Thinking about AI before AI robs us of the ability to think:
There are people who celebrate AI, who see it as ‘the great enabler,’ the renewing force behind their working life, the fount of inspiration for their creative life, the voice of reason for their private life.
There are other people who are quietly cautious, who fear for the future of humanity, who wonder whether AI is the harbinger of a Brave New World where man and machine become one.
This is the great debate.
It is a massive topic with huge implications. I have read many articles on AI; some I don’t fully understand. What I offer here are random observations and genuine concerns.
My fear is that AI is taking more than it is giving and, in the process, robbing us of our humanity.
What does the name Artificial Intelligence imply?
Artificial: The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘artificial’ as ‘made, produced, or done by humans especially to seem like something natural.’
An artificial limb, for example, serves a purpose. It provides the user with a degree of mobility or movement. It offers the user independence. It is good, but it does have limitations. It is an imitation, not the real thing.
Intelligence: The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘intelligence’ as ‘the ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations.’
Intelligence relates to the proper exercise of the mind. The mind has wide-ranging capabilities for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity.
We use the word ‘intelligence’ when referring to living organisms, humans, and animals, who use reason to discover, formulate, or conclude.
Human intelligence is not a stand-alone attribute. It is shaped, refined, and modified by emotions. Situations arise where we must choose between our head (analytical, logical), or our heart (intuitive, impulsive).
Albert Einstein wrote,
‘Intelligence is not the ability to store information but to know where to find it.’
AI has limits, data is not truth and processing is not thinking.
Sebastian Barros (refer blurb below) warns of the dangers AI poses to the way we learn. He says,
‘If an AI gives a twelve-year-old a flawless, two-second answer to a difficult ethical question, the child gets the data but loses the cognitive transformation. The learning value is in the critical thinking process.’
Any parent who says, ‘I want my daughter’s teacher to nourish her intelligence and curiosity,’ would feel betrayed if AI generated all her learning experiences. They would hope for a curriculum that encouraged analytical thinking and inspired wonder.
Knowledge verses Wisdom
Knowledge: AI has a voracious appetite for knowledge. It can process astonishing quantities of information. Despite AI being able to store millions of data points and answer many questions in a matter of seconds, it remains equipped with what Pope Leo XIV calls a ‘static memory.’ For our purposes, ‘static memory’ is fixed, less flexible, and not open to review.
By way of contrast, Pope Leo XIV says,
‘Our memory is creative, dynamic, generative, capable of uniting past, present, and future in a lively and fruitful search for meaning, with all the ethical and existential implications that this entails.’
You can have all the knowledge in the world but if you don’t know how to verify it, how to apply it, or how to make use of it, it has no value.
Wisdom: The Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘wisdom’ as ‘the ability to use your knowledge and experiences to make good decisions and judgment.’
Eugene Peterson, author of ‘The Message’ Bible says,
‘Wisdom is the art of living skilfully in whatever actual conditions we find ourselves. It has virtually nothing to do with information or knowledge as such.’
The Bible says that God is the source of all wisdom. In the book of James it says,
‘If you need wisdom, ask our generous God, and he will give it to you.’ James 5:1 (NLT)
Many people reject the notion that God is the source of all wisdom. They prefer to put their trust in a ‘super-intelligent machine,’ which decides what truth is permissible and how it is to be applied.
Artificial intelligence reaches beyond what people do into how people think.
Robert Magginis is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, senior fellow for National Security at Family Research Council, and the author of 15 books. He says,
‘We no longer ask machines merely to calculate faster or retrieve information. We now ask them to judge, to create, and to decide — work that once belonged exclusively to human beings.’
The acquisition of wisdom requires mental exertion, not mental consent. If you are looking to AI for wisdom, you are looking in the wrong place.
Human brilliance has never guaranteed moral wisdom.
Ethical verses Dishonest
Ethical behaviour is ‘conforming to accepted standards of conduct’ or ‘what we believe to be morally right or wrong.’
If AI is morally neutral, can we say that AI is ethical? You be the judge.
Scraping:
It began in 2007. AI companies began ‘scraping’ (utilising – using, exploiting, applying; pillaging – looting, plundering, raiding) the digital commons where we post photos of our friends and loved ones, our activities, make comments, and discuss issues. Without our knowledge this data, which should be classified ‘publicly protected goods,’ was used to train AI models.
Political bias:
A team of independent open-source developers and researchers calling themselves The Neutrality Project tested the political bias of eighteen of the world’s leading artificial intelligence models and found that 97 of 108 measured positions sat left of centre.
The research sounds a warning: AI models may perpetuate biases – political, social, religious – present in their training data. (This is not something AI companies will disclose voluntarily).
The question is: ‘Should an elite few who control AI models be given the power to decide how to use those models and what is in the ‘best interest’ of humanity?’
Jim Twelves, author of While We Were Sleeping (2025) says,
‘Social manipulation, through AI algorithms, is already a reality that governments rely on to ensure their narrative takes root. This is called propaganda.’
Regarding religion, Daniel K. Williams for Christianity Today says,
‘Most AI program designers don’t want their AI models to offend users, so they train them according to the rules that they themselves generally agree upon—which happen to closely align with the generally accepted pluralistic norms for secular university classrooms. The AI models are not atheistic, but they are agnostic. When asked about whether God exists, they will usually say that the answer to that question depends on your perspective and worldview.’
Copyright:
The definition of ‘copyright’ is ‘a legal right that grants creators exclusive control over their original works.’
Authors, artists, and musicians across the world have had their work cannibalised by AI or ‘the beast.’
Most Australian authors, including Tim Winton and Liane Moriarty, do not want their work used to train AI systems even if they were paid. For many authors, their work is more than just intellectual property. It represents their voice, their identity and years of creative labour, often undertaken with little financial return.
The Australian Association of Authors argues that whilst artificial intelligence (AI) offers new opportunities and efficiencies, it also poses significant risk to the creative industries. Their position is that the development and use of generative AI must be carefully regulated. In their words,
‘The rights of human creators must be safeguarded and the contributions to the development of AI technologies acknowledged and compensated.’
Whilst this seems reasonable and achievable, AI giants have found ways to circumvent the copyright laws. (The copyright laws in most countries are not adequate to deal with the threat AI poses).
Zoey Forbes is an expert in the publishing industry and a dedicated, thoughtful lawyer. She says,
‘Models may be developed in one country, trained on servers in another using data scraped from websites hosted in multiple countries, before being deployed in digital systems and products worldwide. This makes it difficult for creators and rights-holders to determine exactly where the copying has taken place and who is responsible.’
Ted Gioia is a cultural critic, music historian, record producer, and jazz pianist. He is author of the popular Substack newsletter The Honest Broker. He proposes three guardrails that, if implemented by AI companies, would reduce public anxiety about the future of AI and its impact on their lives.
(1) TRANSPARENCY – let us know when it is used;
(2) LEGALITY – don’t train it on copyrighted work without the author’s permission; and
(3) PERMISSION – don’t force people to use it unless they specifically opt in.
It is unlikely AI companies will give credence to these concerns. Rather, they will continue to use AI to deceive, rob, and manipulate the public.
Trustworthy verses Questionable
AI has revolutionised our current time and culture. BUT can AI companies be trusted? Can governments, who are looking to benefit from billions of dollars in investment from the AI giants, be trusted?
Data Centres:
Sebastian Barros is a technologist, author, and managing director at a leading technology firm. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Engineering, an MBA from Tulane University, and a postgraduate specialisation in artificial intelligence and machine learning from the University of Texas. He provides an overview of the current drive to develop AI infrastructure.
‘Tech giants are building a global synthetic intelligence grid that will serve as the foundation for the next century of human life… The tech industry is producing millions of tons of cement, laying thousands of miles of high-capacity cabling, and building GPU data centres the size of small cities. Their plan is to rewire the planet to support massive-scale synthetic intelligence and to convert it into a global network. Their vision is to ensure that ubiquitous, always-on machine intelligence is available to every consumer and enterprise.’
What is happening in Australia?
AI giants such as Anthropic, Microsoft and Google are discussing data centre construction expansion in Australia with the government and have pushed for easier access to local content to train AI in exchange for the billions of dollars in investment.
Dario Amodei, the co-founder of Anthropic, wants Copyright Act exemptions for text and data to feed his hungry AI models.
John Durie for ‘The Australian’ says,
‘Stealing Australian culture and denying copyright owners legitimate claims on their statutory rights does not make Australia richer.’
Amodei claims if he gets his dreams fulfilled, billion-dollar data centre investment will start flowing into Australia.
The data centre investment boom has already started. Technology giant Microsoft will spend $25bn in Australia – its biggest investment in the country – in the next three years, on top of $5bn building nine new data centres in Australia as part of a massive expansion of its AI supercomputing and cloud infrastructure.
People who oppose data centres share the following concerns: crushing utility bills, unsustainable energy and water consumption, noise and light pollution, soil degradation, a lack of good local jobs, and unchecked corporate power – not to mention the socially problematic uses of generative AI.
Pope Leo XIV offers this cautionary warning. AI’s need for resources to operate means it risks depleting our natural resources which requires ‘sustainable technological solutions that reduce environmental impact and help protect our common home.’
Artificial General Intelligence (AGI):
Dave Bergman and Amanda Downie for IBM describe Artificial General Intelligence as
‘A hypothetical stage in the development of machine learning (ML) in which an artificial intelligence (AI) system can match or exceed the cognitive abilities of human beings across any task. It represents the fundamental, abstract goal of AI development: the artificial replication of human-level intelligence in a machine or software.’
Currently, AGI remains a theoretical concept. No existing AI system has demonstrated the full set of human capabilities associated with general intelligence.
Human beings have capabilities that extend beyond task-specific performance, including abstract reasoning, flexible problem-solving, learning from limited examples and operating effectively in novel or ambiguous environments. That is why human intelligence serves as the reference point for evaluating AGI capabilities.
The risks associated with AGI are wide ranging: (Source: Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence July 2023)
- AGI removing itself from the control of human owners/managers
- Being given or developing unsafe goals
- Development of unsafe AGI
- AGIs with poor ethics, morals, and values
- Inadequate management of AGI
- Existential risks
Space prohibits me from elaborating on these risks.
Transhumanism:
Transhumanism is a philosophical and scientific movement that advocates using technologies like genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, and brain-computer interfaces to enhance human capabilities.
Transhumanism isn’t tied to a single technology. It is an umbrella covering several fields that each target different human limitations.
The core idea behind transhumanism is that human biology is not a finished product.
One of the challenges for supporters of Transhumanism is: How to merge artificial intelligence systems with human cognition.
Researchers are exploring how brain implants can be employed to boost cognitive function, improving memory, learning capacity, and problem-solving abilities in healthy individuals as well.
While the potential for brain implants to enhance human cognition is profound, there are significant ethical considerations that must be addressed. Issues such as privacy, consent, and the potential for misuse of neurotechnology require careful thought and regulation.
Wendell Berry captures the essence of the ethical divide. He says,
‘It is easy for me to imagine that the next great division of the world will be between people who wish to live as creatures and people who wish to live as machines.’
Dr. John Lennox is the author of 2084: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity (2020). He has commented on the transhumanist claim that they are going to use AI and other technologies to raise humanity to the full potential of being gods. He says,
‘The transhuman AGI narrative is humans trying to become gods. The Christian narrative is the exact reverse. God himself has become human.’
AI would have us believe we are not enough. But if we know the Father’s love, are sustained by the prayers of the Son, and walk in the power of the Spirit, we are more than enough.
Hope For Tomorrow 