Is Artificial Intelligence in opposition to God's Law?

[Sunflower15]

I have always been interested in the possibility of AI…I mean *true *full-blown AI. Though I am also interested in the complex processing of information that is now possible, and that is increasingly advancing, I am NOT talking about what already exists…which is simply put, just sheer information processing.

Instead, what I mean by true AI is the possibility of generating an “artificial brain” that can create, come up with insights, wish, and dream. I also wonder if such an “artificial brain” would also have the necessity to believe…and possibly to worship.

Under the assumption that it were some day to be feasible,[and it seems to me to be quite a “stretch”!], I wonder if it would be sinful.

If generating a clone of a body is sinful, what about generating a brain.

I can imagine that many will consider this question frivolous, but those same people would have probably thought about human cloning in the same way just a few decades back!

Peace be with all.

 

[Eucharisted]

We’ve reached the bottom of the barrel of physics when it comes to computer intelligence.

Hence, in order for true artifical intelligence to be created, it would have to be organic - like a human brain. Scientists could get creative by planting a brain in a robot, but it wouldn’t be artifical inteligence, just human intelligence in a robot. Scientists could also try to increase the brain’s potential with computer chips, but, it would still just be human intelligence, only aided by a chip. It would still be human intelligence even in a robot that looked, smelled, felt, and acted like a human, with a human brain in its head.

Now, scientists could try to create a robot brain that mimics the human brain, just like we have pills that mimic natural food, but the brain would not be on par with a human brain, because no one has been able to figure out how the human brain actually works. Moreover, artifical intelligence works by code: a computer can’t do what it hasn’t been instructed to do. It can be instructed to learn, but that learning process is only limited to memory, sensory, and preprogrammed functions; it dose not have imagination, cognitive thinking, reason, or a free-will like humans do. A robot could be programmed to choose between behaviors, and reject certain commands in certain situations, but that would be a far cry from free-will, whereby a person can make choices he has not been programmed to do. That’s the difference between man and machine: man controls the machine, ultimately.

 

[Sunflower15]

We’ve reached the bottom of the barrel of physics when it comes to computer intelligence.

Hence, in order for true artifical intelligence to be created, it would have to be organic - like a human brain. Scientists could get creative by planting a brain in a robot, but it wouldn’t be artifical inteligence, just human intelligence in a robot. Scientists could also try to increase the brain’s potential with computer chips, but, it would still just be human intelligence, only aided by a chip. It would still be human intelligence even in a robot that looked, smelled, felt, and acted like a human, with a human brain in its head.

Now, scientists could try to create a robot brain that mimics the human brain, just like we have pills that mimic natural food, but the brain would not be on par with a human brain, because no one has been able to figure out how the human brain actually works. Moreover, artifical intelligence works by code: a computer can’t do what it hasn’t been instructed to do. It can be instructed to learn, but that learning process is only limited to memory, sensory, and preprogrammed functions; it dose not have imagination, cognitive thinking, reason, or a free-will like humans do. A robot could be programmed to choose between behaviors, and reject certain commands in certain situations, but that would be a far cry from free-will, whereby a person can make choices he has not been programmed to do. That’s the difference between man and machine: man controls the machine, ultimately.

I entirely agree with you about its feasibility!
My question is IF it were possible…would it be sinful?
Since the brain is as physical as any other part of the body…it’s NOT the soul…can we treat it similarly as we would treat a human clone, for example? In other words, it would be a sin, right?

 

[Eucharisted]

I entirely agree with you about its feasibility!
My question is IF it were possible…would it be sinful?
Since the brain is as physical as any other part of the body…it’s NOT the soul…can we treat it similarly as we would treat a human clone, for example? In other words, it would be a sin, right?

It would be sinful if scientists tried to create a human being from robotics. It would also be sinful if scientists tried to create true artifical intelligence for themselves, not for the good of mankind. Science has always been guided by a desire to help mankind, whether it’s giving greater knowledge of creation or trying to prevent disease and disaster, help the helpless, and make life better. When science loses this generous purpose, it becomes sinful, much like how Adam and Eve took fruit off the tree or mankind built the Tower of Babel. A non-generous approach to science is a sinful approach because it’s an approach that wishes to push God - who is Love - away and focus instead on gratification of the self. Pride pushes love away and gratifies itself, even at the expense of harming everyone else, because a proud man believes he is above everyone, including God, thereby making himself a god. This is contrary to God, and because God is Love, and Love is Law, it is contrary to ethics. The same goes for creating human beings: only God can create, not man. God is God, man is man. Man must not make the same sin that Adam and Eve committed when they were tempted by the ancient serpent, nor by the same that mankind committed when it built a tower to Heaven.

 

[Sunflower15]

But, regardless of intent, isn’t cloning sinful no matter what?

Does it matter if scientists have great intentions?

What about artificial insemination, it could be a “good”…however, it is a sin…

I guess the difference is mainly that it is only ONE part of a human…the reason that I ask about THIS ONE part is that people are considered DEAD when BRAIN DEAD even if the rest of the body is still functioning, right?

So, if a human-clone brain is alive? Does it matter if it doesn’t have the rest of the body? [which I guess won’t matter, because they can simply “add” the rest of the parts]

Just brainstorming with moral issues…

 

[Jermosh]

Its just a tool, its only the intent of the tool that matters. Poppies can produce drugs that can destroy families and kill innocents, but it can also produce medicine that has saved hundreds of thousands of lives, or gave a peaceful end to a painful death.

 

[Sunflower15]

Its just a tool, its only the intent of the tool that matters. Poppies can produce drugs that can destroy families and kill innocents, but it can also produce medicine that has saved hundreds of thousands of lives, or gave a peaceful end to a painful death.

How about human cloning or stem cell research, then?

 

[JimG]

I’m not going to worry about AI until a machine writes a solid theology book exploring the question of whether it inherited original sin from its human creator.

 

[Sunflower15]

I’m not going to worry about AI until a machine writes a solid theology book exploring the question of whether it inherited original sin from its human creator.

AWESOME! ~ LOL

 

[Jermosh]

How about human cloning or stem cell research, then?

Human cloning is not a tool though, its an act. Only embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong since its taking a life without just consent. Adult stem cell research is morally ok since its done willingly and without the taking of a life.