An interview with Professor Beth Singler discusses how AI discourse often employs religious terminology while dismissing religion, resulting in a lack of self-reflection and valuable insights from religious perspectives.
I just interviewed Professor Beth Singler about AI and religion, and this answer really stuck with me. Thought I'd post it here, curious to hear what you think: LB: As a Classics student, I'm used to people assuming ancient subjects have little to say about the present. In your Aeon essay, you describe AI enthusiasts laughing similarly at the idea that religion might have anything useful to say about technology, even though they are full of talk about "prophets," "salvation," and the "apocalypse." What do you think AI debates miss when they dismiss religion as irrelevant, while still borrowing so much of its language? BS: There is a certain amount of comfort that people take in addressing the 'big' questions while excluding or ignoring the ways in which such big questions have also been addressed through a religious lens. In part, this is due to a wider meta-narrative of the higher rationality, and greater secularisation of the minds of the so-called 'West'—often contrasted with 'animism' in other cultures, treated and discussed in very shallow or broad strokes while ignoring the animism of the 'West'. Also, in part, this comes from a discomfort with the playing out of answers to such questions in an embodied, material, or ritualised way, i.e., a fear of doing the 'things' of religion such as prayers, icons, behavioural norms etc. These are approached as irrational vestiges of earlier stages of civilisation in a lot of discourse. And when it comes to AI discourse, it also comes with its own narratives of rationality, disembodiedness, and superior intellect. To some, this is also opposite to the idea of religion that they already hold in their minds. What is lost when this cultural response to big questions is avoided, derided, or dismissed is firstly the chance for self-reflection on the collective, embodied, and material facets of the AI discussion itself. 'Religion' should not be a dirty word we are afraid to apply to our own cultures and to how we are understanding and telling stories about AI. Second, what is lost is any positives in the millennia long conversations about these questions that people with more overt religious faith or spiritual perspective have shared. Full interview if useful: https://louisbrickell.com/interviews/beth-singler
Religious scholars met with Anthropic to discuss AI-related moral and philosophical questions, highlighting growing interest in how faith and spiritual perspectives intersect with AI development and safety.
The article critiques the growing intersection of AI and religion, discussing the Pope's encyclical on AI and human dignity, and a study that argues AIs should include religious perspectives, which the author sees as a threat to scientific consensus and a potential political tool.
This commentary explores how the AI debate increasingly resembles a religious one, comparing e/acc and AI safety camps, examining Peter Thiel's Antichrist framing, Anthropic's consultations with theologians, and the US-China AI race driving unstoppable acceleration.
This paper investigates whether large language models treat questions about religious conversions symmetrically, finding persistent asymmetries with certain faiths favored over others. The study tests 20 models across 182 religious pairings, revealing reproducible patterns that could have real-world implications.
The article discusses how AI is evolving as a tool for societal coordination, akin to historical roles of religion, and stresses the need to proactively define its ethical and representational scope.