Recently, the ERLC (Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission) released a statement on AI. This was a laudable step as the Southern Baptist became the first large Christian denomination to address this issue directly. While this is a start, the document fell short in many fronts. From the start, the list of signers had very few technologists and scientists.
In this blog, I show both the original statement and my comments in red. Judge for yourself but my first impression is that we have a lot of work ahead of us.
Article 1: Image of God
We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.
Ok, that’s a good start by locating creativity as God’s gift and affirming dignity of all humanity. Yet, the statement exalts human dignity at expense of creation. Because AI, and technology in general, is about human relationship to creation, setting the foundation right is important. It is not enough to highlight human primacy, one must clearly state our relationship with the rest of creation.
We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.
Are we afraid of a robot take over of humanity? Here it would have been helpful to start distinguishing between general and narrow AI. The first is still decades away while the latter is already here and poised to change every facet of our lives. The challenge of narrow AI is not one of usurping our dominion and stewardship but of possibly leading us to forget our humanity. They seem to be addressing general AI. Maybe including more technologists in the mix would have helped.
Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24
Article 2: AI as Technology
We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.
Yes, well done! This affirmation is where Christianity needs to be. We are for human flourishing and the alleviation of suffering. We celebrate and support Technology’s role in these God-given missions.
We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being.
I guess what they mean here is that technology is a limited means and cannot ultimately be the salvation. I see here a veiled critique of Transhumanism. Fair enough, the Christian message should both celebrate AI’s potential but also warn of its limitations less we start giving it unduly worth.
Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23
Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity
We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.
This statement seems to suggest the positive role AI can play in augmentation rather than replacement. I am just not sure that was ever in question.
We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.
While hard to argue against this statement at face value, it overlooks the complexities of a world that is becoming increasingly reliant on algorithms. The issue is not that we are offloading moral decisions to algorithms but that they are capturing moral decisions of many humans at once. This reality is not addressed by simply stating human moral responsibility. This needs improvement.
Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1
Article 4: Medicine
We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.
Yes, tying AI-related medical advances with the great commandment is a great start.
We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Furthermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.
Similar to my statement on article 3, this one misses the complexity of the issue. How do you draw the line between enhancement and cure? Also, isn’t the effort of extend life an effective form of alleviation of suffering? These issues do not lend themselves to simple propositions but instead require more nuanced analysis and prayerful consideration.
Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4
Article 5: Bias
We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.
Bias is inherent in the data fed into machine learning models. Work on the data, monitor the outputs and evaluate results and you can diminish bias. Direction AI to promote equal worth is a good first step.
We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.
What about being used by large corporations? This was a glaring absence here.
Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10
Article 6: Sexuality
We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.
This seems like a round-about way to use the topic of AI for fighting culture wars. Why include this here? Or, why not talk about how AI can help people find their mates and even help marriages? Please revise or remove!
We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.
Ok, I guess this is a condemnation of AI porn. Again, it seems misplaced on this list and could have been treated in alternative ways. Yes, AI can further increase objectification of humans and that is a problem. I am just not sure that this is such a key issue to be in a statement of AI. Again, more nuance and technical insight would have helped.
Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4
Article 7: Work
We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.
This is a long, confusing and unhelpful statement. It seems to be addressing the challenge of job loss that AI can bring without really doing it directly. It gives a vague description of the church’s role in helping individuals find work but does not address the economic structures that create job loss. It simply misses the point and does not add much to the conversation. Please revise!
We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.
Another confusing and unhelpful statement. Are we making work holy? What does “lives of pure leisure” mean? Is this a veiled attack against Universal Basic Income? I am confused. Throw it out and start it over!
Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16
Article 8: Data & Privacy
We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.
Another statement that needs more clarification. Treating personal data as private property is a start. However, people are giving data away willingly. What is privacy in a digital world? This statement suggest the drafters unfamiliarity with the issues at hand. Again, technical support is needed.
We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.
The intention here is good and it is in the right direction. It is also progress to point out that consent is the only guideline and in its condemnation of abusive uses. I would like it to be more specific on its call to corporations, governments and even the church.
Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7
Article 9: Security
We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.
We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.
Good intentions with poor execution. The affirmation and denials are contradictory. If you affirm that AI can be use for policing, you have to concede that it will be used to harm some. Is using AI to suppress hate speech acceptable? I am not sure how this adds any insight to the conversation. Please revise!
Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14
Article 10: War
We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.
Surprisingly, this was better than the statement above. It upholds human responsibility but recognizes that AI, even in war, can have life preserving aims. I would have like a better definition of uses for defense, yet that is somewhat implied in the principles of just war. I must say this is an area that needs more discussion and further considerations but this is a good start.
We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.
I am glad to see the condemnation of torture here. Lately, I am not sure where evangelicals stand on this issue.
Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4
Article 11: Public Policy
We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.
The statement points to the right direction of public oversight. I would have liked it to be more bold and clear about the role of the church. It should have also addressed corporations more directly. That seems to be a blind spot in a few articles.
We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone.
Glad to see corporations finally mentioned in this document making this a good start.
Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14
Article 12: The Future of AI
We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.
Again, the distinction between narrow and general AI would have been helpful here. The statement seems to be addressing general AI. It also seems to give away the impression that AI is threatening God. Where is that coming from? A more nuanced view of biology and technology would have been helpful here to. They seem to be jumbled together. Please revise!
We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.
I disagree with the first sentence. There are ways in which AI can affirm and/or diminish our humanity. The issue here seems to be a perceived threat that AI will replace humans or be considered equal to them. I like the hopeful confidence in God for the future but the previous statement suggest that there is fear about this already. The ambiguity in the statements is unsettling. It suggests that AI is a dangerous unknown. Yes, it is true that we cannot know what it can become but why not call out Christians to seize this opportunity for the kingdom? Why not proclaim that AI can help us co-create with God? Let me reiterate one of the verses mentioned below:
For God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline
Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10
For an alternative but still evolving Christian position on this matter please check out the Christian Transhumanist Association affirmation.
