{"id":32924,"date":"2023-09-07T23:40:11","date_gmt":"2023-09-08T06:40:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/?p=32924"},"modified":"2023-09-08T04:43:02","modified_gmt":"2023-09-08T11:43:02","slug":"ai-artificial-identity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/ai-artificial-identity\/","title":{"rendered":"Artificial Intelligence vs Authentic Integrity?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cDealing with systems that output plausible but wrong information feels like a very new challenge\u201d<\/em> (Michael Webb)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The impact of technological advancements, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI), extends across various facets of contemporary life, encompassing domains as diverse as church life and ministry. Approximately one year ago, I encountered a noteworthy post authored by a lay member of a church located in a different city. This individual shared insights via a YouTube channel regarding the utilization of AI for sermon compilation, lauding the transformative influence of AI in simplifying the tasks of numerous individuals engaged in ministry.<\/p>\n

As I immersed myself in this individual’s YouTube presentation, I found myself captivated by the potential implications of AI integration into church ministry. It led me to contemplate whether this marked the inception of a paradigm shift toward an AI-centric model of ministry within the church. However, I maintained a stance of cautious examination, eschewing undue enthusiasm for the presented concept. My conviction was that a meticulous assessment was warranted.<\/p>\n

Subsequently, I embarked on an exploratory venture, establishing an AI account and experimenting with the free version of chat GPT. Through this process, it became apparent that the capabilities of AI, while undeniably remarkable, lacked certain critical attributes inherent to human ministers who operate based on their individual faculties, accumulated knowledge, and personal experiences. Indeed, AI serves as a valuable tool, yet its presence in the realm of ministry should be scrutinized judiciously, with careful attention to its utility and impact on human endeavors.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, delving into the potential perils associated with AI integration within my academic endeavors, several concerns surface. One prominent issue pertains to data reliability. The utilization of outdated or unverified datasets, such as the pre-2021 data employed by GPT, may introduce vulnerabilities into the research process, potentially inviting objections and necessitating data corrections.\u00a0As Michael Webb says: \u201cDealing with systems that output plausible but wrong information feels like a very new challenge.\u201d(1)<\/p>\n

A related danger centers on plagiarism, arising from the potential deviation of AI-generated content from established academic conventions and guidelines. This deviation could inadvertently result in the unintentional appropriation of others’ intellectual property, necessitating heightened vigilance in adhering to academic standards. There is the risk of fostering intellectual complacency. The accessibility and convenience of AI tools may discourage rigorous critical thinking in the creation and analysis of academic papers, particularly within the realm of scholarly work.<\/p>\n

While technological innovations, particularly AI, offer transformative potential across various spheres of life, including church ministry and academia, their incorporation necessitates a measured and discerning approach. Addressing concerns related to data validity, plagiarism, and the potential for diminishing critical thinking is paramount in harnessing the benefits of AI while upholding the integrity of scholarship and human endeavor.<\/p>\n

Artificial Intelligence (AI) undoubtedly offers numerous advantages, yet it is crucial to acknowledge its inherent limitations, particularly within the academic and religious domains. Beyond issues pertaining to data quality and relevance, another noteworthy limitation emerges the substantial maintenance costs associated with AI systems. These expenses can be prohibitively high, prompting a pertinent question about whether the benefits accrued from AI justify the considerable investment, both in terms of financial resources and human capital.<\/p>\n

Arguably, the most pivotal limitation lies in the realm of human emotions and empathy, a topic that was the focal point of a recent theological discussion within our synod. This discourse underscored the concern among clergy about the potential for AI to replace human roles, including pastoral positions, within the context of church ministry. A consensus emerged, however, that AI’s inherent shortcoming lies in its incapacity to comprehend and empathize with the complex spectrum of human emotions, struggles, and suffering. AI remains bereft of the profound emotional understanding that humans possess, rendering it unsuitable to replace human roles within the church.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, it is essential to recognize that AI, when employed judiciously, can make valuable contributions to academia and religious services. For instance, AI can be harnessed to offer innovative alternatives to traditional academic writing and facilitate meaningful theological discussions.<\/p>\n

In light of these considerations, the wisdom shared by David Boudd and Michael Webb gains significance. Their stance advocates for a balanced and informed approach to AI integration. This approach entails neither wholesale rejection nor blind reliance on AI to replace human roles. Instead, it calls for a proportional and effective use of AI to enhance human capabilities and augment the positive impact of technology within academic and ecclesiastical settings.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, it is indeed plausible to assert that AI has left its mark on virtually every facet of human endeavor. This sentiment aligns with the observation made by David Boud, who aptly stated, “They have been rapidly incorporated into workplaces at all levels and in all disciplines.”(2) Therefore, it is imperative that we heed the wisdom of Boudd and Webb to ensure that humanity retains agency in the responsible control and utilization of technological tools, including AI, to ensure the preservation of human integrity. By doing so, we can harness these technologies to advance the greater good of society and safeguard against any unintended consequences that may arise from their misuse. In light of the fact that as humans, whether AI exists or not, maintaining integrity as noble creations of God remains paramount. This is because the ultimate source of all wisdom and knowledge in the world originates from God. As the Bible says: \u201cFor the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.\u201d (Proverbs 2:6).<\/p>\n

(1) Michael Webb, Chat GPT and its Impact on Education<\/em>, https:\/\/drive.google.com\/drive\/folders\/1eMgz1LWSXLOeFrPcAMDf0z5KEwFVhAs7<\/a>, Accessed September 6, 2023.<\/p>\n

(2) David Boud, Assesment AI<\/em>, https:\/\/drive.google.com\/drive\/folders\/1eMgz1LWSXLOeFrPcAMDf0z5KEwFVhAs7<\/a>, Accessed September 6, 2023.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cDealing with systems that output plausible but wrong information feels like a very new challenge\u201d (Michael Webb)   The impact of technological advancements, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI), extends across various facets of contemporary life, encompassing domains as diverse as church life and ministry. Approximately one year ago, I encountered a noteworthy post authored by a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":173,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2310],"tags":[2816],"class_list":["post-32924","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-doctor-of-leadership-3","tag-ai-dlgp02","cohort-dlgp02"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32924","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/173"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32924"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32924\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32927,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32924\/revisions\/32927"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32924"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32924"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32924"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}