4 ms·

My old-school protestant pastor started with an AI disclaimer in the sermon yesterday. What a time to be alive! I don't know what to do with my double standard

My old-school protestant pastor started with an AI disclaimer in the sermon yesterday. What a time to be alive! I don't know what to do with my double standard here. It seems totally normal and expected that I would outsource aspects of my job solving business software problems to AI, but the idea of my spirituality and cultural experience (music, movies, art, etc) being someone else's business problem to be outsourced and optimized by AI is so gross.

kstrauser 8mo ago
I don’t think that’s a double standard. Computers telling computers what to do feels reasonable. Computers telling humans what to feel seems not.
- AndrewKemendo 8mo ago
  Every single person who utilizes a navigation application to traverse a place that they have no previous independently verified experience, is taking existential risk based on a computer telling them what to do There are literally thousands of cases of people dying or being injured because they did what a computer navigation application told them to do This is also literally what the Target stock scheduling system does for target employees for restocking shelves The vast majority of peoples lives are run by someone else’s computer
  - kstrauser 8mo ago
    That’s fundamentally different, and I think you know that. It’s one thing to ask an algorithm how to build an A* driving map from point A to point B. It’s another to ask one how to be a better person and go to Heaven. I’m not religious, and I’m not arguing this from a pro-religion POV. I happily work in AI, and I’m not arguing this from an anti-AI POV. I am highly technical. I love computers. I’m excited about the future. I rely on deterministic algorithms to make my days better. And yet, I do not want to trust the words of an LLM to counsel me on how to be a better husband or father. At this stage, the AI does not know me in the way a counselor or advisor, or even pastor or priest would. And yes, I think that’s a crucial difference.
    - ben_w 8mo ago
      3/4-agree; LLM advice is only one step up from an Agony Aunt column in a newspaper. And I'd expect "Target stock scheduling system does for target employees for restocking shelves" to be an A* or similar. But also, Google maps has directed people to their deaths: https://gizmodo.com/three-men-die-after-google-maps-reportedly-told-them-to-drive-over-an-unfinished-bridge-2000530998 https://gizmodo.com/three-men-die-after-google-maps-reported... isn't even what I was originally looking for, which was: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-sued-negligence-maps-driver-died-collapsed-bridge-north-carolina-hickory/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-sued-negligence-maps-dri...
      - kstrauser 8mo ago
        Sure, people die from regular programming. Mistakes happen. That’s not good or ok, but it seems unavoidable given today’s technologies and tools. However, I think that’s in a different category than giving life advice. How is an LLM to know that God forgives Joe for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his children, but doesn’t forgive Tom for doing the same thing because Tom had money but was saving up to buy cooler shoes and didn’t want to spend it? A priest’s advice might be “Joe, don’t make a habit of it, but you didn’t hurt anyone and you children were hungry. Tom, would you freaking knock it off already?” An LLM might reply “that’s a wonderful idea!” to both. Again, I’m firmly not anti-AI. I use it every day. I absolutely to not want to hear its advice on how to navigate the complexities of life as a human being.
        ben_w 8mo ago
        Yeah, no. What you described here and what I described before are not programming errors, they're data errors. An A* route finder isn't going to know a bridge is out unless it is told, an LLM won't know that case history unless it is told. I'd say the real problem with using an LLM for this kind of thing is not what the LLM writes, but that the act of writing helps the human understand their community, so when it is skipped that understanding remains absent. It's like cheating on your homework.
    - AndrewKemendo 8mo ago
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
Blackthorn 8mo ago
Talk about a self-aware wolves moment. Why is your use of AI okay but theirs isn't?
- nxobject 8mo ago
  That’s exactly the question OP is asking.
- wat10000 8mo ago
  There are some jobs where the outcome is the point, and others where having a person actually do a thing is the point. Priest is very much the latter sort of job. Forget about AI for a moment and let's consider a more mundane tool, like an industrial robot. Is it OK to use a robot to perform some step in assembling a car? Certainly. How about programming that robot to perform Communion? Not so much. Not because using a robot to do things is inherently immoral, but because the human priest is supposed to be an integral component of Communion, it's not just a matter of transporting a cracker and some liquid into people's mouths by whatever means you choose.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
ASalazarMX 8mo ago
It's not like they work a lot, why would a religious leader need to outsource spiritual advice to a chatbot? It only shows that all humans are lazy, no matter how virtuous they want to be seen as. IMO this counts as sloth. Hopefully this discredits religions even more with the younger generations. Claiming that an immensely powerful being demands obedience of you, and keeps tabs on you all the time, but his orders only go through a chosen few, was a hard proposition to begin with.
- edgyquant 8mo ago
  You’re seething hatred is so obvious from this comment that no one should consider your opinion as anything close to valid
  - ASalazarMX 8mo ago
    I don't think so. I didn't use hateful language, and while I see religion, especially for-profit religion, as a net societal loss, I don't think I worded my argument as seething hatred. I can see how a strong disagreement can be dismissed as hate, though. It preserves the cognitive dissonance between reality and belief.
- butterbomb 8mo ago
  > Claiming that an immensely powerful being demands obedience of you, and keeps tabs on you all the time, but his orders only go through a chosen few, was a hard proposition to begin with. You just described what Silicon Valley wants to build lol
  - ASalazarMX 8mo ago
    I think it's even more pernicious. Religious leaders want to tell you what to think, but since it usually benefits them, it takes constant reinforcement to be effective. On the contrary, we willingly use (and even pay for) chatbots so they increasingly think for us, and it would take a monumental effort to take them away from us now. People would even make their own if needed, but at least in that case, it won't be a megacorp telling the chatbot what to think in the first place.
fritzo 8mo ago
This is how you get token laundering

kstrauser 8mo ago

I don’t think that’s a double standard. Computers telling computers what to do feels reasonable. Computers telling humans what to feel seems not.

AndrewKemendo 8mo ago
Every single person who utilizes a navigation application to traverse a place that they have no previous independently verified experience, is taking existential risk based on a computer telling them what to do There are literally thousands of cases of people dying or being injured because they did what a computer navigation application told them to do This is also literally what the Target stock scheduling system does for target employees for restocking shelves The vast majority of peoples lives are run by someone else’s computer
- kstrauser 8mo ago
  That’s fundamentally different, and I think you know that. It’s one thing to ask an algorithm how to build an A* driving map from point A to point B. It’s another to ask one how to be a better person and go to Heaven. I’m not religious, and I’m not arguing this from a pro-religion POV. I happily work in AI, and I’m not arguing this from an anti-AI POV. I am highly technical. I love computers. I’m excited about the future. I rely on deterministic algorithms to make my days better. And yet, I do not want to trust the words of an LLM to counsel me on how to be a better husband or father. At this stage, the AI does not know me in the way a counselor or advisor, or even pastor or priest would. And yes, I think that’s a crucial difference.
  - ben_w 8mo ago
    3/4-agree; LLM advice is only one step up from an Agony Aunt column in a newspaper. And I'd expect "Target stock scheduling system does for target employees for restocking shelves" to be an A* or similar. But also, Google maps has directed people to their deaths: https://gizmodo.com/three-men-die-after-google-maps-reportedly-told-them-to-drive-over-an-unfinished-bridge-2000530998 https://gizmodo.com/three-men-die-after-google-maps-reported... isn't even what I was originally looking for, which was: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-sued-negligence-maps-driver-died-collapsed-bridge-north-carolina-hickory/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-sued-negligence-maps-dri...
    - kstrauser 8mo ago
      Sure, people die from regular programming. Mistakes happen. That’s not good or ok, but it seems unavoidable given today’s technologies and tools. However, I think that’s in a different category than giving life advice. How is an LLM to know that God forgives Joe for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his children, but doesn’t forgive Tom for doing the same thing because Tom had money but was saving up to buy cooler shoes and didn’t want to spend it? A priest’s advice might be “Joe, don’t make a habit of it, but you didn’t hurt anyone and you children were hungry. Tom, would you freaking knock it off already?” An LLM might reply “that’s a wonderful idea!” to both. Again, I’m firmly not anti-AI. I use it every day. I absolutely to not want to hear its advice on how to navigate the complexities of life as a human being.
      - ben_w 8mo ago
        Yeah, no. What you described here and what I described before are not programming errors, they're data errors. An A* route finder isn't going to know a bridge is out unless it is told, an LLM won't know that case history unless it is told. I'd say the real problem with using an LLM for this kind of thing is not what the LLM writes, but that the act of writing helps the human understand their community, so when it is skipped that understanding remains absent. It's like cheating on your homework.
  - AndrewKemendo 8mo ago
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

Blackthorn 8mo ago

Talk about a self-aware wolves moment. Why is your use of AI okay but theirs isn't?

nxobject 8mo ago
That’s exactly the question OP is asking.
wat10000 8mo ago
There are some jobs where the outcome is the point, and others where having a person actually do a thing is the point. Priest is very much the latter sort of job. Forget about AI for a moment and let's consider a more mundane tool, like an industrial robot. Is it OK to use a robot to perform some step in assembling a car? Certainly. How about programming that robot to perform Communion? Not so much. Not because using a robot to do things is inherently immoral, but because the human priest is supposed to be an integral component of Communion, it's not just a matter of transporting a cracker and some liquid into people's mouths by whatever means you choose.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

ASalazarMX 8mo ago

It's not like they work a lot, why would a religious leader need to outsource spiritual advice to a chatbot? It only shows that all humans are lazy, no matter how virtuous they want to be seen as. IMO this counts as sloth. Hopefully this discredits religions even more with the younger generations. Claiming that an immensely powerful being demands obedience of you, and keeps tabs on you all the time, but his orders only go through a chosen few, was a hard proposition to begin with.

edgyquant 8mo ago
You’re seething hatred is so obvious from this comment that no one should consider your opinion as anything close to valid
- ASalazarMX 8mo ago
  I don't think so. I didn't use hateful language, and while I see religion, especially for-profit religion, as a net societal loss, I don't think I worded my argument as seething hatred. I can see how a strong disagreement can be dismissed as hate, though. It preserves the cognitive dissonance between reality and belief.
butterbomb 8mo ago
> Claiming that an immensely powerful being demands obedience of you, and keeps tabs on you all the time, but his orders only go through a chosen few, was a hard proposition to begin with. You just described what Silicon Valley wants to build lol
- ASalazarMX 8mo ago
  I think it's even more pernicious. Religious leaders want to tell you what to think, but since it usually benefits them, it takes constant reinforcement to be effective. On the contrary, we willingly use (and even pay for) chatbots so they increasingly think for us, and it would take a monumental effort to take them away from us now. People would even make their own if needed, but at least in that case, it won't be a megacorp telling the chatbot what to think in the first place.

fritzo 8mo ago

This is how you get token laundering