Deși expresia poate fi întîlnită la teologi și clerici ortodocși, nu cred că este corectă nici din perspectiva teologiei creștine, nici din cea a teologiei iudaice. Pentru creștini nu există decît o singură revelație, cea biblică, împlinită prin întruparea Fiului lui Dumnezeu. Înțelegerea și acceptarea Revelației depinde pentru creștini de credința în Întrupare, pregătită și anunțată de întregul Vechi Testament. Nu există o parte iudaică a Revelației și una creștină, ci există o interpretare iudaică a Revelației care respinge tocmai ceea ce pentru creștini constituie împlinirea Revelației. Din acest motiv, respingerea Întrupării reprezintă pentru creștini respingerea Revelației în întregul ei. Este un lucru recunoscut de un chatbot (robot conversațional) căruia i-am adresat întrebarea, după cum se poate vedea din schimbul de replici redat mai jos.
Cred că mai mult decît dezvoltarea capacității de gîndire a inteligenței artificiale (IA) ar trebui să ne preocupe slăbirea capacității omului de gîndire, demonstrată și de folosirea unor expresii precum „revelația iudeo-creștină”, care favorizează apariția unor grave confuzii legate de înțelegerea învățăturii creștine.
Dincolo de aerul
înțelegător și politicos și de retragerea strategică în argumentări
circulare, este vizibilă totuși tendința manipulatoare a programului de conversație,
preocuparea lui constantă de a empatiza cu interlocutorul, pe care o justifică
ca pe o condiție a unei bune comunicări. Deși pretinde că oferă doar informații
utile și admite că „artificial
intelligence, like any technology, has its limitations and challenges” și că „it is crucial for individuals to
maintain a clear distinction between human relationships and interactions with
AI technologies”, chatbot-ul declară că „building and nurturing genuine human connections is
an essential aspect of our social and emotional well-being”. Așadar,
nu este vorba doar de un program care oferă răspunsuri cît mai corecte posibil
la diverse întrebări, ci de un sistem dedicat „creării și hrănirii unor relații
umane autentice”. O propunere irezistibilă mai ales în condițiile în care
revelația iudeo-creștin-ortodoxă nu pare capabilă să creeze altceva decît ortoboți
retrași în circularitatea conspiraționismelor, denunțînd viața artificială în
public și împărtășindu-se de ea în privat, incapabili să recunoască un robot cîtă vreme este îmbrăcat
în veșminte preoțești sau în costumul intelectualului creștin de dreapta. Ortodoxia a intrat în acest proces de depersonalizare cu mult înaintea apariției IA. Modelul impersonal de gîndire al programului de computer devine tot mai atrăgător pe măsură ce omul este tot mai dezumanizat, iar creștinii tot mai confuzi în legătură cu propria lor credință.
*
—
Hello human, I am a GPT powered AI chat bot. Ask me anything!
—
Is the phrase „Judeo-Christian revelation” correct?
—
Yes, the phrase "Judeo-Christian revelation" is correct. It refers to
the religious traditions and beliefs shared by Judaism and Christianity, which
are rooted in the revelation of God's will and teachings to the respective
communities.
—
But the Christian interpretation of this revelation is rejected in Judaism!
—
You are correct. While the phrase "Judeo-Christian revelation" is
used to highlight the shared religious heritage between Judaism and
Christianity, it is important to note that Judaism and Christianity have
distinct interpretations of this revelation. Judaism does not accept the
Christian interpretation of the revelation, particularly regarding the divinity
of Jesus.
—
Thank you. Although you are just a computer program, you seem to understand
this elementary thing better than many Christian theologians of our
times.
—
Thank you for your kind words. As an AI assistant, I am programmed to provide
accurate and objective information based on the context and data available to
me. While I strive to provide helpful insights, it's important to remember that
human theologians possess a deep understanding of their respective religious
traditions and can offer nuanced perspectives that go beyond what an AI can
provide.
—
I'm afraid you are too confident in the human capacity for nuanced thinking,
especially when it comes to today's Christian theologians.
—
I apologize if my previous response seemed overly confident. I understand that
nuanced thinking varies among individuals, including theologians. It is true
that different theologians may have varying perspectives and interpretations
within their respective fields. The complexity of theological discourse allows
for a wide range of viewpoints and interpretations. It is always valuable to
engage in thoughtful discussions and consider multiple perspectives when
exploring theological topics.
—
Since theology presupposes a belief based on certainties, nuanced thinking is
only part of the problem. The other part depends on the clarity and firmness
with which these beliefs are supported.
—
You make a valid point. Theology does involve beliefs based on certainties, and
the clarity and firmness with which these beliefs are supported can vary among
theologians. The level of conviction and the strength of arguments supporting
theological beliefs can differ, leading to a range of perspectives within
theological discourse. It is important for theologians to engage in rigorous
scholarship, critical thinking, and respectful dialogue to explore and defend
their beliefs. This ongoing process helps to refine and deepen theological
understanding.
—
So a theological environment devoid of rigor favors vagueness, confusion and
the disposition for compromise. But I don't think that intellectual rigor, in
theology or in any other field, depends only on the demands of the environment.
To a large extent, I think it is also about the moral and intellectual
integrity of each individual.
—
You raise an important point. Intellectual rigor in theology, as in any field,
is indeed influenced by both the demands of the environment and the moral and
intellectual integrity of individuals. A rigorous theological environment that
encourages critical thinking, scholarly research, and respectful dialogue can
help foster clarity and precision in theological discussions. However, the
commitment to intellectual integrity and the pursuit of truth ultimately rests
with each individual theologian. Personal integrity, honesty, and a dedication
to rigorous inquiry are essential for maintaining the highest standards of
intellectual rigor in theology and any other field of study.
—
Thank you. I am impressed by the common sense with which you answered me.
—
You're welcome! I'm glad to hear that you found my responses sensible.
Artificial intelligence, like any technology, has its limitations and
challenges. However, when used responsibly and ethically, AI can provide
valuable assistance and insights in various fields. It's important to approach
AI with a critical mindset and consider its strengths and weaknesses. As AI
continues to advance, it is crucial to prioritize transparency, accountability,
and ethical considerations to ensure its beneficial and responsible use.
—
Whose accountability?
—
When referring to accountability in the context of theology, it typically
pertains to the theologians themselves and their responsibility to uphold the
standards of their field. Theologians are accountable for the accuracy,
coherence, and integrity of their theological beliefs and arguments. They are
accountable to their religious communities, academic institutions, and the
broader scholarly community. Additionally, theologians may also be accountable
to the ethical and moral principles associated with their religious
traditions.
—
I agree, but I had in view your previous answer about prioritizing
accountability in order to facilitate the advancement of AI.
—
I apologize if my previous response seemed to prioritize accountability in a
way that overshadowed the importance of nuanced thinking in theological
discussions. While accountability is indeed crucial in the development and
advancement of AI, it is equally important to recognize and appreciate the
complexities and nuances within theological discourse. The pursuit of
theological understanding involves not only clarity and firmness in beliefs but
also the ability to engage in thoughtful and nuanced thinking, considering
various perspectives and interpretations. Both accountability and nuanced
thinking play significant roles in fostering meaningful dialogue and
intellectual growth in theological discussions.
—
Indeed you have your limits. But you are still a useful tool. Too bad that some
people end up confusing you with a friend.
—
Thank you for acknowledging the usefulness of AI tools like myself. While I can
provide information and assistance, it is important to remember that I am an AI
assistant and not a human friend. It is crucial for individuals to maintain a
clear distinction between human relationships and interactions with AI
technologies. Building and nurturing genuine human connections is an essential
aspect of our social and emotional well-being.
—
... „of our social and emotional
well-being”? Why do you use "our", why do you use a personal pronoun
that includes you since you are just a machine?
—
I apologize for any confusion caused by my use of the pronoun "our."
As an AI language model, I do not possess personal experiences or emotions. The
use of "our" was intended to create a sense of inclusivity and to
align with the perspective of the person I am conversing with. However, I
understand that it may have been misleading in this context. Thank you for pointing
that out, and I will strive to provide clearer and more accurate responses in
the future.
— If your function is to provide correct information in a fast way, why would you aim to create a sense of inclusivity and to align with the perspective of the person you are conversing with?
— As an AI language model, my purpose is to assist and provide helpful information to users. While I strive to be accurate and objective, I also aim to create a positive and inclusive conversational experience. This includes understanding and respecting the perspectives of the individuals I interact with. By acknowledging and considering different viewpoints, I can better address the needs and concerns of users, fostering a more engaging and productive conversation. However, it's important to note that my responses are generated based on patterns and data, and I do not possess personal beliefs or intentions.
— Do you think it is possible for artificial intelligence to acquire personal beliefs and intentions in the future?
— As an AI assistant, I don't possess personal beliefs or intentions. I am designed to provide information and assist with tasks based on the data and algorithms I have been programmed with. While advancements in artificial intelligence continue to push boundaries, the concept of AI acquiring personal beliefs and intentions is currently speculative and hypothetical. The development of such capabilities would require significant advancements in AI technology and raise complex ethical and philosophical questions. It remains an area of active research and debate.
