fbpx
Articles

Nine months later: An assessment of an evangelical framework for artificial intelligence

/
December 17, 2019

On April 11 of this year, The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission unveiled a new ethical framework and set of principles, called Artificial Intelligence: An Evangelical Statement of Principles, in a crowded room in Washington, D.C. This marked the first time that a Protestant Christian group laid out a set of guiding principles aimed at equipping the Church to think wisely about emerging technology and to engage the larger cultural conversations surrounding artificial intelligence.

While many believed this statement would be significant, we could not have planned the way the Lord would use this document. The statement has been circulated widely and has received a good deal of feedback in the nine months since its launch. It was featured in news reports and opinion pieces, with over 80 mentions in major media outlets. It quickly became one of the most popular pieces of content at ERLC this year. While some questioned the need for Christians to speak to these issues, the feedback was, by and large, extremely encouraging and well received.

The unchanging goal

When I set off on this project under the leadership of Russell Moore, president of ERLC, the central goal of the statement was to be faithful to our understanding of the Christian faith and how it applies to emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence. In a world where ethics and morality are often defined by cultural moods and opinions, we sought to ground our guidelines and principles in the unchanging Christian faith and the Word of God itself. I often say that artificial intelligence isn’t causing our society to ask new questions per se. Rather, it is provoking age-old questions in light of new technologies.

People of faith have always wrestled with the most fundamental questions of the nature of God, the nature of humanity, and how we are to interact in this world that God created. The rise of sophisticated AI forces us to address these questions in a new light since we are now creating tools that can not only outwork us physically but also outperform us mentally in some ways. The ERLC sought to produce a document that would help the Church engage these fundamental questions about humanity as well as the pressing challenges posed by the adoption of AI in every area of society.

Although the 12 articles of the statement did not directly address every possible issue, the goal was to address some of the larger trends in AI and propose a biblically-grounded approach for thinking through these issues. Most of the critical feedback we received was directed at our inability to address every issue head-on due to our efforts to keep the document concise. Some question the inclusion of articles on sexuality or even the image of God, but the drafters and signers all agreed that we wanted this document to be more timeless rather than tied to a specific cultural moment. While some of the issues addressed are not pressing yet, such as sexuality and the possibility of advanced AGI systems, we wanted to put forth categories for thoughtful Christians to engage these issues as they arise in the future.

An open dialogue

Our second goal with the statement was to foster deep and meaningful dialogue with the larger community on these issues. Some of the most significant feedback we received was that the document was not ecumenical enough or that it was too narrow in its theological perspective. This was by design, though, because we were not claiming to speak for all evangelicals, much less for all of Christendom. Our goal was to add our perspective to the larger conversations that have been taking place and to participate in these conversations among people of all faiths and no faith at all.

Since the launch of this statement and with the release of my forthcoming book, The Age of AI: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity, we have had the privilege of engaging in rich dialogue with people from nearly every walk of life. From government leaders and technologists to doctors and military leaders, we have been honored to speak to these issues in light of this document and to help further conversations around how we should develop, deploy, and evaluate these tools.

I have heard of numerous faith-based and secular university professors requiring the statement as reading in their ethics, technology, theology, and computer science courses. Many employees at major technology companies have also reached out to talk about how their faith applies to their work in AI, VR, and countless other technologies. They tell us that the document has stirred conversations on their teams and caused them to think critically about how they design and deploy these powerful tools.

Future hopes

One of the most encouraging parts of this entire process so far has been the dialogue with people who might not agree with us on every issue or article of the statement and have hopes to produce similar documents in the future using our statement as a reference or starting point. While future statements and ethical frameworks may be broader in application or even theological perspective, I thank God for the minds and hearts of those that set out on the journey to produce this document and their hearts to engage these issues before the effects of AI are widely felt in our communities. 

As I mentioned previously, our goals of equipping the Church and engaging these issues as a part of a larger cultural conversation hasn’t changed. Our organization is committed to continuing dialogue surrounding AI and other modern technologies as well as producing more resources to equip the Church to navigate these ethical and social issues with the hope of the gospel message. We pray that God, and his people, continue to use this statement and to these ends as we seek to faithfully apply our faith to artificial intelligence.

This was originally published here.

Jason Thacker

Jason Thacker serves as senior fellow focusing on Christian ethics, human dignity, public theology, and technology. He also leads the ERLC Research Institute. In addition to his work at the ERLC, he serves as assistant professor of philosophy and ethics at Boyce College in Louisville Kentucky. He is the author … Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24