1. AGI does not exist. The human mind is not replicated at all by LLMs even if they appear to behave similarly.
2. Belief that AGI will exist is usually held by techno-futurists and other scientism-ists who also share a lot of anti-Christian values and ideas.
I've yet to come across an Orthodox (am one myself) who believes in those kind of values and isn't hesitant about them.
Not here to argue about it, just stating my opinion as a random fool on the internet
You think possibly that someone could see some godly benefit to such a resource. I think, similar to the lack of Orthodox input on the first 3 chapters of Genesis regarding the age of the earth doesn't discount the fact that post Darwin era saints seem to speak against evolution. It's possible that while it will most definitely be used for evil, that there could be some virtue in it. I'm simply pointing out the absolutes.
While I do see the benefits of a technology, I can't get past the idea of humans creating AGI because it seems that the full intention is to become god-like and ultimately attempt to disprove God, even if it isn't directly stated (or realized) by the researchers.
I guess it's where I would draw the line if I believed AGI (non-organic human mind) could possibly be created in the first place. I know lots of people have different definitions of AGI though...
Do you mean pre-Darwin Orthodox commentary on the age of the earth? Not sure I see the correlation. Those saints were just dealing with what the "God disproving technology" was at their time.
The point I was making was that the pre Darwin era saints didn't make a big deal about the age of the earth, whether Gen 1-3 were to be taken literally or allegorically. It didn't have any moral bearing until Darwin presumed his theory, in which the church responded against it, many taking a YEC view. This seems like one of those things in which there is pre-era silence, but it will be more discussed in the years to come, but to claim an absolute that saints haven't said anything about this thus it's wrong is similar to saying pre-darwin saints haven't mentioned anything about AI/Tech/Bitcoin and yet coming to radically black and white conclusions anyways.
I have no qualms with humanity creating a digital "mind" in the same way that I don't think it's moraly wrong for someone to have a prostetic arm or leg. It's different than claiming they will create a soul behind it. It's an efficiency tool within the programmers/prompt engineers parameters and is only as successful as it's material. It is limited to dealing with human input. The fear would be in the size of the gap between mans knowledge and God's private knowledge, however, even our best attempts at AGI or ASI couldn't scratch the surface. A fear that assumes it could match THAT sees God's omniscience as more superficial I think. Now, there will inevitably be people who take everything it says as gospel truth, which obviously falls into deception and sin, but we have that today already with our current models. Broken people will find anything to worship as long as it's not God.
