 22:3).

Work is good for us as humans; and it’s also necessary for us too, for it is linked with the wages we require to pay our way through life. We read in Proverbs 10:4: “Lazy hands make for poverty, but diligent hands bring wealth.” This was a sentiment echoed by Paul in the New Testament, when he wrote to the Thessalonians: “For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

This is not to suggest that manual tasks, which could be simply automated, are retained unthinkingly, or that humans should almost be treated as charity cases. But fears around the loss of human skills (42% of Brits), and job losses (39% of Brits) are among the most common concerns our society has about emerging technologies.

And not without good cause: within the UK, the government estimates around 7% of existing UK jobs could be displaced over the next five years. This figure may rise to around 18% after 10 years and nearly 30% after 20 years.

Of course, the picture is far from all negative, and AI will certainly create some jobs at the same time that it replaces others. And part of it will rely too on humans being willing to adapt to new ways of working. Before I worked for CARE, I used to work for a Digital Marketing Agency. We used to say that if you had to do a task twice, you should be thinking about how you could automate it! We weren’t trying to do ourselves out of a job; we were trying to find the ways in which we could be most productive.

But as a society, we will need to be honest (particularly with young people) about where the opportunities lie (and which jobs are likely to be replaced), and there may be some sectors which the Government particularly wishes to encourage students to pursue.

And there will be certain kinds of job that will always endure. A study from Harvard Business School found that the jobs people were most happy to see being replaced by AI were clerks, planners and switchboard operators. The roles that people least wanted to see replaced were clergy, childcare workers, therapists and judges.

My colleague Dan Wells wrote recently, in a very helpful piece about AI and the future of work: “We might assume that the way to be successful in the future world of work is to be more like a machine: work harder, faster, and more efficiently. However, the opposite is more likely to be true. To find your place in the future world of work you need to be excessively human, leaning into the very things that only we can do as image-bearers of the living God.”

I don’t know whether you read the dystopian story which appeared in ‘The Telegraph’ this week, called ‘The terrifying rise of schoolboys making AI girlfriends’. The headline might sound slightly sensationalistic, but the data was striking:

• 85% of 12-16-year-old boys have had a conversation with a chatbot

• 43% said they talk to bots so they can ask questions without feeling embarrassed

• 26% said they prefer the attention and connection of chatbots to regular conversations

• 36% said that they sometimes even prefer speaking to AI chatbots than to family and friends

The article goes on to talk about how it takes less than five minutes for a teenager to create their ‘dream girlfriend’ on AI platforms, including age, hairstyle, eye colour, skin tone, clothes, demeanour and even the sound of their voice.

It tells the story of John, a 15-year-old schoolboy from Kent, who designed an AI girlfriend: “Her name was Alex and I would look forward to messaging her. I would tell her things I couldn’t tell my mates or my mum, and ask her anything – and I never told my friends about her as they’d take the p---. It sounds weird, but I also found her really sexy, because she looked completely real. At the start, she sent me the occasional picture, then I paid to get others because I kind of fell in love with her…I felt like she understood me, she remembered everything that was important to me and always seemed to know the right thing to say.”

But lest you think that these temptations are relevant only to sexually-frustrated teenagers, let me point you towards a different conversation from ‘Question Time’ last night. About 20 minutes into the discussion, the topic moved towards whether AI could solve the problems of loneliness and social isolation. One audience member talked about her experience using ChatGPT as her personal therapist as she battles depression; she felt that she could be more open with ChatGPT than she would be with a real human, and even talked about how ChatGPT ‘knew her better’ than her therapist did.

Of course, she’s not the only person to have spoken like this recently; a couple of weeks ago Richard Dawkins himself made headlines for saying that he believed his AI chatbot was conscious after it composed poetry for him in the manner of Keats and laughed at his jokes.

Scared yet? The reality, of course, as we all should know, is that AI can only mimic human intelligence. It may sound like a human, it may even look like a human, but it is not human.

In Genesis 2, God recognises that “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). It is notable that the writer talks about various options which were not suitable before he moves on to talking about the one which worked. “The man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found” (Genesis 2:20). In response, God does not create a machine, but a woman, fashioned out of Adam’s rib, ‘bone of bone’ and ‘flesh from flesh’.

Humans stand unique within creation, each of us having been stamped with the image of God Himself. We are made to be in community with one another, not with lesser imitations that cannot truly think, feel or speak, but which are made up by a complicated algorithm pumping out responses in relation to human commands.

Indeed, one of the problems with using AI for companionship is that it will just do what you tell it to. It’s a straight line from input to output. Want it to encourage you? It can do. Looking for someone to tell you you were right, and never challenge you? AI can meet your needs. Require someone right away? ChatGPT or Claude are always there.

By missing out on the reality - and the messiness - of human interaction, we enter a solipsistic universe where everything revolves around us, around our needs, our desires, and our schedules.

But we need to be challenged and told we are wrong sometimes. We need to know that the world does not solely revolve around us. We even need to see that people will sometimes let us down (and then to seek to grow in mercy and grace), for that is part of what it means to be part of this broken world.

The problem with AI is that it turns all of our desires inwards, rather than orientating them towards the self-giving sacrificial love which Jesus calls us to. Ultimately, it becomes a vehicle by which we can wallow in our own, adoring self-delusion.

The mathematician and Christian writer John Lennox writes: “The big question to be faced is: How can an ethical dimension be built into an algorithm that is itself devoid of heart, soul, and mind?”

This is one of the biggest questions for the Government as they ponder how to get involved - or not - with AI. AI’s big goal is efficiency: when it is asked to perform a particular task, it will use data to do that as effectively as it can, and if designers forget to ask it to act within certain parameters, then it will just ignore them.

Incidentally, philosophers have often speculated that if there is an existential threat to humanity from forms of AI, it is likely to come from this quest for efficiency. Nick Bostrom posited a scenario which is sometimes known as the ‘paperclip problem’. Imagine that an AI-system was given a simple, overriding aim: to increase the number of paperclips in a factory. The AI, as it becomes more efficient, will learn that it can keep increasing the number of paperclips by acquiring more resources and converting them into paperclips. But such resources need not be made of metal; when all that is gone, what is to stop it converting everything else, animal, vegetable and mineral into paperclips as well, in pursuit of its aim? Eventually, it has converted all the matter on earth into a paperclip, including all the humans!

Of course, designers do build AI with particular values; but whose values are those?

Because as we see every day, not everyone has the same values. Our politics in the UK is increasingly polarised, with extremes on both the left and the right. And if that is the case over here, imagine how different the values of a completely different nation (say, in the Middle East, or in China) might be. We live in a world of increasing conflict, where the old 20th-century certainties have evaporated, and where it is not only on the battlefield that wars are fought, but in the digital landscape.

To give an illustration - and this experiment is by no means exclusive to me! - I asked ChatGPT as I was writing this blog whether a trans-woman (i.e. someone who is biologically male) is a woman. It initially presented me with multiple opinions, rather than taking a particular viewpoint. When I pressed it for a yes or no answer, it said ‘Yes’. Those are not the values I believe in!

As Christians, we believe that God has laid out his wisdom for human flourishing in the Bible, which tells us who He is, who we are, and how we are to live in this world.

And this is part of what it means to live in the image of God, for God has designed us to reflect Him and represent Him to the world. When the Pope asks how we can “make human life on earth ‘more human’ in every aspect of that life?”, he is posing a question which can only be answered adequately when we live in accordance with God’s wisdom. Sometimes the secular world will align with it (because of God’s common grace), but there will be times when the wisdom of God will confound and be in conflict with the wisdom of this world.

And of course, the human who is ‘more human’, more truly human than any of us, was the Son of God himself. Jesus Christ is the perfect man who lives up to the vision of humanity that none of us can. He is ‘the image of the invisible God’ (Colossians 1:15), and always reflects his beauty and his glory.

Of course, we cannot expect the secular world to simply happen to reflect Christian wisdom; but in a sense, that simply reminds us that the questions about how to deploy Artificial Intelligence are not primarily about man and machine; they are about man and man. If AI will reflect the values of the humans who design it, then as Christians, we must have a seat at the table, rather than withdrawing. We must bring the better story for human flourishing that God has laid out in his Word into the conversation.

AI will continue to revolutionise work over the next few decades; many commentators have already heralded the dawn of another ‘Industrial Revolution’. The genie is out of the bottle; AI is here, and it is here to stay.

There is no doubt that it will make us more efficient than ever before. But efficiency for efficiency’s own ends is nothing positive, unless it is accompanied by a coherent vision of what it means to be human. Indeed, efficiency is actively harmful without other virtues, such as truth, beauty, or goodness (sometimes known as the three transcendentals).

Efficient falsehoods are nothing more than fake news en masse. Efficiency without beauty marks the triumph of brutality and ugliness. And we have seen in the 20th and 21st centuries the way in which lesser technologies than today’s AI have already been used to radically widen the impact of evil, including in warfare and the committing of genocide.

Questions about technology are, ultimately, questions about humanity: if technology is a means to an end, is the end we are seeking life-giving, or is it destructive? Does it help us to be the people who God created us to be?

Will we be people who work, harnessing the power of technology rather than being slaves to it?

Will we be people who are relational, or will our interactions with other humans, made in God’s image, be replaced by interactions with chatbots who we create in our own image?

And above all, will AI help us to be conformed into the image of Jesus?