phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 12:36 pm
I honestly don’t remember ever saying that AI could write a better ethics than Christianity. That doesn’t even sound like something I’d argue.
BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 5:34 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 5:17 pm
I own a book, haven't ready it yet, called Heaven and Hell by Bart Ehrman. Not having read it, I have a vague idea of the arguments he makes in the book, and I'm pretty sure a huge portion of it is dedicated to arguing that many modern Christian understandings of Hell actually are not rooted in Biblical text, and even the parts that are are rooted in misunderstandings and misinterpretations of that text.
So perhaps the correct understanding of Christianity is far less barbaric and unkind than a lot of Christians would have you believe...
That’s a fascinating take—and if true, it opens up a whole other can of worms. Because if modern Christians have
misunderstood or
misinterpreted core concepts like hell for centuries… then what exactly have they been preaching all this time? Fire and brimstone sermons, moral panic, guilt-based obedience—all possibly based on mistranslations or mythological baggage?
And if the “correct” version of Christianity is actually more kind and humane, then why did it take over 2,000 years, a printing press, modern linguistics, and Bart Ehrman to point that out?
It just reinforces the idea that this wasn’t divine revelation—it was human storytelling, evolving through error, fear, and politics. Strip away the misinterpretations and what’s left? A confused, inconsistent patchwork written by people who barely understood the cosmos, let alone the human brain. And now AI can write a more coherent ethics manual in a weekend. Strange times.
Now, as for the “God-like powers” thing—yeah, I see how that could sound a little starry-eyed. But again, what I’m describing isn’t divine intervention, it’s highly advanced systems engineering. We're talking about supply chains managed with sensor networks and machine learning models, not miracles. AI can track environmental data, predict outcomes, and help us reduce waste—not because it has a soul or a conscience, but because it’s a tool with reach and speed far beyond what we’ve had before. It’s not God. It’s Google, with steroids and a brain.
True, AI has no soul, no conscience. And also no intelligence, understanding or experience of reality.
But you give it miraculous abilities to achieve things that humans cannot.
And you're right—if AI is handling everything logistical and productive, that’s a real system, and people will absolutely have to adapt to it. But here’s where we may disagree: I think it’s possible to draw a line between technical systems that run physical infrastructure and moral systems that govern human life. AI can do the first. It should never do the second.
I don't see how a separation would be possible considering how the 'enthusiasts' think AI is so much better at everything. They are bound to cross the line.
Thanks, Phyllo. You’ve pulled together a lot of threads here, and I’m genuinely glad you did—it’s a chance to slow down and clarify some things that may have come off a little too glib or oversold. Let’s start with that quote you found.
Yes—I did say AI could write a more coherent ethics manual than Christianity. And yeah, when taken out of context, that
does sound like I’m assigning it divine authorship. But here’s what I actually meant: AI, drawing from vast amounts of human knowledge, history, philosophy, and moral reasoning, can
synthesize ideas in ways that are faster and structurally clearer than ancient religious texts written in fragments over centuries, with frequent contradictions and reinterpretations. It’s not that AI is somehow more
moral. It’s that it can be more
coherent—more logically structured—because it isn’t bound by dogma, cultural inertia, or institutional fear.
So no, I wasn’t arguing that AI has consciousness or insight into the human soul. I was saying that, technically speaking, it can produce ethical frameworks that are clearer, more consistent, and up-to-date with modern knowledge. That’s not miraculous. That’s text prediction with access to a gigantic library.
Now, let me ask you directly—are you
serious when you say I’m giving AI “miraculous abilities to achieve things that humans cannot”? Miraculous?! I’ve said it can track data at scale, manage complex systems, and optimize logistics. That’s not magic. That’s what software already does in hundreds of industries today. When I describe systems that can manage supply chains or predict energy needs, I’m talking about what
already exists, just taken a few steps further.
You’re right that AI has no intelligence in the human sense. No lived experience. No reality of its own. That’s precisely why I keep drawing the line between
technical control and
moral authority. And yes, I
share your concern that if we blindly trust AI as a decision-maker—not just a tool—then that line
will be crossed. It’s why we need public debate, regulation, and ethical boundaries in place
now, not after the fact.
So if you see me as an “enthusiast,” that’s fine—but I’m an enthusiast
with guardrails. I want to see what these tools can do to reduce suffering, waste, and inequality—not because they’re better than us, but because they
don’t suffer like we do. That makes them powerful assistants—but terrible leaders.
Let’s stay vigilant. I’m with you on that. But let’s also stay honest about what’s actually happening—and what we’re capable of using wisely, before someone else uses it recklessly.
How about you? What's on your mind today?
How about you? What's on your mind today?
). IC can write, but he's hindered by religious bias. I just want to know how TheBigMike does it.