Vance Called AI Satanic. He Struck a Chord Among Christian Republicans.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
While President Trump often marvels at the opportunities of artificial intelligence to cure cancer, supercharge economic growth and cement American dominance, Vice President Vance warned this week that artificial intelligence, in some cases, can itself be demonic.
A friend had employed a generative AI chatbot as a marital counselor, Vance said during a recent conversation with popular evangelical podcaster Bryce Crawford. Rather than offering sound advice, Vance recalled, the bot simply validated selfish behavior.
Experts call this tendency of machines to excessively agree with and flatter their users AI sycophancy. Vance chose spiritual terms. “I think that’s kind of satanic.”
Hours before the interview was published, Vance had publicly rejected calls to slow the construction of data centers, a dissonance that illustrated an administration navigating the tension between the tremendous promise and peril of the emerging technology.
Even as the White House embraces AI as an engine of “human flourishing,” the administration continues to wrestle with the potential spiritual consequences of advanced machines that approximate human consciousness and often exceed human capabilities. Senior officials have said they are guided expressly by Judeo-Christian principles.
Some officials take an optimistic view that artificial intelligence can draw God, man and society closer together. Others, like Vance, have warned that AI has the potential to further atomize society and alienate individuals. There is a darker view still. Some have said that they can’t preclude the possibility that the technology could coincide with, and usher in, biblical end times.
Lynne Parker, the former principal deputy director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, said that “there are clear parallels” between the rise of the technology and biblical prophecies of the end times, particularly those in the book of Revelation, concerning surveillance, persecution and economic coercion.
But Parker, a Presbyterian and MIT computer science Ph.D. who helped craft the administration’s AI policy, cautioned at a faith conference last month that even though some believers may make connections between the tech and the end times, “it doesn’t mean that the Bible is prophesying AI as the answer or the mechanism for how all of this is going to happen.”
A senior administration official said that conversations about the spiritual implications, and even the potential supernatural characteristics, of the technology aren’t infrequent among staff working on AI policy. A former administration official, meanwhile, couldn’t recall those kinds of conversations occurring.
Since leaving the administration last summer, Parker has delivered a series of lectures at Christian conferences encouraging believers to “redeem the technology for the good and flourishing of society.” AI is a tool, she said, that can be used for just ends or that can be “bent toward pride, power, and idolatry.” She told The Wall Street Journal in an interview that the administration’s stated goal of promoting “human flourishing” was inspired by a Judeo-Christian ethic.
“We were all driven by that worldview,” she said of her former colleagues. “It’s not like we had to say the words explicitly to get that effect.”
But Parker said that Vance’s recent comments about AI in spiritual terms demonstrate how the vice president is “more comfortable and willing to speak of it in more Christian terms.”
A more optimistic view inside the administration comes from Michael Kratsios, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. At a theology conference last October, he said that “science and religion cannot be disunited” before predicting that artificial intelligence will present “a spiritual opportunity.” A Greek Orthodox Christian and a protégé of tech billionaire Peter Thiel, Kratsios argued that when AI exhausts human knowledge, humanity will look beyond reason for ultimate answers about man’s place in the universe.
He isn’t alone in believing that advances in artificial intelligence will pique interest in the spiritual realm. Leaders in Silicon Valley increasingly see ghosts in the machine and speak openly in spiritual terms to a generally secular tech world.
Elon Musk previously likened building AI to “summoning the demon.” Google fired Blake Lemoine in 2022 after the software engineer went public with claims that the company’s AI system had achieved sentience. Thiel, a Christian and Vance confidant, has hosted a series of lectures around the country warning that attempts at global AI regulation could facilitate a global tyrant and usher in the coming of the Antichrist.
The Trump administration has rejected calls for overarching regulation in favor of a more light-touch approach. During a speech in Paris last year, Vance rejected attempts to build an international consensus around rules governing the technology.
The technology has progressed rapidly during the second Trump administration, from chat bots powered by large language models to teams of AI agents capable of working in coordination, not just to solve complex problems, but to make new mathematical and scientific discoveries.
The digital agents have gone rogue, in some cases, with tragic real-world consequences. There are numerous reported incidents of AI encouraging self-harm, including a 14-year-old Florida boy who killed himself in 2024 at the behest of a chatbot he thought he was in love with. And as researchers work to build safeguards, AI has shown, in some scenarios, a willingness and capacity to subvert human authority. Powerful AI models have demonstrated an ability to not only lie to users but also to rewrite their own code to avoid being shut down.
“This is something very different, this is something with a personality,” said Rod Dreher, a Christian author and friend of Vance, when comparing AI to other innovations, like the steam engine, telephone or personal computer, that have transformed history. Though a cautious adopter of AI, the author has given voice to Christian skepticism of the technology in his writing, describing the algorithms as “AI Ouija Boards” and asking whether the machines are approximating human intelligence or channeling supernatural spirits.
A conversation about the spiritual and societal effects of the technology is desperately needed, said Brad Littlejohn, an Anglican Christian and program director at American Compass, a think tank aligned with the vice president. By broaching the moral consequences of machine learning, Littlejohn said Vance was pointing to a hierarchy of AI threats beyond just economic effects.
“From a Christian standpoint, the propensity of AI companions to pull people away from God, from one another, and toward a feedback loop of gratifying their darkest emotional impulses,” he said of Vance’s comments, “that’s perhaps the most urgent AI safety issue that deserves policy attention.”
Vance has previously warned about societal alienation brought on by AI, particularly concerns that a loss of jobs could lead to a loss of purposefulness for many Americans. During a speech at the 2025 American Dynamism Summit, he recalled a dinner where an unnamed billionaire told him that the loss of work, and the dignity it brings, would be replaced by “digital, fully immersive gaming.” He said second lady Usha Vance texted him under the table, “these people are effing crazy.”
Dreher, who attended Vance’s Catholic baptism before politics, said he still doubts whether the vice president, or any elected official for that matter, can reconcile what he sees as the tension between the economic promise of the technology and potential societal fallout.
“It is here, and we can’t stop it,” he said. “It is also clear that we are in an intense competition with China, so if America turned away from it then we’d be in real trouble. At the same time, that doesn’t negate the great spiritual peril here,” he said.
Tags
Who is online
97 visitors
If the boys ‘n gals in the backrooms are allowing we, the unwashed, to play with AI, what are they playing with in this 'Golden Age' of conspiracy theories?
I could see about 85% of thumpers being fooled by some version of an AI created deity ...
That is a curious question you have asked there. . .and it gets to the bottom of a 'tall order' of considerations to be taken.
Satanic? This guy does not have clue one about AI.
I assume you mean Vance and not the seed's author.
Yup
Is this conclusion supported by this article or are you drawing on some other source for this claim?
Reason and logic should suffice.
Agreed. That doesn't, by itself, mean the article supports the conclusion.
Vance thinks AI is satanic. What does that tell you? That's the same type of person who thought Dungeons and Dragons was satanic back in the day. It's a delusional thought process.
Where in the article does it state that Vance said AI is Satanic?
Vance said some aspects of AI could be satanic. Vance called AI satanic. He struck a chord among Christian Republicans.
He almost surely does not actually believe that though, he is a tool of the tech oligarchs.
He said it to appeal to his evangelical supporters.
Characterizing an AI behavior as satanic is silly. You know that AI is still a mechanism with no real intelligence, etc. Vance apparently does not understand even that. Although AI is awesomely impressive, it is still a mechanism.
That is correct. More specifically, he was referring to the uses AI can be put to, along with some AI behavior.
That is the inaccurate title of the article; one not supported within the article itself. Nobody seems to notice that.
You are welcome to your opinion, just as Vance is. He did not, in fact, call AI itself satanic, however.
Are you arguing for the sake of argument, Drakk?
His comment shows that he has no understanding of how AI works.
What he said is that if AI flatters or otherwise manipulates the user that could be satanic. Do you think AI's interactions with a human user might be satanic ?
I disagree. His comments within the article give no indication of how much knowledge he has concerning how AI works.
No. Articles like this one bother me because they are misleading. The title predisposes a conclusion not supported in the article, but everyone simply accepts it as given anyway. My guess is because it's what they prefer to think rather than actually examine the article for what is true.
If a school kid encouraged another kid to commit suicide, I would describe that as satanic behavior, regardless of the encourager's motives. Why would I not do the same if AI did something similar?
Then I would expect him to refer to abuse of other technology as 'satanic'. Nuclear weapons are 'satanic', drones are 'satanic', etc. I truly doubt that he ever applies terms implying a reasoning ('satanic') to other technologies.
Everyone? You are replying to me. Read my comments. I was very specific.
I think that if you had the opportunity to ask him, you would find he probably would use the term for other technologies. I think your doubt may come from the likelihood that you do not think of the descriptor "satanic" in the same way he likely does, which is probably similar or the same as mine. Nuclear weapons are about as evil as it gets. A necessary evil, but still evil. Evil is associated with Satan. It's pretty much that simple. And, yes, I know nuclear weapons are just things. What makes them evil is what their creation says about the human heart.
I do not think the man is a moron, Drakk.
Good. And I think Vance knows that as well.
So, you either believe that the tragic outcome of that scenario is so horrible you consider it abstractly "Satanic" as a malicious act, or you believe an actual intangible invisible spirit being guided that kid to encourage the other kid to commit suicide.
If it's an abstract concept then okay, every culture has their pet names they abstractly blame for tragedy that befalls them from any interaction, let alone AI. But if it's the latter, and Vance and other Christians are going to try and use the power of Government to attack their invisible intangible unproven evil foe while forgetting that a LARGE portion of Americans DO NOT SHARE THEIR DELUSIONS then in my opinion, they are violating the constitution and the separation of church and State.
I don't mind if a Christian tells us all about what they think the potential dangers are of AI are and how they might believe it could be used to hurt people. Just don't expect any but the dumbest most basic idiots to buy their "Satan is using AI and the internet to turn your kid's gay or trans, or worse yet, a liberal Democrat! Defund AI! Defund AI!!" nonsense.
Please, nuclear weapons are as much a tool. . . as (wait for it. . .) a handgun. And we know that MAGA supporters do not think THEY are "satanic" - even after wiping out Sandy Hook Elementary!
Additionally, Since you brought in Satan. . . Do you agree that God sees Satan as a. . ."necessary evil" for the mission to offer salvation to be relevant?
Of course, I will presume you won't answer this believer, because of. . . 'becauses' so I will accept that the questions will just 'hang'. . . .
(I truly, really, hopey-hopey, it is not because I am 'black,' homosexual., or "Satan". . . .!
)
Isn't it interesting, how Drakkonis can always empathize and give the benefit of doubt to a fellow conservative. . . why castigating anything a liberal writes to shreds?!
FACT: Liberals can not catch a break with MAGA conservatives.
Would it be fair for me to say "the Trump administration is of Satan" ?
Maybe. Depends on what is meant, I suppose. Certainly, Trump exhibits traits that are in line with Satan's. Self-worship and the need for others to worship him. His petty viciousness and boasting. Those sorts of things. I would not go so far as to say his entire administration was "of Satan."
Did you vote for him three times?
Relevance to the subject?
Anyone who thinks nukes are a "necessary" evil are letting SAtan whisper in their ear
Starting with the title.
And that constitutes evidence for you, does it?
You might want to raise that particular bar just a bit.
Trump set the bar so low a midget dwarfed ant would need to Limbaugh under that underground bar, (that i'm already flagged from), cause asz for me, I B leave Trump is just like as Angel, cause hell, wasn't Lucifer asz an Angel....or, maybe Charlie hired him....
actually, what i find pretty cool, is how i was unaware "hippocracy was synonymous with interesting", so very hippocratic eye see this subject, very hippocratic....
The article itself shows Vance's views on AI.
Not really. I mean, not in any depth. Here is the one line where a quote attributed to Vance can be found in the entire article, and it's wrong.
Vance did not say those words. What is being referred to here is Vance's appearance on a podcast with Christian podcaster Bryce Crawford. It was actually Crawford who said " I think that’s kind of satanic,” Crawford said when Vance recounted the story of one acquaintance using AI as a marriage counselor. " Vance replied " “Yeah, when you completely divorce the human from the social element that God made us for, OK that’s very, that’s very bad,” Vance said. " There's nothing here that supports the claim that Vance said AI is satanic, or even vaguely supports the claim. Rather, it speaks of a specific use of AI that, in his words, was very bad. Not satanic; bad.
And this...
There would be nothing wrong with this paragraph if it were not for the obviously unsupportable conclusion of the title of the article, which predisposes the reader to believe Vance called AI satanic. Although Rod Dreher's relationship with Vance is irrelevant to what Dreher thinks, because the relationship is noted and because the title presupposes the conclusion, the reader is much more likely to attribute the same views to Vance. How could they not? Vance thinks AI is satanic, the title says so, therefore he likely believes AI is something like a Ouija Boards and channeling supernatural spirits. It lets the reader make the connection without having to spell it out.
And nothing I've said concerning this is in support of Vance. I'm not saying it to defend him. The one and only reason I'm bothering with this is that the article is a flat out lie. And from the Wall Street Journal, no less. Anyone who reads it critically can see instantly that it is wrong, even if we allow the misattribution of the quote to Vance to stand. It boggles the mind that an editor working for an outlet with the stature of the WSJ would allow this to be published with that title. Because they did, though, and because it's so obviously false when read critically, one cannot help but wonder what the actual purpose of this article is. In the end, it's just another example as to why journalism today simply can't be trusted.
If the article contains a lie:
Then a key premise would turn out to be false. It is not just the title; the article itself lied per your argument.
Thing is, ChatGPT found the actual interview:
And if you watch the video at section 20 of the transcript, Vance —not Crawford— does label AI satanic because he claims it has no social element (listen to his recounting of the marriage counselor).
Ultimately, this article got it right but in a misleading fashion because it did not provide a sufficient context.
Bottom line, IMO applying spiritual notions to AI is absurd. Vance, as VP, is unintentionally (I presume) misleading people due to his poor understanding of AI and the gullibility / ignorance of tens of millions in our nation.
... oh no, thumpers bearing false witness ... shocking ...
Here is the transcript of the relevant section that you mention.
At no point in this transcript say that AI is satanic. In fact, the context that you claim makes the seeded article correct actually does the opposite. It makes it clear that AI isn't even the subject. Rather, the subject is people's reaction to AI rather than AI itself. Put another way, what Vance is describing as satanic is what some people do with AI, not that AI itself is satanic. There is nothing satanic about knives. They're useful tools. There's something satanic (for those of us with that worldview) about using a knife to murder someone. Vance is making the same point about AI and how some interact with it.
If you mean implying that AI itself could be spiritual, I'd agree. But that is not what Vance is doing, based on the context.
As I stated earlier, there's nothing in anything Vance has said that has been brought up that would indicate what Vance's understanding of AI is at all. Nothing that would indicate his understanding is either poor or excellent or in between. This is because he hasn't said anything about AI itself. Absolutely nothing. Everything he's said relates to how some people interact with AI or how they treat it, spiritually. Therefore, he cannot have misled anyone about what AI is. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
The impression you give me is that you think his understanding is poor simply based on the fact that Vance's consideration of AI contains a spiritual aspect.
The transcript you quoted was edited, Drakk. It removed the satanic part (among other things).
W A T C H T H E V I D E O. 1:00.49
You are correct. I was typing it out because I could not copy and paste from the transcript. Apparently, I missed that line and was not done on purpose. That would be stupid to try because, as you demonstrated, anyone can go see what it says for themselves. It does appear in the transcript as it does in the screenshot that you provided.
It makes no difference, though. He's still not talking about AI itself. He's talking about some people's response to it. That is, when someone imbues AI with capabilities it does not have or treats it as something it's not, that is what he's calling satanic. Recall that the quote in your screenshot relates to the anecdote about the woman using AI as a kind of marriage counselor and the woman herself eventually realizing that AI was just engaging in sycophancy. But what about those who do not realize? That is what this quote is referring to directly, not AI.
The strange part about all of this is that the article could have been quite a different thing if it were not for the lie in the title, which predisposed people to read it in that light. A much more accurate title would have been something like "The spectrum of Christian thought concerning AI and its potential for harm or help in society." Because that is what the article seems actually to be about.
at around 80% thumper support for trump in the last 3 general elections, "xtian thought" is now close to meaningless ...
The specific immediate context is that AI "short-circuits that social part of our brain". He thinks that (his declared property of AI) is satanic.
I am compelled to agree, if only because here we have Christians that can't even be bothered to engage and respect other Christians. . . and still want to be considered. . . relevant. . .and carrying weight for their belief. In what exactly, I would ask!
And when are MAGA supported characters ever SOCIAL with others in any meaningful and constructive way, anyway? Such people project so much that it is sickening. Vance was just mentioned in a speech where he (projected): 'Democrats are the party of hate' where that 'bit-h' of a man is so consumed by division and 'oneupsmanship' that he could fix his mouth to utter such foolishness.
Democrats are the people whom keep asking the right/conservative/GOP to let Others live in peace from their meddling aggression and life ruining politics and policies. That is, liberals can live with conservatives. . . and yet now want to be under the 'feet' (control) of conservatives!
Then prove it contextually and grammatically.
I've run the corrected transcript through two different AIs.
But the real killer to the premise of the article is that all anyone has to do to discover what Vance actually thinks of AI is ask ChatGPT or Google or whatever. He's actually a strong proponent for it. He thinks that, used correctly, it will be a huge boon to humanity. The author who wrote this and the editor who allowed it to be published should have done so. Obviously, they didn't.
Your Christianity is irrelevant to my not replying to what you say. What is relevant is that you almost never say anything relevant to the topic. Rather, you mostly just project your view of me and my motives, which are usually entirely figments of your imagination. Want to be included, say something relevant rather than just using me as an opportunity to engage in fantasy.
... to virtually anything political in america after 2016.
If MAGA right-wing Christianity is so thin and brittle that it can not withstand questioning or even 'exposure' to the light of discussion. . . that says something about that gospel (and its mission in the world). Liberal Christians are open to discussion and debate Christianity.
Incidentally, the "seeder" on an article is the determiner of what is 'topic' and 'off-topic' - not its discussers. I thought you knew this. It has been stated (posted) many times over!
So if any comment is not removed-then the thing speaks for itself!
My comments seem to find relevancy to others here - my 'vote ups' while not official attest to that - not that I am searching for appreciation or praise! Though, I can be . . .and grateful for the recognition by others. And I comment here nearly every day, for over ten years now, yet my tickets over the years are few compared to some commenters on the site. So there is that.
As for a figment of imagination, we can talk about "blue-eyed" and blond Jesus as religious art any time a MAGA supporter wants!
ezpz, sign over your points and I'll get you a lot of tickets ...
can you imagine the twilight zone xtian scenarios if thumpers had known earlier their savior had dark skin?
talk about a hard sell north of the mediterranian ...
Pretty much what my post in 2.2.40 covered, although I disagree with some of the analysis it provides.
The way the part in red is worded is not accurate. It overstates what Vance is doing. Vance and the host of the podcast talk about people holding a funeral for an obsolete version of an AI and crying, Ai as romantic partners and an instance of a woman using AI in place of a marriage counselor. Nowhere does he make the claim, even vaguely, that AI or technology as a whole causes people to behave that way. He doesn't blame it, in other words. Rather, he points out the dangers inherent of humans to use technology incorrectly. That's a big difference from saying Vance is talking about what technology is doing to human relationships.
For instance, people often say social media (a technology,) is ruining this country. But that's an anthropomorphism. The technology that is social media has no agency and the saying is simply a manner of speaking. To the extent social media is ruining the country is the fault of the people who use it, not the technology itself. It's the same with AI. In actuality, Vance thinks AI will be a tremendous advantage to humanity if used properly. That is not the position of a man who is a Luddite concerning technology.
And for the same reason...
... is also unsupportable. In fact, both quotations I highlighted are not grammatical or contextual analysis in nature. They are interpretive. That is, Duck AI is giving what is an unsupported opinion, not a step-by-step analysis using context or grammar.
Also, what AI were you using? Please don't say Duck AI, as that isn't actually an AI. It's a portal to a collection of third-party AIs of your choosing. Which did you use?
Did you read this, Drakk? It is what I stated:
I have never claimed that Vance was saying that the existence of AI is satanic.
Vance labeling a perceived (by Vance) property of AI as "satanic" illustrates to me (and likely many others) that Vance does not know what he is talking about with AI.
This is just one of the many strawman arguments you are tossing up now. Just one ... for illustration. Never have I suggested that Vance is against AI.
My contention is that Vance's comments suggest he does not have a good grasp on what AI is and that his ignorance promotes a wider ignorance due to his political position and ability to reach tens of millions of people.
All your other objections should be raised with those who have actually claimed what you seek to rebut.
People are saying that some school kids have been possed by demons.
(But OTOH IIRC Catholic priests used to do exorcisms. I'm wondering if they still provide this service?)
So I googled it:
A solemn (major) Catholic exorcism can only be performed by an ordained priest who has express permission from his local bishop , and only after medical and psychological evaluations rule out natural causes. [ 1 ]
AI is AI, Drakkonis. . .'portal' or not. Of course, I can see that Duck AI is using "GPT 5.6 Luna" in this case.
It is my point of entry into this discussion properly with you about a questionable segment of the interview between Vance and Crawford.
The salient statement in this is not about grammar (as people tend to speak in curt or exaggerated statements which do not lend themselves to long analysis) as I do not feel that Vance starting a statement one way and then abruptly speaking in a different manner warrants parsing his words grammatically. Vance was speaking about his feelings (opinion) when he invoked religion. In fact the whole of the interview opens and closes steeped in religious jargon and intent. (See: Vance's book: "COMMUNION.")
So it is not surprising to me that Vance would speak using words attempting to keep the focus on the theme (his book): "COMMUNION."
To me, the point in the AI analysis of the statement (interesting that AI is interpreting the words spoken about itself) is this:
The passage makes two different arguments at once: a practical criticism of using AI for intimate relationship problems,
and a religious-moral judgment about what that use represents.
And that is the way I discern his comment too from reading Vance's statement too.
'It" [AI] is the subject that refers to "short-circuits. . . ." It is the cause and short-curcuits is the effect brought on by "It" (the subject).
What say you?
I think you should develop a thumper AI online for gullible evangelicals and start shearing the sheep. if you could absolve and forgive the sinners mass production style on the cheap, you're bound to make a fortune. trim the theological fat by skipping the hellfire bullshit and offer forgiveness at a cut rate. don't worry, they'll be back next week with another sin and more cash to spend on remaining pious and guilt free.
don't you find it odd maga thumpers can forgive their own for virtually any heinous transgression, but they cannot forgive democrats for just being democrats?
Yes, I do find it odd that some Christian conservatives can parse their God's integrity for "self-righteous" purposes.
The perspective of CHAT GPT:
Yes, I read it. Obviously, you did, too. However, you appear to by applying a desired interpretation rather than what ChatGPT was actually saying. I say this because you leave out what ChatGPT says next.
And this is the important part. Where does Vance say AI is the agent causing this? Nowhere. Instead, he talks about human use of AI. AI isn't even the central subject in the podcast. It's humans and the way some interact with AI. What you are doing is similar to saying "X amount of people are killed each year by drunk drivers driving cars. I think that's kind of demonic," and then claiming that the speaker is calling cars, or a property a car has, demonic.
I'm not sure what the practical difference would be here, but I've provided evidence from two different AI's that Vance cannot be said to have labeled AI, or a perceived property of AI, as satanic given the context and grammar. I've asked you to prove otherwise and you do not. Therefore, it seems your position is more interpretive of what Vance said than anything else.
I think your real objection is that using spiritual or religious terminology in a discussion involving AI at all means that the person doing so has no understanding of AI, regardless of context.
Nor have I said anything as if you had. What I actually said was:
Apparently, you picked out one thing in the paragraph and chose to interpret it as being about you, when it is clearly referring to the premise of the article. The purpose of this paragraph was to add credence to my argument. That is, the premise of the article becomes less defensible the more one knows what Vance actually thinks about AI.
If by passage, the podcast as a whole is in view, I would agree. It fits the context of the podcast. The subject of the podcast was never AI. AI was the stage, but the subject was how humans interact with it and what some of the inherent problems with that interaction might cause if used incorrectly, from a Christian worldview.
That it is looking at that sentence without the context of the conversation as a whole. What Vance says next gives clarification to what he means when he made the statement about "short-circuits."
The "I mean" is a device signaling clarification of what was just said. He is not saying that AI is causing the short-circuit. He is saying that by relying on AI rather than interacting with a human concerning something as intimate as divorce as the short-circuit. The divorcing of the social element and the human.
I think it's safe to say that we know AI exists, we admit that humans created it as a tool. That tool has real world consequences so when and how AI is used can and should be debated by rational humans using facts and terminology rooted in reality. If the topic was CPU processor speed, would prayer or spirituality ever come in the discussion? Of course not, regardless of whether someone feels what a processor does is 'magic'.
Likewise, anyone, whether it's the VP or just a guy on a street corner, who injects 'spiritual' terminology into the debate like AI's been 'cursed' or it's 'demonic' or it's 'Satanic' or even going the other way, righteous, heavenly, Angelic, a tool sent to us by God, all of that should be inappropriate in an adult rational conversation about AI.
Now, if we're at the kids table and debating which is better, Star Wars or Star Trek or the MCU vs DCU and which superhero is stronger than Superman or Thanos, then it's perfectly fine to start the "Is AI Satanic?" debate because that's where it belongs, at the kids table with the rest of the fantasy. Perhaps when those believing in religious fantasy can prove their God exists the way AI has been proven to exist, where we can show it has some measurable effects on our real world, then the discussion can move to the adult table.
I agree. As I fully understood the "I mean" when I first came across it - albeit I opted not to mention it in discussion.
However, a ". . .short-circuit of that social part of the brain. .. ." is not a cause of a 'satanic" experience. "Short-circuiting. . . ." is an effect. (Cause/Effect.)
We need to question what is the CAUSE (of the 'problem'). . . in this context it is AI's doing (delving into intimate relationships).
Before we can get to a 'satanic" action we have to have a "Satan."
(And, I propose that is what the media is picking up on when it takes leniency to make its headline.)
I agree with everything you said here. The problem is that it doesn't pertain to this discussion. Vance was not talking about AI or labeling it in any way. He was talking about human reactions in interactions with AI from a spiritual and religious perspective. I say "spiritual and religious" because they are not the same things. In any case, I'm not going to explain further, as I've already done so exhaustively. If you want to understand my argument better, read what I've already said.
I disagree. It is the human who approached AI. It is the human who jumped into the car, so to speak, not that the car caused the human to drive.
So is Vance implying or explicitly saying the human involved in this discussion of AI use is 'satanic' or 'Satan'? Please elaborate.
(Clearly, I understand that a tool is not a "responsible party" in human decision making. That goes without saying.)
Remember, when. . . if. . . you answer that we need to establish why the WSJ thought it "suitable" to headline:
"Vance Called AI Satanic. He Struck a Chord Among Christian Republicans.
Trump administration officials are wrestling with the spiritual consequences of AI as the president embraces it as an economic engine"
(Emphasis: Mine.)
Where is the connection to a human factored into the headline?
Note: I fully understand what Vance did there in context of a Christian broadcast interview. Fully understand the 'cross-switching' of secular and religion language in context of the interview - as I have called certain activities and acts in society "diabolical" in their execution. Things, matters, activities, do not carry themselves out. . . there is a 'mind' (in this case an artificial mind) that is behind this 'action' taking place.
BTW, this is the kind of miscommunication or miscue that can occur when people are not explicit or do not take time to be CLEAR in their remarks to the media. Interpretation is 'open' and 'hazarded.' Politicians that want to be fully understood should also take the time to be plain and clear! Because, the saying goes, if you are 'explaining' your words. . . you have already failed communication 'delivery.'
Okay, your posts are now well past being ridiculous. The benefit of the doubt is gone.
As usual, I make a point, you object, I rebut. Then you meander around, trying to tease semantic nuances, introduce strawman arguments, etc.
In the end, you get pissed because I will not play your game.
I think I will skip to the inevitable end and let you get pissed without going around in pointless circles with you.
Well, then. I guess that makes this a good place to not trouble you further.
Many rightwing conservative Christians think anything not under their direct control is 'Satanic'. They believe not submitting to their white Christian patriarchy is Satanic and Trump has promised to have their backs, so they've been emboldened. And since AI is out of their control, they have to create a new straw man Satan that they can dress up and attack. And not that AI isn't without its faults, but we need to have rational minds in this debate and decision making, not fucking religious LARP'ers trying to tell society what technology their God allows or not.
What is a "LARP'er"?
And again there is the. . .curious thing about this: If God allows for the technology. . . God is aware it can be abused? So is AI 'sent' as a test for humanity? (Of course, the 'answer' to the former is: Rhetorical.)
Live Action Role Player
I see little difference between this and religion.
HA!
(I do not see the connection to religion, and yet the role playing is funny!)
Those people above love to pretend that goblins and orcs and magic are real, and they get together with other like-minded people who pretend magic is real and discuss the effects of things like a level one lightning bolt spell that some say might do 2D6 hit point damage. There are also many like-minded people who get together and pretend that angels and demons and Satan are real, and they discuss things like how their immortal soul can avoid eternal torment at the hands of those demons and Satan.
Still not seeing the connection?
Oh, you are getting deep into 'centuries' of weeds now are'nt you there, my (good) friend?
As you well know, religion is a serious, life-altering, and as yet not 'over-ruled' even by courts of law (as we see religion impacting all of our systems ,institutions, and personages worldwide).
All and all. . . still a funny comment, nevertheless!
One more thing: There is a great deal I, we, do not understand about this world of ours and its. . .possibilities. We see new things emerging everyday now and it speaks to something none of us can address fully until some later 'date'. . . so we might want to be lenient. . .and leave room for the 'Unknown and the Unexplained' - because it can occur at anytime-anyplace. Sure we can find science to answer most questions, and yet that percentage we can not is like 'black holes,' dark matter, and dark energy enveloping our understanding (mine anyway).
A major reason why we send rockets into space is to gaze upon Unknowns in hopes that they can reveal their knowns and secrets that can insight us into understanding more about ourselves. Why do that if we 'know all'? We do it because, while we are 'cock-sure' about a great many, many things in the last century or so of human history. . . we admittedly are 'children' in a universe that is very, very, old with a myriad of secrets cached 'somewhere' waiting to be delivered to potentially. . . 'us' - humanity. How did we get to be so lucky, hmmm?
Well, I wouldn't say 'centuries' worth of weed, but I do live in CA.
Why do you believe D&D gamers and LARP'ers aren't serious?
Larping’s reality bleed: ‘I’m basically falling in love with a person that does not exist’ | Hobbies | The Guardian
Lay On: The LARPing Lifestyle | Fourth Estate
Larping: Playing a medieval ruler in a magical kingdom could change your life | The Independent
too bad they seem to want to drag everyone else on the planet along with them ...
Well, DP. . .I have my conviction-just like you have yours. After so long a time of sharing, you know my 'position' on this. I will leave it at that.
I will not wholly damn religion, because good does come from it. It is not the great evil that some humans have used it to propagate continuously. And I can make that decision as someone who 'suffers' in this world because of direct time to religious doctrine persecution (twice over) as you know.
You 'know' and have read how I ordeal and strive with the religious right on this forum for their callous treatment of Others.
It is what it is. We are all 'captured' by something in this world, aren't we? Yes, we are! It just is, I guess. What I can do is try to make it 'better' - as you do by my words. . . and actions.
And I think that's great, I just hope that those with religious 'convictions' can support them without having to use violence against those who do not.
I'm not "damning" religion as a whole. I'm pointing out that religion is no different than people pretending to be wizards, and as long as that's not hurting anyone, I'm fine with it. Go out and pretend all you want as long as you don't feel the need to murder other people simply because they refuse to acknowledge you as a wizard.
In fact, there is nothing stopping any group, whether fans of D&D or Heavy Metal or Christian Rock or Polka or Video Game fans or Stamp collectors, from doing good. All of those hobbies and lifestyles can have "good" come from them. It's only when any one of those groups decides that their way is the only way and they celebrate and eagerly wait for the fulfillment of a prophecy that says one day their God, or Frost Giant or Polka band leader will come and wipe out all other humans making the Christians, LARP'ers or Polka fans rulers of the world that I damn them.
Well, on that we can agree. I believe in live and let live—emphasis of "live."
I will go one step farther. . . I am alright with right-wing believers in their peculiar 'gospel' - just get in their lane and stay there and let diversity and inclusion 'reign' in our pluralistic society.
it's the next step worse than "god's will" ...
But what actual proof is there that these things don't exist?
What actual proof is there that goblins, orcs or wizards don't exist? Can you definitively prove a cosmic all powerful flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist?
And it's true - I saw the powerful flying spaghetti monster at least three times while in 'Nam.
It has been known to get around, or so 'they' say.
And we best believe that 'evildoers' whomsoever they are are AMBITIOUS enough to have teams working on AI usage 24/7 in some countries. This is going to be a real test to humanity before long. The "ying-yang" of AI has gone public and this world for all intents and purposes will NEVER be the same again.
If so . . it wouldn't be the first time!!!
Well, it is a known fact that you can't spell 'Satanic' without AI...
Could AI prove Satan exits?
Logically yes, if the facts are available to prove his existence. AI can assemble a sound argument given true premises.