A few years ago, “tensegrity tables” became a brief but fascinating fad on YouTube. Tensegrity is a combination of “tension” and “integrity” and refers to structures where parts are held together by a careful balance of continuous strain mediated through ropes and cables. The resulting objects are almost eerie, with surfaces that appear to be floating against gravity.
When I first saw one of these tables, I thought it was a useful metaphor for the Christian life. The Christian walk often involves carefully balancing seemingly tense attitudes. We must be meek and yet courageous. Just and merciful. Patient but enthusiastic. Wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove.
If I had to fault Catholic Answers for the recent uproar surrounding the release of its apologetic AI chatbot, it would be that its dove-like innocence overcame its snake-like cunning. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20. But the chaos that followed the online imprisonment of “Father Justin” might have been expected. The Catholic world experienced its own “Tay AI” moment. This is reminiscent of when his Microsoft released an early version of its own machine learning bot on Twitter in 2016. Within a day, the case was destroyed and the persona of a teenage neo-Nazi was meekly adopted. ) To quote (reluctantly) Taylor Swift, “This is why we can't have great things.”
While I may share some criticisms of Catholic Answers' naivety with others, I have found myself with little sympathy for the majority of reviews I have read. On the contrary, from what I've read, the general conversation around what we should now simply call “Justin” was something of a master class in argumentative fallacy. Of course, Catholic commentators have always made a fuss about red herrings, but that comes to mind every time Pope Francis speaks publicly. But it's especially breathtaking how, before the digital paint on the pastoral backdrop was even dry, news outlets across the Catholic media world lined up to expose this poor fictional priest. There was something like that.
The metaphor chosen is not just a fancy phrase. This is an important point and a reminder of a fact that many critics seem to have forgotten. In other words, “artificial intelligence” is far more artificial than intelligence. This is most clearly seen in people whose main objections seem to stem from the bot's personality. Persona It belongs to a priest and probably says more about the critic than the creator. The creators seemed to know that they were simply creating a fictional character and giving it the narrative framework and history that a good fictional character requires. “Father Justin'' was an artificial work, no more realistic than Chesterton's Father Brown, and no less belittling or degrading of the character of the Holy Order or the work of real priests.
However, many critics seem to have fallen into the uncanny valley and are unable to climb back out, with little doubt that this bot (which may well be an AI bot) is actually anything more than a minor anomaly. I was troubled by thoughts that bordered on superstition. Interactive pretend play.
Also, behind the criticism, mainly in the form of Jeremiah, that evangelization should be about personal human “encounters” and “companionship” and that this chatbot is somehow I can't help but wonder if there's something reflexive about it. One writer called it a “delegation” of the Christian duty to share the gospel. Indeed, sharing the gospel requires more than simply sharing information. But on the other hand, information sharing is an integral part of the process. And here it would be helpful to remember the Thomasian principle: “All that is received is received according to the manner of the receiver.''
In the work of evangelism, we often come across people who prefer to take a self-directed approach to learning the faith, who would rather read books on their own than participate in a book discussion group. is not uncommon. In fact, many of us might choose this kind of path if we could imagine the shoe being on the opposite foot, at least as less awkward than other options. Suppose a missionary from the Watch Tower Society or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints visits the front door of an unchurched but open-hearted person. The homeowner may genuinely want to take the missionary's suggestions seriously and think seriously about this issue. But at the same time, he may strongly prefer to accept the literature or pamphlet on offer rather than potentially having an awkward conversation with a stranger on the doorstep.
The bottom line is that it's not hard to imagine market segments for which a tool like this chatbot would actually be the preferred way to get a more comprehensive picture of the intellectual content of faith. The popularity of other large-scale language model (LLM) resources itself suggests this. All the Catholic Answers version does is provide information to a select group of people in the way they think they'll like best.
In other words, for them, this resource is exactly the kind of “accompaniment'' they need, and its provision is based on the first principle of effective “encounters'': simply listening to what the other person is looking for. It is born from action. encounter.
There is nothing new about new technologies and strategies being tested in evangelism. Examples include Stained Glass, Catechism of Questions and Answers, Casual Manual, Vademecum, and many others. In all these cases, the integration of new tools and methods was achieved by striking an appropriate balance among possible tensions. Stained glass windows can only capture the basics of the story of the Annunciation. It couldn't replace actually reading Luke's story. The polite answers in the printed manual may have in some ways lacked the ferment of wisdom possessed by the priest sitting in the box.
New technologies in AI need not conflict with the work of evangelists and catechists who interact directly with people. It can never, and has never attempted to provide, the inevitable gift of humanity, the spark of true soul empathy. Rather than trying to break these new tools for internet fame, maybe our time would be better spent making technology better and articulating its limitations in productive ways. not. This means that, like any other tool, this tool is properly understood as an adjunct to, rather than a replacement for, the human element, an integrated and balanced combination of virtues and skills that machines can never imitate. It helps to position yourself firmly in the tension.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider making a donation to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available for free to all readers worldwide without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity.
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.