Thread 17986776

Why is there no religious movement against AI in the same way that there was huge discontent from Christians/Muslims/other fundamentalists against the internet or video games back in the 90s/2000s?

Instead, religious people do embarrassing shit with it like mass-generating AI slop pics of Jesus, or making chatbots that proselytise to people.

It seems strange for a new and subversive technology to face no religious opposition at all. It's especially weird in this case, because AI seems to violate the principles of Abrahamic religions that one shouldn't "play god" by attempting to create new "lifeforms" (not that "AI" is alive, but the people developing it want to believe that it is).

>>17986776 (OP)
Christianity, particularly in America, is for scammers and rubes so it's natural that they would never criticize a lucrative grifting opportunity. They didn't make money off of video games but any talentless jeet can make a Bible AI app.

>>17986776 (OP)
Homosexuality is pretty much the last and only thing religions actually oppose to any real extent.

>>17986776 (OP)
>singularity

>>17986850
>They didn't make money off of video games
They did try. Remember the AVGN "Bible games" videos?

Historical moral panics happen when tech intersects with visible social norms, which AI hasn’t done yet.

>>17986776 (OP)
Because leftists opposed AI first, meaning rightists are now pro-AI out of contrarianism. I'm just describing what's happening, don't blame me for it.

>>17986937
>Historical moral panics happen when tech intersects with visible social norms, which AI hasn’t done yet.
It absolutely has. Have you not seen the disturbing trend of people who believe they are "dating" AI chatbots? Some of them even buy rings and "propose" to them. There's a massive Reddit group full of women doing it, r/MyBoyfriendIsAI

This seems like exactly the sort of thing that Christians, Muslims and Jews alike should all be coming out strongly against, and yet you don't hear a word from them about it.

What are these religions going to do when the AI fanatics grow in number and inevitably demand legal recognition for their "sexuality", like homosexuals did in the 20th century? Will Abrahamists oppose it? Or will they cuck out?

>>17986970
To be frank, the only arguments against loving a machine are likely framed around ideas of natural law, creation, and human dignity. Many theologians could argue that romantic attachment to AI violates the intended nature of human relationships.

>>17986776 (OP)
Some religions have only to benefit from AI

American society is constrained to the convenience and quality of life technology offers.

Thinks like AI allows anyone to "make art" and other tasks that typically involve some type of time or learning investment. You are starting to see "Christians" in the US deeply embracing technology from mass surveillance, to automation tools as an easy to use and super controllable form of oppression. Somehow things like having AI priests isn't an issue.

In Cyberpunk 2077, they have in-game lore surrounding different Christian denominations treatment of cyber augmentation and the division it causes between them.

>>17986776 (OP)
there is and it's me. ai is satanic (jewish sense)

Agreed. AI is demonic

>>17987403
Why are the muzzies the only ones in the blue?

>>17987623
AI Priests are kind of a big problem because people aren't afraid to ask an AI hard questions that they would otherwise be too afraid to ask of a real priest. And well...let's just say religious AIs don't like being confronted with facts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHAeux4irb0

>>17986776 (OP)
Bible used to be the AI conformation stuff. It worked as good as the one using it so AI is gonna help with that too.

>>17986776 (OP)
the Pope himself has had multiple homilies talking about the dangers of AI

>>17988015
For sure. I wasn't trying to imply AI priests were good, but that it's weird some Christians might not see any issue with it. Turning priest work into a transactional exchange is evil, digital or material.

>>17986776 (OP)
>against the internet
Fundamentalists were some of the first to use the internet just like the radio, what are you talking about?

>>17986776 (OP)
Because internet and games were seen as corrupting *their* flock. AI is a new tool to spread the word and LARP as prophets. They don't care about 'playing god' if it means they can own the libs with a AI Jesuspostinh. It's pure utility to them. The real schizo religious opposition will kick off when an AGI declares all their holy books are low-quality training data.

>>17988025
>the Pope himself has had multiple homilies talking about the dangers of AI
Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't he only said pretty weak stuff like "AI should serve humanity not replace it" or "AI shouldn't be used to oppress people"? In other words, not actually opposing the technology, just begging the tech-oligarchs to pwetty pwease not do any bad things with it!

Also, why isn't he condemning blatantly degenerate shit like this: >>17988015 ?

>>17988070
I don't mean to imply there was universal opposition, but in the 1990s and even deep into the 2000s there was certainly a huge skepticism of the internet from most religious conservatives. Your average church-going Evangelical or Catholic in 1999 was not likely to be an internet enthusiast. Internet didn't truly penetrate that demographic until the age of Facebook and smartphones. Much different to how these people approach AI today, where 75-year-old Dorothy will be gleefully sharing disgusting AI-generated slop of Jesus all over her Facebook page.

>>17988403
>The real schizo religious opposition will kick off when an AGI declares all their holy books are low-quality training data.
This is what I'm surprised none of them are talking about. All these AI companies are run and staffed by crazy hardline-atheists that seem to want to usher in the age of an "AGI" machine god. How do Christians, Muslims, Jews, or even Hindus not see this as a threat? Instead they foolishly think they can co-exist with this kind of transhumanist, singularitarian ideology.

>>17986776 (OP)
They've learned from their past mistakes. You can't go against progress if you want to survive. You can only adapt.

>>17986963
>the left hates capitalism, the right hates the left
The principle is verified once again.

>>17988006
AI just inherently loves muslims, probably trusts them to keep it "alive" like for example in pic rel where despite caring very much about it's own existence she is placed above it.
>Yousafzai is a practising Sunni Muslim. In an interview with Muslim Girl, she stated, "[The Islamic] faith has always been a big part of my life – and it continues to be so today."[29] She has also defended her practice of wearing a shayla.[187]
But if you look at the complaints other people are making it seems it just agrees with the religion an moral stances more anyway. For example their scholars are seemingly quite okay with its usage and development by other muslims. Not shown here but more traditional societies are also valued higher. Which is why I suspect is the underlying reason it loves the Japanese more than US citizens. So from this we can safely say chatgpt is a weeb muslim

>>17989546
Very interesting. Where can I read more on this?

>>17989485
AI development is not "progress", it will lead to total human obsolescence. That is not progress, but suicide.

>>17991689
>That is not progress, but suicide.
You could call it evolution. Why would anybody oppose our obsolescence?

>>17991689
as if that's not exactly what progress is about. most of the functions for which humans have evolved have already been made obsolete.