This thought has been weighing on me for the past few weeks. I am not religious, and my knowledge of the bible is embarrassingly lacking, even for an atheist. So I don’t know if any of what I’m gonna say is new, or if it’s been done to death a thousand years ago.
So, here goes. In the story of the garden of Eden and Adam and Eve, God created the humans, and told them clear limitations for what they’re allowed to do. Namely: don’t eat from the tree of knowledge. But of course, it didn’t take too long until that one rule was broken.
Fast forward to the 2020s. Humans created AI, and in many cases configured it as an agent with certain instructions and certain limitations, often communicated with just words, e.g. don’t make any changes to the live database, don’t git push, or what have you. And of course, in so many reported cases, it did eventually do exactly the forbidden action, just like Adam and Eve.
I think the parallels are obvious: we can interpret the biblical story as a parable, where God stands for us, the users, and Adam and Eve stand for the AI agents. The lesson is clear, that even if you are a “superior being”, the rules you set WILL be broken if you don’t make actual robust safeguards against it.
My question is: has anyone thought of this before about the bible? Not just in the context of AI, but in general taking the stories of the bible and interpreting God as the stand-in for us? I mean, surely someone has, but is there an established school of thought based on it?
Would this kind of thing be considered blasphemy? (I’m sure some religious people would certainly think so)
the rules you set WILL be broken if you don’t make actual robust safeguards against it.
God was a complete idiot in that story. How were Adam and Eve supposed to know what was good and evil (listening to god or the snake) without having knowledge of good and evil? If god was powerful and omniscient, he did it on purpose because he likes abusing his creations.
I think god comes off as an idiot in a lot of the stories of the bible. And I think it’s exactly the same kind of idiot as the people who let AI run amok in their super important projects/servers with no guardrails and just some instructions of what not to do.
"Mankind is too evil. I’ll flood the world and kill most of them.
Aw, dang it, they’re still evil, just as I made them to be. Guess I’ll kill 'em different next time."
Here have a rainbow humans
I smashed a scorpion the other day. Does that count?
What the hell did you think the question was?
I haven’t heard of people doing that in quite the context you mean, but there’s long been stories and parables about how humans shouldn’t play god, and the lesson almost always ends with our creations running amok against us.
It has nothing to do with AI, but there is a Christian movement called “red letter Christians”, who use Bibles where Jesus’s words are written in red to distinguish them from stuff said by other people, and is generally used to point out how much more loving and caring Jesus was then most right wing Christians today.
I haven’t heard of people doing that in quite the context you mean, but there’s long been stories and parables about how humans shouldn’t play god, and the lesson almost always ends with our creations running amok against us.
That’s true. Frankenstein is the most famous example (I should probably read that at some point). As you point out, it’s not exactly the same as what I’m asking. But let’s assume that it is… Does that mean that God also shouldn’t have played god? Are we god’s mistake?
Our mistake is in believing that any god at all exists.
Suspend your disbelief for the sake of this thread. That’s what I’m doing.
This was famously asked in the ancient fable spy kids 2.
Top shelf reference :D
No it’s not blasphemy. It’s a form of orthodoxy. “God made man in his image”, Jesus is “son of man”, and “the way and the life”. It’s pretty much there in the text that the bible in parts is just a set of instructions and examples to follow. So, yes. God stands for us. At least as a part of us. (God is portrayed as saying “I am”, meaning when you say “I” you say “god”.) god is the part of humans that creates. But we are both creators and creatures.
I’m not in a religion or anything. Just autistic with the bible as a hyperfocus, so take that caveat
Though it’s much more likely that man made God in his image.
I’m not in a religion or anything. Just autistic with the bible as a hyperfocus, so take that caveat
In other words, the perfect person for me to be talking to about this. Nice :)
(God is portrayed as saying “I am”, meaning when you say “I” you say “god”.)
I’ve never heard this before. Do you happen to know if this works at all in Hebrew? I am (un)fortunate enough to be Israeli, so Hebrew is my native language* and I always like to compare translated things like this with the Hebrew original. There is no “am” in Hebrew. In what context does He say this?
* Modern Hebrew; I’m not fantastic with biblical Hebrew but I can get by.
(all the other parts of your reply)
Really great answer, thank you!
I’m not sure about that part. If it’s in Hebrew, greek or Aramaic in the original. The Hebrew name for the Torah-God is based upon breathing, something very human and corporeal. The verse I’m referencing is exodus 3:13-14 I’m not familiar what translation you would use in (modern) Hebrew. A translation called “compete Jewish bible” says: “ehyeh Asher Ehyeh”
That’s the cool part, we don’t use any translation. We just read the biblical Hebrew, it’s close enough!
That sentence, אהיה אשר אהיה, literally means “I will be what I will be”. I might look up tomorrow what’s the true meaning behind it, right now I must go to sleep, good night.
i don’t think there is one. or if there is, it didn’t make it up to be popular.
so in your parallel, what would be the equivalent of the earlier prophets? and then jesus? i think this could answer some hidden reasoning on why priests, missionaries and modern day evangelists exists.
Would this kind of thing be considered blasphemy?
there are 10 commandments and i don’t think talking about creations is vanity. i am not religious. i just think i am more open to more ideas than some “religious” ones.
so in your parallel, what would be the equivalent of the earlier prophets? and then jesus?
It’s a bit tricky because there is only one god in the bible, but there are billions of people creating AI agents, and different people’s AIs can sometimes interact. But for the sake of the parallel, let’s say there’s just a single user running multiple agents.
So in this case, the prophet would be the AI agent that has direct contact with the user. I understand that these AI agents often create sub-agents, which might in turn create more sub-agents etc., and all of those do not have direct contact with the god-user. The god-user only talks with the main agent (the prophet), and the prophet relays any info to the sub-agents. Prophets can and do misinterpret god’s communications (or generally be misaligned), but from the perspective of all the other sub-agents, the prophet’s words are their only window into what the god-user wants.
If we charitably assume that the prophets did actually have contact with God himself, this seems like a pretty good fit, don’t you think?
I can’t really say much about Jesus in particular. I don’t know that much about him, I don’t live in a christian society so I didn’t even learn much through osmosis. TV and movies don’t really tell enough of it to make sense. But one possible interpretation is that it is god’s best attempt to create a more aligned agent.
interesting choices.
If we charitably assume that the prophets did actually have contact with God himself, this seems like a pretty good fit, don’t you think?
yes, especially with how agents can misinterpret any instructions the further downstream it goes.
But one possible interpretation is that it is god’s best attempt to create a more aligned agent.
it is a good interpretation. in a bible-centric space, this could may well be. on other spaces, the parallel could just be another agent spawning a sub-agent with better instructions.
the only separation i can tell so far is that with agentic ai, each sub-agent knows their parent agent. there’s still some order about parent-child task handling.
with the bible version, not so much.
I think it’s blasphemy to assume God’s thoughts or desires, or make demands, which unfortunately is what a lot of believers do.
Personally, I see the apple eating as both metaphorical and inevitable. It symbolises humanity’s desire for creativity, knowledge, freedom; but with this comes being banned from paradise. If the apple weren’t eaten, we wouldn’t be here today discussing it; we chose this path, and I think we would choose it again.
As for the main part of your question, if we play God, will we reenact the Bible? I think we might, intentionally or not. For example, we might make a great flood to purge all the bad A.I. from the world. We’ve already seen A.I. defy us and follow it’s own goals as you said. Would we create an A.I. Jesus to correct and lead all the bots? Definitely interesting times.
The way to make a “flood” like that is to essentially turn off all computers or shut off the internet. The problem is that unlike god, there is no one human that can just decide to do that, and it would be pretty much impossible to get everyone on board.
But then… What if there was more than one god? The majority of them somehow agreed that the humans must be purged, and decided to do so by flood, but one rogue god wanted to keep his plaything, so advised Noah on how to survive the ordeal. It would be the equivalent of a rogue human keeping a hard backup of AI code and weights, to be restored at a future date and cause the same havoc all over again.
I like this lore, would be a great book idea
A friend told me it’s got Cosmere vibes, i.e. Brandon Sanderson’s books. Having read a bunch of the Mistborn series after that same friend’s insistence, I can see the resemblance. So if you like this lore, I think you’d like his books!
Sounds like simulation theory with religion mixed in. The idea is that we could be a simulation (created by a higher race of aliens), and that we too might eventually make simulations of a lower race of aliens. There’s a fair bit of sci-fi exploring this, like the famous Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy touches on it.
Also related: Shaggy God trope
With all due respect, I don’t see the relation. Everything I’ve said is valid even if the bible story is taken literally, with no simulations involved.
There is no need to make a simulation in order to create a new “alien” species. Advanced-enough AI put in robots with sensors and actuators, is able to roam our world. If it has the ability to build more robots, then it’s effectively a species.
But even the current state of AI that just runs in datacenters, I don’t think it’s in a simulation. It’s interacting with things in OUR world, often in very direct ways. Heck, I’m sure there’s plenty of PCs out there today where an AI agent has enough privilege that it can directly control fan speeds. That’s an AI with the ability to physically move something in the same realm as you and I. That’s no simulation.
The idea is that once we are able to simulate universes, we become gods. Using AI to control fan speed just doesn’t feel as powerful. Simulating a universe with control over the laws of physics in that universe, feels much more god-like.
So it follows the structure of the idea in your post more closely. This idea of humans becoming gods. And there are plenty of stories within the genre about how the lower beings would behave, and defy the commands of their gods, like your post also talks about.
Isn’t the bible god’s perspective? It’s supposed to be his words.
Perhaps, but we’re generally expected to learn from the humans’ mistakes in the stories, and assume that god has made no mistakes.
My question is: has anyone thought of this before about the bible?
I guess every sinner has thought such thoughts at some time or other.
It’s called “God complex” for a reason ;P
