10 minute read
A step too far?
Stephen Williams and Colin Burcombe discuss the ethics of the latest artificial intelligence technology that is causing a storm: ChatGPT.
SW: Perhaps I move in the wrong conversational circles, but these days it seems as though it is only a matter of time before someone mentions ChatGPT. It is the latest iteration of artificial intelligence (AI) to get widespread social attention, and its latest version – ChatGPT 4 – has just come out at the time of writing. If you want an essay or sermon composed, ask ChatGPT. It will do it better than you will, and take hardly any time to do it. Tell it in a short sentence what you want, and that’s it. That description hardly does justice to it, and it will do other things too, but should we welcome it?
As Christians, we tend to be just as uncritical in our thinking about and use of technology as anybody else. If something is convenient, why not use it?
We say either that technology is neutral, so can be used both for better and for worse, or that it is fundamentally good, because it fulfils our human mandate to have dominion over tracts of the created order. But Genesis 4–11 tells the story of dominion gone awry, culminating in the attempted technological marvel of Babel. Certainly, technological competence and creativity are gifts of God. The problem sets in when it has an adverse effect on humans and the created world. There have been plenty of things around for a while that have caused our capacity to think to erode. This is surely what ChatGPT will encourage. If it were to be used as a tool to collate and order information so that we are freed up to think about other things, well, the benefits are not hard to see. However, we shall go beyond that in the majority of cases. We shall look to ChatGPT to do our thinking for us. We shall get creative in the questions we ask of it; we shall lose our creativity in addressing those questions.
Of course, this is one-sided as well as broad-brush. But is it hopelessly onesided? I think not. Brain science is young, but we are learning of the remarkable interconnections in our bodies and the remarkable way we are wired for connections with others. We have a long way to go in understanding the mechanisms of the brain, but everything seems to be connected to everything else in our bodies, and everyone seems to be connected to everyone else in the mind. If I thoughtlessly let a machine do my remembering for me, my research for me, my writing for me, what happens to the delicate interplay and balance of my human capacities for remembering, researching, composing and reflecting; am I damaging my capacity for thought, judgement and discernment? One response is: “Yes, if you do all that thoughtlessly. But don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Do it thoughtfully, and you will benefit and not come to harm.” So am I a morosely pessimistic techno-Luddite, Colin?
CB: I couldn’t remember what a Luddite is, so I asked ChatGPT 4: it is a person who resists new technology or ways of working. Like many technophiles today, my instinct is no longer to ask Google, it is to ask ChatGPT. Your comments above make me question this instinct and wonder what I have lost. I have found ChatGPT a valuable resource for research, and particularly for presenting complex ideas quickly and simply. It is so good at this that some people fear they could lose their jobs. For example, if you ask it a technical question about our PCI Code, it can respond with a speed, accuracy and clarity that might almost make our Clerk obsolete!
At Union College, Stephen, you taught me to carefully evaluate assertions and to be able to present counterarguments. Take your lesson from Babel. More advanced tools and better materials were accessible for Solomon when he came to build the Temple. Surely it would have been folly for him to instruct his workers to use only what was available centuries before. I want to work well and efficiently, and I’m learning ways to use ChatGPT as a tool to help me do this better.
For sermon preparation, I have many commentaries that I can use to help me understand a Bible passage well. But someone preparing a Bible study or a talk for a Sunday school class neither needs nor has access to all of these. Instead, they can ask ChatGPT for an introduction and overview of a Bible book, for ways of interpreting specific verses, even for information about Hebrew words in the text. When I asked it about a Hebrew word, it concluded by saying that a Hebrew language scholar could supply a more detailed analysis. I commented, “It’s okay, I am a Hebrew scholar.” I was amused when its immediate rejoinder was to apologise for any inaccuracies in its previous response! It seemed to feel a little inadequate in the presence of a self-professed expert. As this technology becomes more widely available, it may well be of great use to our brothers and sisters in developing countries where internet access is available, but access to study resources is limited.
The comparison between Babel and the Temple illustrates that technology can be used for worse or for better, and that our motivations matter to God. I agree that AI can erode our capacity to remember facts and to think critically. Student experience has shown that it also brings with it a temptation to get it to do more than just help our research, and some have admitted passing off its writing as their own. It can be useful, but we also need to be aware of its limitations: it doesn’t know our Lord, it has no experience of ministry, it has no wisdom or compassion. For now, at least, the Clerk’s job is safe.
SW: Thanks for your response, Colin. I concede that we technologically challenged types are liable to underestimate technological benefits. I also agree that we need to view the matter before us through the prism of less developed societies and be careful that we do not narrow our gaze to the West. Your point about ‘wisdom and compassion’ touches on something of immense importance in the current climate, where some people in the field of AI are seriously asking whether we can attribute such things to machines, if not now, at some point in the future. (Others in the field reject that possibility completely.) I think that we live in a time when the line between human and machine will become increasingly blurred, which is not surprising where humans are regarded as sophisticated machines, and attempts are being made to fuse humans and machines, effectively creating cyborgs. We cannot discuss this further here.
Solomon: yes – perhaps we can say that if Pentecost witnessed the reversal of Babel as far as language and communication were concerned, the Temple showed the constructive possibilities of building where Babel showed its destructive possibilities. I fully agree, of course, that Solomon’s builders were bound to apply the engineering possibilities of their day, embracing, and not resisting, technological innovation as far as the actual construction was concerned.
But I think that two points need to be made. The first is that a shadow is cast over the Temple-building project by Solomon’s use of forced labour. God accommodates himself to the social failings of the monarch and his way of operating. The account of Solomon thus instructs us to look out for the social and economic presuppositions of our technological enterprises. The second is that, although the Temple stands in contrast to Babel because it symbolises the worship of God, not a challenge to God, Solomon took almost twice as long building a palace for himself as he did building a house for God. Technology was self-serving even more than serving God. So we have to ask at least three questions of technology: (a) what is its nature?; (b) what is its socioeconomic base?; (c) what is its underlying motivation? ChatGPT can certainly be viewed in varied lights. It is important that we do not view it in either black or white, and you and I agree on that. My worry is that, even if we confine ourselves to considering (a) above, we lose far more than we gain. It would certainly be fruitful to pursue (b) and (c) as well, but that would take us further afield than we can go here.
CB: Thanks, Stephen, for helping me to consider my use of ChatGPT within a broader framework than its usefulness and convenience. You’re right, all too often we use new technologies uncritically. Some, like me, may unwittingly personify these AIs in their conversation without realising the deeper implications you have raised about the shrinking gap between humanity and machines.
I still think ChatGPT can be a useful tool for collating and presenting information. However, as you suggested, if we use it, we ought to use it thoughtfully rather than thoughtlessly; we need to be careful not to risk losing our ability to think critically, creatively and independently. Many people from an earlier generation came to regret leaning so heavily on calculators at school that they were unable to use maths in practical everyday situations. As we use technology to do more things for us, we are hurtling towards a similar and more serious outcome in terms of our ability to reason and to relate to one another in meaningful discussion.
You mention two very saddening aspects of Solomon’s Temple-building project, both of which have serious implications for our use of AI. I’ll conclude with another aspect. 1 Kings 6:7 shows that the Temple was constructed with as little noise at the site as possible. The massive building blocks were quarried and hewn away from the site then carefully transported there, which required meticulous planning and considerable skill. They used technology to accomplish remarkable feats of engineering and architecture. However, their motivation for doing it in that way was reverence for the Lord, and their manner of doing it did not remove the need for thorough preparation and craftsmanship. Can we say the same for our use of ChatGPT?
SW: I appreciate the note on which you end, Colin. I view ChatGPT in the wider context of what is happening with AI in general, and still wider context of social projects undertaken in a godless culture. I am by no means totally negative about those; for example, I think the church often lags behind the world in the area of environmental responsibility. But advances in AI are connected with ways of understanding what it is to be human, and that general question hovers on my radar when engaging with particulars such as ChatGPT. Thanks for reminding me to look at matters from more than one perspective.
Prof Stephen N. Williams is Emeritus Professor of Systematic Theology of Union Theological College.
Rev Colin Burcombe is minister of Mersey Street in East Belfast and teaches the Hebrew language in Union Theological College.
The images used in this article were generated using the Midjourney AI with the following commands:
• A preacher standing behind a church pulpit facing outwards. On the front of the church pulpit is a Christian cross. Behind the preacher are several computers and servers with cables all leading to the church pulpit. Modern editorial illustration style.
• A stained glass window showing a Bible with a cross, computers.
• A robot in a pulpit, editorial style.
