fAIth?
By Rev. Dr. Jeffrey A. Schooley
On Thursday, February 5, during my most recent study leave, I had the opportunity to travel back to Kent State University to speak at Late Night Christian Fellowship, the campus ministry I attended from 2000-2004. Blessedly, LNCF is still being led by Kris Herman, the same campus minister who was only a year into his career when I met him during my freshman year. (Side note: Kris is an AMAZING example of faithful commitment through good seasons and bad. His steadfastness has paid off not necessarily in numbers – there were only a little over a dozen students present – but in the diverse community he has assembled under the banner of the Gospel; Phd students from Africa co-mingle with sophomores from Mentor, Ohio in the common bonds of Christian fellowship. It’s really something to see!). Kris had challenged me and our mutual friend, the Rev. Ben Beres (pastor at Huntsville [OH] Presbyterian Church) to discuss AI – or, Artificial Intelligence.
I’m far from a tech wizard, but Kris made it clear that this talk needn’t be about the intricacies of AI technology, but rather about the relationship – if any – between “HI” (human intelligence) and AI (artificial intelligence). This newsletter article, then, is a brief reflection on some of the themes that populated during my research and discussion with this diverse array of college students last month. I’m far from having any comprehensive thoughts on AI, so what follows are some bullet-pointed thoughts and insights:
· There is no “AI.” Rather, there are AIs – that is, multiple manifestations of artificial intelligence, many of which are already running in the background of our lives without our being aware of it at all. This is challenging, because it means that probably no one can honestly speak of “AI” as a single entity or experience. To deal honestly with it is to have to get into the weeds of acknowledging, for example, that we’re probably all interested in ways that AI might help with medical research, but that AI isn’t to be confused with the AI that allows someone to create a picture of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson sketched in a Charles Schultz/“Peanuts” style. We use the acronym “AI” for both sets of computing, but the two really couldn’t be more different. And all this matters because…
There is a definitive trade-off between AI and environmental well-being. Period. No debate needed. Indeed, when I first approached this topic, I was prepared to declare AI anathema to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I knew that I would probably sound like “old man yells out cloud” to college-aged students, but I thought the stakes were too high environmentally to concede even an inch to AI. As it stands, I still mostly feel and think that way, though as I have learned about some of the positive benefits of AI that could attend, · I’m more willing to engage in thoughtful conversations about what environmental impacts can be managed as we, for example, pursue better medical research.
· College students get it… sort of: What shocked me is how well every one of those college students understand the negative environmental impacts. I thought I would receive resistance, but not really. Rather, it appeared as if those student already think the horse is out of the stable – that is, that the environment will be harmed – and that their using or not using AI matters not one iota. In many ways, they may be right.
· There may also be a subtext of entitlement at work in their young souls. After all, previous generations were permitted to use exploitative industries to gain personal wealth (or even basic economic well-being) – coal miners, industrialists, plastics manufacturing, etc. – so why should their generation have to be the first to show a little self-control? It’s a hard argument, emotionally at least, to counter when you know that they’re 22 years old with over $100,000 of debt before they ever even start their career. Algae blooms in Lake Erie are a hard thing to care about when your $450 student loan payment is due and your 2009 Toyota Camry needs $1,100 in repairs. If AI equals paycheck, then these kids are going to sell out to AI.
· Whose problem is this? All of this is a reminder that the greatest ethical burdens should not be placed on the youngest/weakest shoulders; that’s just as exploitative as anything we’re doing to the environment. It’s really on fat, middle-aged people (I count myself amongst that lot!) to step up and do the hard things rather than outsource it to young adults. If we leave them the option (to say nothing of the incentive) to use AI, they’re going to use AI. Really, who wouldn’t? By way of a comparative analogy, I’ve never owned a gun in my life, but that hasn’t reduced the number of school shootings in America. I’m sure these young college students feel a similar way about AI. They could never touch the stuff and they may still watch their neighborhood burn from a wildfire born of AI-created environmental degradation.
· Everyone wants the same thing from AI: Efficiency. When I really got them to dig into why they would want to use AI, it was all about efficiency. It helped them study quicker, write quicker, create quicker, edit quicker. By the time we were done discussing it, I was convinced they didn’t love AI; they just needed more time… and maybe a nap. And, yes, I felt the “old man yells at clouds” well up in my soul as I looked as these beautiful, bright young adults who presumably have nothing but time stretching out for decades before them complaining about not having enough time. I’d give my left arm to “lack” the time they lack. But I have to put ol’ man Grumpus away and honor what they’re feeling. And what they’re feeling is valid because…
· Professors are using and instructing use in AI. When I was an English major, my favorite professors were those who could acknowledge that anything more than 75 pages for a MWF class (or 125 pages for a T/R class) basically meant I wasn’t going to have time to read the full assignment. Good English professors knew what an average rate of reading was and understood that I had 4 other classes asking for a similar amount of output. I don’t think there’s a professor alive right now that knows what the “right” amount of output to expect from students who are utilizing AI is. The whole system is baking AI into higher education in a way that eliminates choice in the matter, even if there are legitimate ethical concerns.
AI runs contrary the Gospel, but in surprising ways. I challenged these college students to explain · how efficiency (their primary reason for using AI) relates to their faith. They couldn’t. More truthfully, they can’t. If AI really is about efficiency, then nothing about the Christian faith is going to intersect with it there. God is VERY inefficient. I mean, seven days to create the universe when a snap of God’s non-existent fingers could do the trick? Inefficient. Becoming incarnate and waiting three decades before even starting to preach? Inefficient. Promising a Kingdom come 2,000 years ago? Inefficient. Another way, of course, to narrate this inefficiency is this word: patient. Patience is a Christian virtue; efficiency ain’t. Why?
· It’s all about relationships. The Gospel is all about relationships – relationship with God in Christ Jesus; relationship with the Holy Spirit via baptism; relationships with one another in the Body of Christ. It’s relationships every which way you turn. I got my best bit of nervous giggles when I pointed out how inefficient/relationship-oriented the gospel is and then drew an apt comparison for young people: “Which of you would sit down at a first date and immediately ask, ‘What’s the least amount of time it will take for me to score a second date?’” They got it immediately. When it comes to cultivating thick, rich relationships – not only romantic, but of any type – we are intentionally and assuredly inefficient. Indeed, even the chronically single members know that there may be nothing more intoxicating than listening to one’s beloved prattle on about nothing. The sweet warmth of their breath, the sound of their voice, the fact that they’ve deemed you worthy to hear whatever it is they’re saying… these are the things that add weight and color to life. After all, no one ever laid on their death bed and thought, “You know, I could’ve worked more efficiently.” No, we treasure the best moments we had and, maybe, lament the good moments we missed because we were stuck at work.
· Something similar is true in our faith. You may have noticed, but Jesus’ Church is not a multi-level marketing scheme where the best benefits attend to the longest tenured folks. This faith is not doesn’t have quotas. As the Mary and Martha story makes clear, being with our Lord is a far better thing than running errands. AI can help with the errands; it can’t do jack about Jesus.
To be sure, there’s so much more to be said about this topic. And, in fact, our very own Synod of the Covenant recently received a grant to research faith and AI. (I have applied with the Rev. Dr. Chip Hardwick to be on the steering committee of this grant; I’m awaiting his decision. Pray for me). But maybe what I like best about AI – and any new technology – is the invitation it gives us to ask the question: What are my hopes for this thing? Because any conversation about hope will always be fertile ground for theological thinking and discipleship doing. What I remain convinced of, though, is that – quite paradoxically – you can spell “faith” without “AI.”
Gloria in excelsis Deo.
