My limited knowledge of artificial intelligence is pretty much based on conversations with a computer engineer friend 30 years ago. He described his work as developing software to make a machine think like a human.
I’m not sure he ever totally agreed with me, but after a while, I suggested he had reversed his task. He had begun changing his picture of the human brain’s operation, so it was like that of his mechanical computer. He was assuming human thought conformed to the workings of his computer.
Whenever I read something written by artificial intelligence, I think of those conversations. I am amazed at the marvelous product . The computer processes huge amounts of data far, far more efficiently than humans can.
At the same time, I am aware it is subject to the limitations of the machine. The form of the tools we use predetermines what we produce. In his case, a computer can be programmed to solve practical problems. However, its workings apply to quantity- not quality, information- not wisdom, analysis- not creativity.
Artificial intelligence is exactly that… artificial. It does not really duplicate human experience. It analyzes information about experiences, but does not live them. It does not experience beauty, but analyzes what people report of their aesthetic experiences. It does not experience goodness but analyzes what people say about their moral experiences.
It is not intelligence in terms of the common sense that determines how we make many decisions . Nor is it culture that does deal primarily with wisdom, quality, creativity, beauty, and goodness.
You could see this last week when I reported artificial intelligence’s answer to “Why is the church in decline?” and “What must the church do to become relevant again?”
People’s response was almost always wonder at the comprehensive answers. They remarked how helpful they are, especially if they agreed with their perspective.
The computer read the questions as posing a practical problem that it could answer. It heard concern about why attendance is going down and why more people aren’t interested in the church. it answered repeatedly: ”The challenge for the church is to change so that she is relevant to the needs of society.”
Quite frankly, the answer could apply to a question about why any social institution is in decline. People do not regard it as relevant to their lives, so it must listen, engage, and address needs.
But what if you read the questions in terms of spiritual matters? Many feel the decline is about not being faithful to the gospel message. I don’t think the machine could handle that.
The challenge then goes in the opposite direction. The church calls the society to change as the gospel message is about transforming hearts and minds.The crucifixion of Jesus confronts the ways of human nature. The prophetic function of the church does not seek to be relevant with what is going on . This might be a Bonhoeffer moment when we don’t adapt to society, but challenge it.
