6 ms·
Technically speaking isn't this blasphemy? If he's saying that the A.I. his division helped create was a soulful child, then he's basically claiming that the re
by cuuupid 4y ago
Technically speaking isn't this blasphemy? If he's saying that the A.I. his division helped create was a soulful child, then he's basically claiming that the researchers in his division (and maybe even himself) are all gods, which is a form of blasphemy?
- upwardbound 4y agoI don't agree with his views but I'd guess he'd say that the researchers created it in the same sense that parents create a child - following a template that was made possible in advance by God's design, which humans only discovered but didn't invent - like we discovered but didn't invent the number Pi.
- dane-pgp 4y agoSo creating the AI was manifest destiny, just like Europeans "discovered but didn't invent" North America. Actually I think that analogy works a little too well...
- vasco 4y agoIf it were the middle ages that'd be a valid concern.
- mejari 4y agoNo one ever think the things they think are blasphemy.
- deaddodo 4y agoOnly insofar that the act of building a car could be considered blasphemy. Theologically (at least among the framework of Judeo-Christian beliefs), a “god” would require omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. Using tools provided by a god, within their own framework is not godly; no matter how advanced they may seem. Altering the fabric of that framework would be. That being said, the creator of the AI might certainly be seen as a god from their perspective.