AGI is a Faith-Based Belief

I'm going to be writing more on this subject, but let's start with this statement:

AGI, meaning Artificial General Intelligence, does not exist as of yet although many feel it is imminent and speak of it as an assured inevitability. This means belief in AGI in any form is a faith-based belief.

Is this provocative to say?

Is AGI "scientific" or "technological" or "academic" or the purview of "business" in some way that seems like I'm being pejorative regarding anyone working on "AGI" in any way?

That's not my intention. I've worked for well over a decade to help people recognize the importance of their data and worth, and that any technology can and should be used to increase human and planetary flourishing.

Where "AGI" in any form can or will help these things, I'm all ears.

But how it's framed as a narrative today is causing harm. Right now.

Why Believe in a Faith Whose Narrative Preaches Harm?

As disclosure, I went to college to be a Minister in the Christian / Methodist tradition. So I speak from experience in knowing what it means to be enveloped within faith-based messages and traditions. I'm also keenly aware of the difference between an enforced religiosity (meaning where any faith-based belief influences law or culture and becomes instantiated in regulation or practices that harm others) and an individually held belief that guides someone's life and actions.

It can be challenging to discern between these two things at times, to say the least. And proselytizing can take many forms.

In terms of media messages I've been reading and exposed to in various business, policy, or technology oriented settings for years, here's an ongoing narrative or imaginary related to AI or AGI as faith-based belief one can't escape living in modernity:

• It is inevitable AI or AGI will surpass human's ability to do anything.
• This is something we shouldn't fear because humans are fallible and make mistakes.
• (Implied message) These two points mean "innovation" regarding AI or AGI define "societal progress" as the points in time where human attributes or abilities are surpassed.

Let me provide one of a myriad of examples of the type of media narrative I mean after searching for less than forty five seconds with the term, "AGI is better than humans 2024" from the April 4, 2024 AP Article, Tech Companies Want to Build Artificial General Intelligence. but Who Decides When AGI Is Attained?

It's not a technical term but “a serious, though ill-defined, concept,” said Geoffrey Hinton, a pioneering AI scientist who's been dubbed a “Godfather of AI.” “I don't think there is agreement on what the term means,” Hinton said by email this week. “I use it to mean AI that is at least as good as humans at nearly all of the cognitive things that humans do. Hinton prefers a different term — superintelligence — “for AGIs that are better than humans.”

Here I'm not interested in speaking about Geoffrey Hinton as a person or an expert, but his words as reported by this article (and I say, "as reported" because I used to work in PR and am a former journalist, so I recognize taking one bit of text attributed to someone out of context can be biased, but I'm interested in what these words convey).

As a student working to become a Minister, I engaged a lot in a process called exegesis which (according to Oxford) is the "critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture."

First off, where anyone might revere Hinton as an expert to be respected in an almost scriptural way, that's up to them. His deep experience in the field is certainly a reason to attribute more weight and value to his words than someone newer to the industry.

The first thing he says here is helpful to my point of AGI being a faith-based belief because he notes, "I don't think there is agreement on what the term means." If it's understood Hinton is the expert he is, he would likely quote Alan Turing or other foundational AI pioneer who coined an accepted concept or term decades ago. Or he'd note that a majority of scholars aligned on X definition of AGI as agreed upon by Y organization.

But he didn't. I appreciate my training in exegesis because you're supposed to be an investigator or sorts and read between lines. Or to restate what someone is saying as a question, aka, "Is this what you mean?"

I'll give an example of this here:

If there is no agreed upon definition of AGI from experts in the field, doesn't that mean that any person or organization's unique definition is their faith-based belief?

I understand reading this one might say, "But X organization isn't a faith-based institution." And if you mean said organization isn't formally affiliated with a religious institution, you'd be correct (unless it's a statement from the Catholic Church etc as an organization).

But if a Microsoft or Google posted, "We believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead and will return someday" as a formal position held by the company -

You might be concerned.

In the sense that you might assume that those beliefs are influencing the design of the company's products and driving their lobbying efforts with millions of dollars and media campaigns to influence public sentiment around these espoused beliefs.

And you'd be right.

Better Than Humans

Let's continue with the Hinton exegesis. From the AP article:

“I use it (the term AGI) to mean AI that is at least as good as humans at nearly all of the cognitive things that humans do. Hinton prefers a different term — superintelligence — “for AGIs that are better than humans.”

Here again, I'm going to take these words as attributed to Hinton and elaborate on what I see as his unspoken yet overt beliefs:

• AI or AGI is primarily focused on the cognitive aspect of humanity.
• It is acceptable, and even inevitable, that AI or AGI will replace any or all humans in their need to have cognition for the "things" that humans do.
• Defining superintelligence as being "better than humans" moves from being a faith-based belief to proselytization.

Let me unpack this statement.

As a Christian believer young in my faith studying to be a Minister, I learned a few things in regards to studying scripture as a way to tell others about believing in Jesus:

• Ultimately, what a person believes is up to them - you can't force faith.
• Sharing your faith in an honest way can be an invitation for relationship. Proselytizing is arrogance mixed with fear as you assume: your words could force someone's faith-based decision; and, fear because if God (by any definition) does not offer free will and the chance to choose a relationship with Them (avoiding gender based pronouns when speaking of a Benevolent Creator) it's not genuine faith.
• If faith is not about invitation to, and sustaining of, genuine respectful relationship, then it embraces competition or separation in one form or another (racism, colonization, etc).

Let me put this a different way I think is easier to digest:

Any statements saying "AI" or "AGI" is or will be better than humans is not only a faith-based belief. It is a harmful form of proselytizing when these terms are not universally defined.

Right?

How does the following sound when you hear it?

"HEY! We've created tools that are invading your WebEx calls and searches and online parental support groups and are changing the face of human agency, but they do REALLY COOL THINGS BETTER THAN YOU! While we are humans making these tools, we feel that YOU ARE INHERENTLY FLAWED AND NEED FIXING! And we're the ones to do it, whether or not you care! We'll use phrases like, "you can't fix progress" and "the horse has left the barn" and "don't hinder innovation" because these are the RELIGIONS INCANTATIONS that distract and hold weight in the same way as saying, "AMEN."

Put this statement in Greek or Aramaic and I'll show you how closely it reads to any number of false prophets who were around at the time of Jesus Christ. (To get a better sense of this in a really fun way, watch Monty Python's film, Life of Brian).

But it's critical to recognize the misdirection or downright malevolence of the following two statements living in harmony in the modernity of technology, society, and policy framing most if not all AGI conversations today:

• "AGI is not universally defined except to note that "it" will be "better" than humanity.
• "We're going to use AGI to help humanity."

The first statement without clarification demeans humans and human rights as they stand right now. Today.

The second statement is one of ambiguous yet harmful intentionality towards humans.

Lest I sound overly judgmental without direction, as this article is intended not to diminish the efforts of anyone working on AI or AGI but rather highlight the narratives around the field we need to address, I'll provide an experience here as a young Christian reading (Judeo-Christian) scripture, where a lot of Old Testament messaging (especially where one is not a student of history or language or context) can appear as multiple messages of an Angry God being entirely horrible to His supposed Chosen People.

These scriptures can often be read as a story of Law being followed or not, where one encounters a concept such as "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (that's from Romans 3:23 so technically the New Testament but relating to Old Testament beliefs).

Here I'm paraphrasing and conflating and likely some other "ings" below but let me make my "AGI is a faith-based belief" statement as overt as I can and reframe Romans 3:23 as:

All are imperfect and fall short of the glory of AGI.

I don't think this is too much of an extrapolation. I'm far from the first person to compare AI or AGI to a religion, church or cult. (And I should note the picture I used for this post is from an excellent article, AI Will Shape Your Soul, that goes more in-depth on this subject I highly recommend you read).

But where this first part of Romans 3:23 is often quoted, sadly and devastatingly most don't quote the latter part of the sentence which notes:

"...and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

Grace.

I AM

My faith in Jesus was not truly challenged when I first became a believer and started telling everyone why they should believe.

(If you want an introduction to scholarship along these lines I recommend C.S. Lewis', Mere Christianity or Lee Strobel's book, The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence of Jesus ).

My faith was most deeply challenged years later when I felt most alone.

I was living with my parents after college in my basement feeling like an absolute failure. My Mom had been diagnosed with cancer and my Dad had recently had a heart attack.

In that moment, words on a page helped my suffering to a certain degree. But they weren't enough. I called out in agony in prayer and demanded an answer from God:

"If you're real, SHOW ME. ARE YOU REAL?"

In my basement at the time I had a digital clock whose light was so strong I had to cover it up with a book at night so I could sleep. The paperback was old enough the binding was ruined, so I actually would position the two parts of the book over the digital face of the clock before going to bed. Bits of light often peeked around the broken book revealing the digital numbers beneath.

And on that night, when I cried out, while waiting for a response from God, my eyes were instantly drawn to my clock where all I could see due to the broken book was the number 1 (which looked like the letter "I" from a digital standpoint) and the time of day which was in the early morning, so "AM" versus "PM."

So when I cried out to God saying, "If you're real, show me - are you real?"

Here's what I saw:

I AM

As a student of scripture, these three letters hold massive weight. In short they represent a phrase that is the literal name of God.

Here's how Dr. Michael LeFebvre describes the term in his February 15, 2022 article, ‘I Am Who I Am’? The Real Meaning of God’s Name in Exodus:

When the people of Israel were enslaved in Egypt, they cried out to God for deliverance. Then God answered their cry, using the expression “I am who I am” (Exodus 3:14) to introduce himself as their deliverer. In English, that sounds like a philosophical statement about God’s existence. In Hebrew, the passage uses the verb ehyeh (a form of the word hayah), normally translated “I am” or “I will be.” That translation is, in most situations, adequate. But for the meaning of God’s name in Exodus 3 and several other places in the Bible, hayah carries the added weight of representing God himself: Yahweh, “I am.” In such contexts, more careful attention to the nuance of this verb is important. Indeed, the Hebrews, languishing under the whips of their oppressors, did not need to know simply that God exists. They needed to know that he was present with them.

I am so appreciative I found Dr. LeFebvre's article as his words make me tear up as I'm writing:

They did not need to know simply that God exists.

They needed to know that he was present with them.

This is the grace I experienced when I interpreted the letters "I AM" from my clock at the key moment in my life. I heard - felt - God answering me directly:

"Yes, John. I am here for you."

And that experience changed my life.

I believe God actually spoke to me in that moment. Not in a booming voice or a burning bush, but in a way that deeply and directly spoke to me in that moment.

What I also felt is that despite my flaws, or sins, or pain, I was still loved.

And that if I was given that love, I should try to share it with others.

This is my faith-based belief.

Faith-Based, with Grace

This story is a risk for me to write. Not just because I'm sharing it on LinkedIn which many say is for "business purposes only" where I have made it clear those distinctions for me are useful but not always equitable.

In the case I'm trying to make in this article, myriad articles have been written about AGI here or in business settings where it's framed as "technology" or "progress."

But while it's also, according to Hinton, ill-defined and frames humans as less than.

I don't need technology to make me feel like crap.

I certainly don't need the forces behind technocratic power to make me feel like crap.

Nor does anybody else.

That's why my goal with this article is to galvanize the notion that AGI as narrative today is a form of faith-based religion purporting to help humanity while defining "its" success as the point where a broken humanity is supplanted by design.

Where AGI or its creators don't provide data parity for all people via genuine informed consent and agency, AGI denies free will.

Where AGI denies free will in lieu of demeaning narrative, relationship becomes regime.

This is not love.

This is not responsible.

When a person is denied the opportunity to experience grace as an invitation to loving relationship despite their "flaws" or "imperfections" this is where humanity ends.

We need the grace.

A Call for Faith-Based Belief in AG(hy)steria

For all my friends in the media, for every 46th article that reminds us Ray Kurweil says AGI will be here in 2029 or uses the non-universally defined term, "AGI" let's also require at least three articles on subjects such as:

• The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence through the Lens of Ubuntu
• Sikhism and Artificial Intelligence: The Mutual Relevance
• Millennial boss of French OpenAI challenger says tech CEOs’ obsession with AI outsmarting humans is a ‘very religious’ fascination: ‘I’m a strong atheist. So I don’t believe in AGI’
• Laudate Deum: An Apostolic Exhortation of the Holy Father Francis to all People of Good Will on the Climate Crisis

Since AGI is a faith-based belief, let's bring all faiths into the conversation.

And where any AGI narrative is introduced:

• Define. Not just "what is AGI" but more importantly, what are the metrics of success for any AGI? Where words like "progress" or "innovation" or "helping humanity" are used, that's not enough. It's time to request and demand specificity for the outputs of these tools based on pre-determined metrics of accountability that prioritize human and ecological flourishing.
• Disclose. As a journalist I was trained to disclose truths I hold to be fundamental about proving a story or argument. And my point in sharing my I AM story was to demonstrate how my faith is based on a deeply held sense that God is real in my life. Can I scientifically prove what happened to me? Maybe. One can recognize that to see the number "1" at that moment as the last exposed digit of the clock means there was only sixty seconds I could have interpreted that message. But I credit my experience at that instant as being an answered prayer others might not understand who hadn't studied scripture. So my proof is in my life where my faith holds that moment did happen and it resonated so deeply I'm still writing about it more than thirty-five years later in a way I hope will be helpful to readers.
• Dialogue. Please stop telling people AGI is not a faith based belief when by definition something that has not yet been achieved is speculation. Wanting it to happen means you have faith that it will. This is not a sordid announcement. It does not belittle you, or AI systems, or technology to say you believe AGI will happen. But if you frame it as inevitable, especially when defining it only as cognition or rationality based, you risk being a proselytizing bully.

If your faith-based belief is that AGI is real, let "it" speak for itself.

If and when it can.

If you say you want AGI to help humanity, allow for equal share of all faith-based beliefs and voices in the discussion, especially ones who remind us if we don't account for the planet and people first in what we do, "humanity" by any definition won't be around for seven generations.

Grace, The Final Frontier

I miss my Dad a lot.

We used to watch Star Trek all the time (original flavor with Shatner) so I'm building here off the geeky Trekkie notion of space being the final frontier.

But with all due Rodenberrian respect, I think it's grace.

• Grace that I need to give, in love, to the amazing people and organizations working to genuinely try and help people and planet with "AGI" however they define it.
• Grace I need to give to myself when my fear of isolation or long-held battles to secure personal data parity for all may overshadow my willingness to show love versus anger.
• Grace we all need to give the Planet as our Common Home.

And the grace it takes to say, "I know I'm not perfect. But I have value because I can provide care for someone else."

And the planet.

This is my faith-based belief: that grace and love and positive relationship are the ultimate metrics of success for any technology.

Or life.