fbpx
Articles

Why we (still) need a statement of principles for AI

/
May 8, 2023

In April 2019, a group of over 70 evangelical leaders signed and launched Artificial Intelligence: An Evangelical Statement of Principles (Spanish version) with two goals in mind. First, we wanted to help the Church proactively think about the myriad of ways that AI is shaping our society and provide a sound theological, philosophical, and ethical framework with which to wisely navigate these tools. Second, we sought to present a distinctly Christian view on the fundamental questions being raised amid the social and political ramifications of the expanding development and application of AI. 

One of the fascinating aspects of the current cultural conversation on AI is how quickly people have become entranced by these technologies, especially after the launch of ChatGPT and other generative AI tools. While many are excited about the advances these tools may bring, many are incredibly disturbed by their dangers and risks. Debates over the future of AI have centered on the reality that these tools are doing things once reserved solely for human beings, leading many to ask the age-old question: What does it mean to be human? 

Being human in an age of machines

The perennial question of what it means to be human becomes even more important in this age of emerging technologies. In the statement, we addressed it by affirming the unique nature of humanity and denying “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.” This is rooted in the Christian understanding of how God bestowed a unique status on humanity with the imago Dei

Many are amazed and fearful of advanced AI systems as they fundamentally challenge much of what we have assumed about the uniqueness of humanity. For generations, we have assumed that what it meant to be human was the ability to think, create, and to perform certain complex tasks. An attribute-based view of humanity and the imago Dei is prevalent throughout much of human history. While it is true that humanity does seem to model certain features such an reason/rationality (substantive), gregariousness (relational), and representation (functional), do these attributes or capacities ontologically ground human identity, or do they better represent a fundamental status that human beings have in light of how God set us apart from the rest of creation as those made is his image?

As German Catholic philosopher Robert Spaemann notes in Persons, “human beings have certain definite properties that license us to call them ‘persons’; but it is not the properties we call persons, but the human being who possess the properties.” A person in Spaemann’s framework is someone vs. something, thus, regardless of one’s capacities or attributes, they are a person by simply being a member of the human species. He writes that “there can, and must, be one criterion for personality, and one only; that is biological membership of the human race.”

While human beings are a specific kind of creature who might exhibit certain characteristics and attributes, human dignity isn’t based on the presence of those particular attributes or capacities. While much more can and should be said, this truth must be central to the ongoing debates over the development and use of AI today.

The future of AI

A related and second question rising above the fray today centers on where these technologies are headed in terms of their role in our society and how we are to view them as they grow in their imitation of certain human capacities. Much of the popular discussion surrounding AI notes the seemingly unstoppable nature of these tools and how they will soon rival (or even overtake) humanity’s place in society. In the 2019 statement, we noted 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 future of AI is an open question of sorts, but Christians must recognize that there are certain inherent limitations to these technologies. Indeed, much of today’s doomsday mentality is rooted in a view of technology at odds with the theological, philosophical, and ethical framework provided in Scripture. In contrast to the two most common views, a biblical framework recognizes that technology is neither autonomously deterministic nor is it simply a neutral instrument that we simply use. 

As I wrote in The Digital Public Square: Christian Ethics in a Technological Society, a Christian philosophy of technology is wholly unique in that it recognizes 1) that God has given humanity certain creative gifts and the ability to use tools, and 2) and that how we use these tools forms and shapes us. Technology then is not good or bad, nor is it neutral. Technology, specifically AI, is shaping how we view God, ourselves, and the world around us in profound and distinct ways.

While we rightly debate how to mitigate the risks and promote the good of technological advances, the Church must not give into the moral panic induced by AI, nor should we passively allow others to shape the conversation in ways that are directly at odds with the Christian tradition. As Carl F. H. Henry wisely noted, the center of the Chrisitan ethic is the concept of love which is modeled in the Great Commandment given to us by Christ (Matt. 22:37-39). The Church must see the love of God and love of neighbor, manifested in recognizing the dignity of all, as central to the ongoing work related to AI and its role in our society. 

The 2019 statement of principles was designed to jumpstart the conversation about AI in the Church, which is needed now more than ever. As the Church engages these questions, we must remember that the Christian moral tradition recognizes that no matter how advanced our technologies become, there is nothing that can fundamentally change what it means to be made in the image of the almighty God (Gen. 1:26-28). Embracing this truth today means retrieving a robust view of what it means to be human in an age of machines.

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