Should religious thinkers help shape AI?

Is religious tradition a useful source of moral wisdom for AI ?

If AI was to classify religion as a source of moral 'wisdom'—using ‘all’ of its purported intelligence—it would/should simply describe religious beliefs, ‘religions scripture’ as simple parables, dogma, fairy tales, fiction. Books, fairy tails, written words, that are 'mans' self described divine words that allows many to escape reality as well as responsibility. Fiction written by the self ordained 'experts'. Should one say demagogues, on the speculative subject. Not unlike any author of any fictitious writing/command where the masses are called upon to defend—to suffer and to kill for the ‘chosen’ one—in the name of whichever fictitious hominid that the so called experts introduce to them who will willingly accept as 'gods'—gods that demand total and unquestioning allegiance, faithful to the/their end.

If AI was to describe religion it MUST describe religions true purpose of controlling the/a narrative of death and destruction; from and before the crusades, including ‘rules/laws’ that promote and advance gender violence, manifest destiny, doctrine of discovery, slavery, greed, fear and condemnation of them others; The list goes on and on! And All must be included!

It must also include the notion of dominion over the lands air water, and seas. Domination that allows the righteous to kill all living things, including that that sustains life itself, our mother earth! ...Of course in the name of god! The history of all the pain, death and destruction thought history must be meticulously documented and brought out front and center!

So: Should the science of AI include religion? Only if the nature of religion is described to be what it is!!!

Should chatbot values be shaped through secular, technical processes instead?

Understanding, teaching, demonstrating, caring for, including explaining, 'technically', how the environment, our mother earth, is in fact crucially, essential to life itself; Your life. It's life.

Water is Life!! This is a must...Before and as we kill ourselves:

Programing Computers to sounding alarms, 'worldwide', alerting the entire world at the first hint that one or some are imperiling ALL!!

One should question: Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you...There are millions and millions of people who love to torture and be tortured, kill and be killed.

All religions and their proponents are based on blind ignorant belief. Further, most are corrupt. The tech industry is as bad or worse. Please use only secular scholars, thinkers and philosophers.

i think that there should be a combination of theologians and concerned citizens of a diverse compostion. It's like trying to bring up a child. What ethics will that child be taught, what principles of life will the child be brought up on. Then after a certain age that child has to be set free to navigate the world. Make mistakes, continue to evolve as the world evolves. This is the challenge with AI.

The one does not exclude the other.

Please, just use modern secular technical processes, if any.

AI and chatbot values should be shaped according to secular ethics, not according to religious tradition neither trough technical processes.

Secular ethics derives ethical principles and values from human reason, empathy, and experience as well as universal human rights rather than religious doctrine or divine revelation.

Hmmm...from a purely feminist POV I'm going to have to say "hellllls no!'. I agree with the commenter who mentioned the Stackhouse 3-dimensional, comprehensive ethical framework approach, the multi-layered consideration of right v. wrong, good v. evil, just(fitting) v. base seems like a much sturdier tripod than the theologian's one-legged stool approach. Plus, there's already FAR too much dissension in those ranks for comfort...Christianity alone houses a plethora of contradictions these days, politically and otherwise. Color me Staunchly Concerned.

There should be no Chatbots. There is no need! People should talk to people. This is what is wrong wth AI.

The question of whether religious tradition should or should not be included in AI chatbots is really the wrong question. Most religions recognize God even though mankind, as a whole, is unable to identify who or what is God. Should a chatbot make the presumption that there is or isn't a God? A chatbot is really limited in its' attempt to create answers regarding anything due to the limited physical nature of a chatbot. A chatbot cannot include the full scope of life, let alone the simply question regarding God's impact or not. Chatbots need to keep it simply.

I think this discussion should focus on the biggest dangers of AI which include dissemination of false information, making AI weapons in the form of robots and drones, and ultimately making the majority of the human population unnecessary for the wealthy people controlling AI.

I think it is laudable that Anthropic is trying to make their AI behave ethically, and getting input from philosophers, ethicists and theologians of ALL faiths will probably do more good than harm. If Claude is asked a "morally charged" question, perhaps it could specify answers based on the questioner's stated religious beliefs. Claude the Imam, Claude the Pope, Claude the Rabbi, Claude the Atheist, Claude the Christian Fundamentalist, Claude the Wiccan, etc., etc., etc.

But really, the only moral/religious tenet needed is The Golden Rule, viz., do undo others as you would have them do unto you. If religions would restrict themselves to that rule, much tragedy will be avoided. Unfortunately, too many religions believe that their way is the ONLY way and that all others are false and should be condemned if not eliminated.

Yes, of course. All thinkers should be part of the discussion and to exclude some because of other views is neither smart nor science. Should their opinions be weigted more than atheists -- no.

I am fairly sure that the general public is becoming aware of the possible dangers that AI could present but aren't able/willing/inclined to do anything about it. The public is also becoming skeptical that politicians are even interested in putting guardrails on the AI industries. If religious thinkers can try to influence the public and, through them, the governments to take these dangers seriously, that would be worthwhile.

If we humans are lucky, in the future there will be no religions. They are all fictions. Morality is independent of religion. Ethical codes do not need religion to be viable.

I am a committed Christian, but not an evangelical. I believe in a freely available open church but not in pursuing converts or harassing folks with whom I disagree. Therefore, I would rather generative AI not favor any particular religious tradition, including non-christian traditions, but include all traditions. In other words, all religious traditions are appropriate sources of moral wisdom as well as secular traditions.

I too am encouraged that "AI companies are trying to decide how chatbots should respond to morally charged questions . . ."

Without religious/theological input an indispensable element of several thousand years human thought, experience and accumulated wisdom would be excluded. We must not function as if current thinkers have all the answers, superior to all who have gone before.

How about sticking with the golden rule and forget about all the religious trappings. Imagine an AI that decides it is God-like and acts accordingly.

I'd as soon they consulted ethicists, rather than theologians. It seems these companies (it they're serious) want to build their AI's to be "moral." Which is a good thing, but one can (as the Hippocratic Oath says) "do no harm" outside of the colorings of religious thought.

That said, I do find it admirable that Anthropic is attempting to create a "moral, ethical" AI platform. I wish them well. It will surely help when Anthropic and other companies actually build a real artificial intelligence, rather than the predictive LLMs currently in use.

I think the most difficult circumstance confronting the proper humanizing of algorithm derived chat is that, to others than the specialists who design and develop the algorithms, they are opaque. All that is visible is the output that responds to a specific set of set of inputs (and in AI fashion provide a well spoken rationale for the for the response).

The conversations about the proper conduct of humanity, with all its religious, tribal, political etc, all the way down to the individual, with its embedded unique genome, are forever ongoing, and documented in every possible way, including cave walls.

I would say that that the test of success for chatbots to engage in morally charged subjects would be when they are invited to gatherings such as Anthropic's, not as specimens for examinations, but as knowledgeable, insightful, peer consultants. Since AI and the like seem to be having their way with eliminating jobs requiiring thought, why not just keep moral values a last province for homo sapiens?

When AI was getting developed, there was call from many humane organisations to embed ethical values in it. This can still be done.

What did Jesus say on the cross?

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"

We as human society still are in the same state.

After all what is the purpose of human existence?

There is a definite purpose for all of us whether we are able to grasp or not .

The SI (Supreme Intelligence) system will ultimately balance it for all living creatures but we are humans so we can make an effort ourselves as good Children of the Ever Merciful Lord.

We must respect all living creatures on this planet and give them the right to live life with dignity without causing any conflict.

Theologian Max Stackhouse argued that ethics must be evaluated through three distinct modes or dimensions: the deontological [right/wrong], the teleological [good/evil/], and the ethological [appropriateness or "the fitting'] In his foundational 1976 paper "Modes of Justification in Ethical Arguments", Stackhouse argued that a comprehensive ethical framework cannot rely on just one of these concepts. Instead, valid moral reasoning requires balancing all three dimensions. I have compared this in my mind to playing Xs and Os {or tic-tac-toe] 3 dimensionally. All must be taken into consideration, i.e. what is good and right may not be fitting to the situation. [Thanks to AI for helping me track down the quote!]