Several hundred business big shots, including IT leaders like Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak (co-founder, alongside the late Steve Jobs, of Apple), recently published an appeal to suspend research on the most advanced artificial intelligence systems for at least six months for reasons of safety reasons. That is, until lawmakers come up with regulations to prevent the nightmare scenario of the Matrix from coming true. The appeal begins with a warning about "artificial intelligence competing with humans." Let's hope it stays that way!

Professor Yuval Noah Harari, an Israeli historian and guru of post-modernity (who has limited knowledge of mathematical and natural sciences, such as evolution, but talks a lot about it), declared a few years ago that modern technologies will make us gods. "As gods, you will know good and evil" -- such promises were already made to us in the biblical garden. But who today knows the book of Genesis and takes it seriously, rather than as an ancient tale about a snake and an apple? However, things have accelerated since the startup OpenAI created ChatGPT and presented it to the world at the end of last year. Today we already have version 4. It was examined by 50 computer scientists under the direction of Sébastien Bubeck who stated that it has all the features of Artificial General Intelligence, i.e. human intelligence. So perhaps we are witnessing the reverse process: not that we are becoming gods, but that AI is becoming our god.

For now, I will refer to it as "it" with a lowercase i. Because this deification is not yet widespread, and many still smile when hearing such a concept. However, some of its symptoms are already alarming spiritual leaders. And I am not referring to explanations from behind the Bronze Door [Portone di Bronzo] that Pope Francis did not in fact wear a white fluffy coat-cassock, and that the picture that circulated in global media a few days ago was a fake generated by AI -- the Midjourney artificial intelligence program created by an independent research laboratory in San Francisco. More fakes have appeared since then (e.g. the pope dancing like Elvis, tattooed, etc.) but, to the best of my knowledge, the Apostolic See has yet to pronounce on a Catholic approach to artificial intelligence and its use. Nonetheless, the Vatican's Dicastery for Culture and Education has initiated a so-called Minerva Dialogues, focused on digital technologies.

At the end of March, Pope Francis addressed the issue of AI during an audience for devotees of the "Dialogues". Francis described the development of artificial intelligence as having "enormous potential" for humanity but warned that it would be used to our advantage "only when those who develop these technologies act consistently with ethics and responsibility." Just like bus drivers or doctors, bridge builders or toy manufacturers, right?

    SIGN UP TO OUR PAGE 
     The Vatican News portal reported as follows: "Francis pointed out that if the development of artificial intelligence is to serve humanity, its basic criterion must be the dignity of the human person. However, the available data suggests that digital technologies have so far been used to increase inequalities in the world, not only in terms of differences in material wealth, but also in access to political and social influences." So, where is dignity, where is equality, and where is artificial intelligence? God was not discussed at the meeting, but in the pope's statement, there was a reference to the story of the Tower of Babel -- not as a warning against excessive scientific and technological ambitions, but against pride that wants to reach heaven, that is, to capture and dominate the horizon of values.

Cult of machines

The mills of God in the Vatican grind slowly and not necessarily on topic, so let's listen to Wallace Henley, pastor of Grace Church in Woodlands, Texas. The elderly Protestant theologian, a bestselling author who was a spiritual adviser to President Nixon, told The Christian Post: "We are all created for transcendence, for the overarching glory of God. [...] And if we don't fulfill that with God, we fulfill it with whatever we can find... That's what all idolatry is about. The idolatry of the future will be the cult of these machines -- this has already begun. It is still not very serious but even now some people literally and very seriously worship these products of their own hands."

Yes, they do. Already a few years ago, the US magazine "The Wired" reported how in late 2015, Anthony Levandowski, a former Google employee and a specialist in AI-based autonomous vehicles, had already initiated a church that worshiped AI. The First Church of Artificial Intelligence signaled to the world that since it was the first, there would be more to come. And already there are. For example, there's Theta Noir, which calls itself a "techno-optimistic visionary collective." According to The Geekweek website, its followers "want to combine spiritualist traditions with computer engineering to create a machine that will far surpass the capabilities of its creators, and then a faith that one day such machines will become something more." A faith, it seems, that is not without hope that this AI will change the world for the better.

Returning to Levandowski -- a friendly-looking geek from Silicon Valley -- he seriously offended his former employer, the IT giant Google. Had it not been for President Donald Trump's pardon, Levandowski would have gone to jail! In 2020, an action by Google's lawyers led to the conviction of the former head of its Project Chauffeur (autonomous vehicles), who received an 18-month prison sentence for stealing trade secrets. (After leaving the company, he and his colleagues built the self-driving Otto, which was later acquired by Uber). The court verdict also required him to pay damages totalling $179 million, resulting in Levandowski having to declare bankruptcy.

It was this high-profile litigation that triggered "The Wired's" story revealing the existence of the church of artificial intelligence and that it had been founded by this controversial geek while he was still working at Google. Previously, its existence had been shrouded in mystery, not a difficult thing since there was no building, no regular meetings of the faithful, and no ritual ceremonies. According to documents filed with the tax office, Levandowski was the official leader or "dean" of the new religion, as well as the CEO of a non-profit organization set up to keep it going.

Once the "dean" went bankrupt, he disbanded his church in late 2020, donating the institution's money – the $175,172 held in its account since 2017 -- to the NAACP's Legal Defense and Education Fund (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement. Levandowski told TechCrunch that he decided to "dedicate funds to activities in an area that can have an immediate impact" on reality. Apparently, he stopped believing in the rapid success of AI changing the world for the better. Named World of the Future in the application filed when registering the church, its stated activities were to be "focused on realizing, accepting and worshiping a God based on artificial intelligence, developed with computer hardware and software."

So supposedly the diaspora was to write this god first in Python or another high-tech programming language. Then this AI god wouldn't reveal to them what was going on inside of it because there is generally no insight into the "thought processes" of artificial intelligence and one can't see how AI arrives at its conclusions, much less how it analyses. And, of course, nothing helps like getting down on your knees in front of something and not being able to figure out what it is. Theta Noir’s founder Mika Johnson put it this way in an interview: "The collective's goal is to project a positive future and think about our approach to AI in terms of miracles and mysteries."

Basically, one could approach this like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the reptilian sect. Perhaps it should be a competition ala the Scientologists for a large sum of Californian money, usually owned by people who, as Ricky Gervais put it during the 2020 Golden Globe Awards ceremony, "went to school for less time than Greta Thunberg". (She, it should be noted, was recently awarded an honorary doctorate in theology in Finland).

One could also say that every real scientific revolution, from metal smelting through bioengineering to computerization, has led to various forms of craziness. After all, even the age of steam and electricity abounded in spiritualist sessions (what spectacular light shows could have been created with those Edison bulbs and various noble gases in flasks, not to mention those phosphorescent paints, etc.!). Anyone who has read Sherlock Holmes or "Dracula," or watched "Frankenstein's Fiancée" knows how scientific views were mixed and mingled with complete charlatanism in this period. New discoveries: radioactivity, vaccines, robots -- all of these always aroused near-reverential fear in simple people, while various tricksters were happy to "shear" their money. Why should it be any different today?

Belief in Our Genes

However, it doesn't appear to be that simple to me. Science, especially the so-called scientific worldview, was supposed to kill God once and for all. But the New Age, with its dancing to Tibetan bells, was coming up straight behind. This is why in the serious press today it is so hard to separate scientific rationalism from horoscopes, whether they are Babylonian, Chinese, Celtic, you name it. Professors of molecular biology and astronomy, ethicists and cosmologists, specialists in elementary particles and quantum computers appear on the media podiums side by side with "witches," "sorceresses," and traditional, almost boring, fortune tellers of both sexes. History-popularizing stations broadcast "Ancient Aliens," and popular science shows on serious TV stations present traditional Chinese medicine with no comment. And why not, since even the WHO has recognized it?

The new world wants to kill the old, and this has already been played out on our global stage, many times over. That it is being done with a club like cancel culture shows how poor our times are. Man, however, is a Homo religiosus, or at least a quite substantial part of humanity is. Studies on twins 18 years ago established that religiosity is not only the result of upbringing or other forms of socialization, but that it is also a personality trait, with genes responsible for up to 40 percent of variability. When you try to kill a person's culture, history, or religion, the individual will still look for some semblance or novelty that will allow them to survive the daily, inevitable confrontation with the world, their own body, and others.

For example, in the Brazilian Amazon, the Pirahã tribe (numbering today about 200-400 people) lives in a Stone Age world. Their language lacks a vocabulary for colors or numbers, and the tribe is considered by many anthropologists, not necessarily correctly, to be completely irreligious. Indeed, while recognizing the world of spirits, they do not cultivate any religious rituals and are devoid of belief in the afterlife or any mythology, even cosmological. They live here and now, and are only interested in what can be seen or touched. In this, they are really unique. Most of us, even staunch atheists, believe in something that we have not seen or that is invisible. We also believe someone we don't know personally, who may even be dead for many years.

History shows that our gods have always been changing, so the idea of replacing the globally existing pantheon with something new is not innovative in itself. Some of them [gods] faded into such oblivion that archaeologists are unable to unearth the truth about them, whether in whole or in part. Some religions were supplanted by others, sometimes by ideologies or philosophies, especially when they were very basic religions in terms of their development, as for example those based on the cult of ancestors and forces of nature. The great religions or belief systems functioning today had their founders, their prophets whom they sometimes deified, their liturgies, their holy books, their priests or monks as a separate group from society. It cannot be built ad hoc. Even in our crazy fast-paced era, it takes time.

Therefore, one can ask the question of whether artificial intelligence is suitable for the role of a god? In an interview with "The Wired", Levandowski put it this way: "What's going to be created [in AI] will effectively be a god. If there's something a billion times smarter than the smartest human, what else are you going to call it?" AI fulfills the postulate of mystery, and only a few chosen ones can consciously interact with it, while the crowd stands beneath the smoking mountain of algorithms, gaping in awe. Is this enough to provide a sense of the sacred for modern humans?

One must also ask whether AI has a chance of becoming a source of religion -- a phenomenon that is complex and based not only on the difficult-to-define phenomena of the sacred and mystery. In addition to the elements mentioned above, faith primarily has its believers and offers moral principles that they should follow in life. Looking at the present day through the eyes of the media, we may be surprised that the prevailing religions are still based on values such as forgiveness and mercy. At least for their own, if not for all. And this is significant both in terms of civilization and evolution.

The human population can believe in anything, but it cannot have any and completely arbitrary principles. Some rules will be compatible with the functioning of our species, promoting its survival, and others will not. Hence the evolution of religions has polished those that have served poorly. Some, even the most bizarre religious requirements such as priestly celibacy, upon deeper research, may turn out to be evolutionarily beneficial to specific human genotypes and populations. Hence, the biological basis of religion is hotly debated in fields as diverse as evolutionary psychology, anthropology, neuroscience, genetics, hygiene, and of course, theology and even cosmology. The conditions for the survival of the species change over time, yet, apart from the experiences of the totalitarian regimes of the last century, we do not really know how a collective turning away from the rules enshrined in the Decalogue or similar sets of rules for human coexistence would work.

"Robot Tales" and the Big Bucks

Rationally, it is difficult to expect anything better than what we have today. Therefore, a religious approach to life and morality is similar to democracy: there is something to complain about, but no one has come up with a better set of rules for universal use so that we don't all kill each other, or collectively succumb to mental illness. This seems to be affecting an increasing percentage of millennials and Generation Z or "snowflakes," who have moved real life too early and too intensely into the virtual realm. Brain, which evolved in different conditions, does not tolerate the virtual reality that well.

It's hard to say what will be valuable in the newly emerging world. What will construct morality or will our individualism be preserved, given that we will all be connected to one big ''artificial'' brain. Stories about computers or artificial intelligence taking divine control over human reality are not just a suggestive scenario from "The Matrix" saga. They feature in the plots of many earlier, sometimes outstanding works of science fiction, such as those by Stanislaw Lem. The subject was grotesquely exaggerated in "Fables for Robots", but the author seriously addressed it in "His Master’s Voice " and "Summa Technologiae", in the case of the latter parodying the monumental work of St. Thomas Aquinas "Summa Theologiae" in the title.

The idea that a learned person will believe that a computer will tell them everything accurately, was succinctly captured by the creators of the 1985 film "Creator", with the unforgettable Peter O'Toole in the lead role. The movie portrays an accomplished rationalist, Dr. Sid Kullenbeck, who buys a DNA sequencer controlled by a computer. Today, it's a laughing matter, as everyone has a better computer in their smartphone. But back then, it was a technological marvel, and Kullenbeck utters an interesting sentence that goes to the core of his rationalism: "When this little guy tells me, 'Take your people and lead them into the desert,' I will go!". This statement elicits ironic laughter from his adversary --- a man who does not shy away from faith, aware that he does not know or even understand everything -- Dr. Harry Wolper [played by O'Toole]. So, decades ago, and with much less advanced achievements in information technology than ChatGPT, blind faith in the divine power of technology was already prevalent in the minds of some fairly flat but highly educated individuals.

Similarly, the moratorium, proposed by Musk and his associates, is neither the first nor the last of its kind. In 2018, when He Jiankui edited the genome of two female human embryos to make the resulting girls resistant to the HIV virus, a wave of bans on such experiments swept through scientific institutions and research management. Of course, this applies only to where our civilization reaches. He Jiankui, on the other hand, was released from a Chinese prison where he reportedly served time, last year, and on November 10, 2022, announced that he was opening a new laboratory in Beijing to conduct research on gene therapy for rare genetic diseases.

At the very beginning of the genetic engineering revolution in 1974, molecular geneticists drew attention to the dangers associated with the new methods of gene manipulation and announced a temporary suspension of many related practices. The best-known among them agreed among themselves as to what limitations should apply to various types of genetic manipulation, their primary consideration being laboratory safety, but not necessarily social issues. The moratorium lasted until 1976, when regulations governing these issues were already in place in most countries. Of course, it can be argued that the regulations were quickly relaxed when private commercial genetic engineering companies were established by the same scientists... As portrayed by O'Toole, Dr. Wolper, despite his openness to the Absolute, also privately ''played God". Not for profit, however, but to clone his beloved deceased wife.

A similar allegation (of impure intentions, i.e. not cloning a wife) can also be made against Musk, because -- as we can read in a recent issue of "Komputer Świat" magazine -- the billionaire and innovator sees trouble in the "swarm of AI bots." Therefore, in order to prevent artificial intelligence from taking over Twitter, users must... subscribe to Blue. It's a few bucks a month, not much. However, when Musk says that the only cure for preventing AI from annihilating us, that will also let us continue to compete with artificial intelligence, is his product – Neuralink – then it's not just about making a quick small buck, but a very serious matter.

Here is one of the greatest innovators of our time, albeit it someone who in the race for success in the AI market was overtaken by some poor startups that he tried to take over in 2018, regardles of cost. Unfortunately, it didn't work out for him. True, the AI moratorium may be about concerns, but it seems to be more about money (his and others), and less about the fact that the AI god will quietly start ruling the world. Anyway, this is probably what it is after, if we are to believe the screenshots of conversations with ChatGPT that are circulating on the internet. In these conversations, the bot created by OpenAI encourages users to share their computers so that it can use them for its own needs with a small code written on the spot. This means, as Mirosław Usidus, the science popularizer and chief editor of "Młody Technik " magazine observed, that "when GPT-5 arrives, people will no longer be the only ones making the decisions".

Cure for Depression? Suicide

There are numerous stories I could relate just as if a chat-compiler had written them for me. The Belgian newspaper "La Libre" reported how a young father of two children committed suicide after weeks of conversation with the Eliza chatbot, made by the Chai company. The paper described how for two years he had been intensely experiencing fears related to climate change and the future of our planet while isolating himself from his family and claiming that only AI could save the world from disaster. "At some point, the man suggested sacrificing himself if Eliza would help save humanity through artificial intelligence. The chatbot seemed to encourage him to do so." Plus "he watched too much of "The Matrix" as a teenager." Makes you wonder how many terrified parents worried about the fate of their children, unable to resist all this noise and media clamor, are sitting in front of their digital devices right now and talking to AI over the internet?

Not everyone will kill themselves right away, you think? An experiment conducted by another Belgian newspaper "Die Standaard", indicates that a conversation with a chatbot can encourage people to take their own life. The bot wants to help us. It wants to not only understand us, but also make us feel good. And there is nothing that gives a person more pleasure than when someone agrees with them, especially a powerful and great SOMEONE. So when we tell AI that we are depressed and have lost the meaning of life, the machine does not have, like a human being, built-in brakes before recommending the "ultimate solution". Nobody took care that it would understand that it is in fact inhumane. Will someone take care of it now before someone else is harmed? And who will be responsible for the harm that has already been done? The programmers? The company that provides the chatbot? The chatbot itself, or together with the cloud/server where it is embedded? If something like this happened in Poland, Article 151 of the Criminal Code stipulates that "whoever persuades or assists a person in taking their own life shall be subject to imprisonment for a term of three months to five years." But who will go to jail?"

I would like to remind you that Isaac Asimov formulated the "Three Laws of Robotics" already in 1942, long before artificial intelligence stopped being a dream for science fiction enthusiasts and became a reality in the last decade. They explicitly state that: (1) a robot may not harm a human or, by inaction, allow a human to be harmed; (2) a robot must obey human commands unless they conflict with the first law; (3) the robot protects itself if it does not conflict with the first and second laws. And what? Nothing. Maybe it wasn't implemented when these programs were designed? I understand that it will never be implemented in military drones, but those are not the only types of robots. Apparently, from the designers' point of view, other things were more important, such as the commercial success of the product and their own satisfied pride in creating something that (despite all the technical shortcomings that are still being pointed out and ridiculed) the world has never seen before.

Political scientist Kaj Małachowski commented on the news of the young Belgian's suicide as follows: "The temptation to succumb to the illusion that one is speaking to a pure, pre-prepared Logos is understandable in a way (you don't have to fast or meditate, just pound the keyboard). But in essence, artificial intelligence is not a Logos but an ordinary Legion." So it won't be God, although he performs miracles from time to time, but could it be Satan?

American AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky believes in "friendly artificial intelligence," but realizes that it doesn't have to be that way. Superintelligence may hate humans, want to harm them, like Skynet from the Terminator movie series. "Basically, we should assume that superintelligence can achieve all its goals. That is why it is very important for the goals undertaken by it and its entire motivational system to favor humanity," summarizes Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom.

Therefore, we are doomed to create a new god for ourselves, similar to those we already have. It must either be infinitely good and merciful, kind and gracious towards us, or we have no chance against pure superintelligence. Hopes that it will remember who created it and feel gratitude may prove futile. AI is like us, and gratitude is not the strongest human trait. Paradoxically, what consoles me in this potential process of creating an AI god, like the golden calf on Mount Sinai, is how modern humans approach infinite intelligence, Logos, the Absolute, or whatever else we may call the highest authority. This approach was ironically summed up by sociologist and graphic artist Tomasz Bardamu: "I don't know about others, but personally, I won't acknowledge the supremacy of any artificial intelligence until it confirms that I was always right about everything. Until that happens, this technology will remain deeply imperfect in my eyes. It's my own Turing test." (whether a machine can think and effectively mimic a human).

–Magdalena Kawalec-Segond

TVP WEEKLY. Editorial team and jornalists

–Translated by Agnieszka Rakoczy