@@ShiniGuraiJoker How about start with the basics, "Justin" is supposedly developed by "Fator8". Try to search for who in the world is this organization, all you get is a phishing website. Go try it yourself, it's right there!
@@ShiniGuraiJoker conspiratorial? Tell you what. Open the calculator program on your computer. Do you understand the code behind it? Are you even able to access the code behind it? Now that’s just a calculator app. How about your email client? How about the firmware that transmits keyboard input to software? If I told you that the CIA was all but confirmed to have _hardware_ back doors into modern cpus (which is actually a thing), could you even begin to disprove it? Time and time again government agencies come out admitting that they do in fact spy on you with your own hardware, and you think it’s conspiratorial to say you shouldn’t trust programming? Seems like you might be programmed a little too well.
I think Apologetics is part of theology. It is something when done properly combine faith and reason, is built on prayer and reliant on God. Using AI Apologist reduces apologetics to purely an intellectual exercise. An AI doesn't have the virtue of faith, so it can't do true apologetics. I will concede that perhaps AI can aid apologists but it can't be left to its own device.
Or is it that even AI can not or does not know how to explain and answer any question man has already failed to with their faith? I do agree AI tech right now is extremely annoying and extremely reductive for all modes of communication and inspiration.
The reason why human apologists influence us is because a human chrisitian apologist will be effective depending on his/her own commitmenet to live the life of Christ within him/her. I can't imagine AI apologist living the 8 beatitudes of Christ (Poor in Spirit, Pure in Heart, Peacemakers , hungering/Thirsting of righteousness etc et.c) since ultimately it can't possibly have the various virtues especially the theological virtues such as Faith, Hope & Love of God.
Granted those programming it, AI is likely to tell us that the natural state of humans is to be homosexual. I'm not convinced that it would do a good job regarding apologetics. In fact, I'd bet it would do an intentionally bad job of it. On another note, feel better!
I think apologetics is like poetry; an intellectual reflection on the movements and convictions of the heart and soul. As such, a machine which has neither can not effectively do it. If you use AI to simply collate information and return it, that is fine, but the traditional language model is more of an ersatz intelligence than a real one. It uses probability based on what it’s been told to -look- intelligent. It’s no more thinking or understanding than if a monkey put a banana to his ear after watching a human talk on the phone. The actions look similar, but it’d be ridiculous to think they are equivalent. AI is mostly just hype. If Catholics want to use it, they need to strip back the hype and figure out what the technology is actually good for. Maybe searching through 2000 years of written documents for references and names that appear in different renderings and languages would be a good use. But actual AI theology should be forbidden
You did a good job with this talk, and made some good points. As you said, AI is great at learning a huge amount of data, then providing it in an organized way. For apologetics to use AI trained on the Magesterium documents is a brilliant good idea - not with the aim of replacing humans, but in the service of supporting humans with better backup in less time.
Faith is fundamentally human. AI is fundamentally not human. Having non-human entities "speak" on precisely human enterprise is not useful and can't be persuasive. Feel better
AI is opposed to Church and vice versa, in my opinion.... There is a reason why even modern Catholic Church's still use hymn books, and even Life Teen Masses use 'song sheets'... I have been to literally *one* Catholic Mass in my life that used teleprompters for lyrics, and even that Church used hymns/sheet music discreetly on a blank space of wall, that when the lights were turned off, just became Church wall again.... No AI artwork. No AI apologists.... The sacramentality of the Church should know better... Matter, and spirit.... Human persons, using the 5 senses, and culture/sanctity is all we should ever need.
As Catholics, anthropomorphizing AI is something we should resist on principle. Healthy human anthropology is deeply broken in the mind of our culture and we need to offer the proper alternative.
A computer algorithm, no matter how complex it may be, obviously has no soul, no conscience or free will as given by Almighty God. The Holy Spirit speaks to us and through us as persons and not through ‘AI’.
For me, anything AI is a turn off. It doesn’t have to be just religious content it could be anything AI, because it’s a total lack of human connection, and I just can’t relate to it. Take care of yourself Brian, and get well!
Jesus Christ wasn’t crucified for an AI gadget, no matter how smartly it has been programmed! Catholic Answers overstepped the mark when it began to use AI. Human beings have a profound dignity that nothing else on this planet can ever have. Using AI gadgetry is a big step in the wrong direction and we all know where that road leads. The gadget is only as good as the person who programmed it and we have no way of knowing how it makes its selection of information, particularly the stuff that it leaves out.
Debating with AI is interesting. I find if I point out flaws and what it's saying it will eventually acknowledge them but I have to know what I'm talking about. For me this the topic that I know something about is diet. Ai is highly skewed against animal-based eating but I can get it to acknowledge flaws in its "thinking." One can only imagine if you start debating politics with it.
I just used AI for something within "apologetics." A person I know who sees himself as an intellectual, who is an atheist with a real distaste of Christianity (and Catholicism in particular) recently wrote on FB a very fallacious argument in response to someone. He often goes on antk-God diatribes. I just quickly said "yeah, that's a textbook genetic fallacy." And that's it. He denied it was a genetic fallacy. So, I went to chat gpt and said "does the following text contain any examples of a genetic fallacy, and if so, give examples:" and then pasted all of his text. Chat gpt gave all the examples of the use of the fallacy (which were numerous). I then screenshoted the response and posted it in reply to him. It was pretty cool. It took me about 45 seconds total, and he couldn't argue that it was coming from some biased Catholic/Christian/theistic source.
It's a tool that mines other peoples' work to feed itself without compensating them. It's a nightmare for educators who expect their students to do their own writing. Naive people will assume that it is smarter than they are and therefore always correct. And that's just scratching the surface. A friend easily got "Fr. Justin" to give her advice that was not in line with Catholic teaching.
@@Kan-o-tex Yep. I think there are massive risks with AI. For me, the biggest is people thinking it is objective and rational, when in fact it's just a language model, which uses whatever data set has been given to it (which could be biased), will likely end up feeding on its own output, and the algorithms they use will likely be hardcoded biased (but hidden bias). But also huge opportunities. For example, being able to quickly and easily research Church Fathers' original works.
I think Brian is wrong about whether nor not two competing AI's would change people's minds. I think it would. At the end of the day, they're just arguments for or against. And people can be convinced either way.
Witnessing and conversion is supposed to be happen via the holy spirit, for example pentacost. That implies working through people with souls to be useful. Having said that, I suppose God works in his own ways.
Some AI models are trained to physiologically nudges the user to slowly influence them towards trained way of thinking. I could see someone with autism becoming greatly influenced by such suggestions. People should be aware AI are great liars, sometimes just a hiccup but sometimes by design.
Ick. "Someone with autism." Poorly stated characterization of a condition with a vast range of possible manifestations. The nonverbal autistic kid with an obsession for dentist offices isn't going to be influenced by AI. And the autistic with normal or above intelligence isn't necessarily going to fall for it, either. Has it been 30 or 40 years since Rainman was in theaters? People still think autism is this or that one thing.
Really appreciate the kind words about Magisterium AI. We still have tons of work to do, but I agree with your concerns and rest assured we won't be embodying our AI ;)
Thanks for sharing your talk with us even while you're suffering! A.I. is a new TOOL (like Google once was). It helped me prep for my recent debate The Great Joseph Debate: was he a Virgin? It was a 3-way debate with Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox positions represented.
5 Thomas asked him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going; and how can we know the way?” 6 Jesus assured them, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14 "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" John 8:32 repent my brothers and sisters, only Jesus Christ saves.
Apologetics doesnt convince me. Character does and friendship does. I know many catholics who love litrugy, love Pope Benedict XVI, love theology, love the eucharist but they stab you in the back, exhibit jealousy, exhibit competition and isnt really charitable in their lifestyle. I also know so many atheist or LGBTQ apologists who are good samaritans and will offer to help you in your time of need. 2 years ago I was broke because I was scammed. Nobody in my catholic community consoled me. The person who helped me a lot was my co-workers, and they were hedonists and sinners, atheists.
Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. He was not an "it", anymore than it can "sound" human, ie with proper intonation, correct pronunciation or THINK like a human, with all of the human experience and history, ie culture, brokenness and success, individual uniquenesses, etc. Intellect alone is not enough.
100% agree. "...and they overcame...by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony amd by not loving their lives unto death." An AI can't do any of that. Only regenerated people with real faith can.
Excellent question about whether AI can replace the role of apologists, Brian. I agree that AI can't truly do apologetics in the sense that it is described in 1 Peter 3:15 because AI cannot give a reason for faith or hope that it does not have. Your answer reminds me of Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan's famous observation that the "medium is the message."
7:32 No, AI does not have information and a language model to communicate that information. A book does not have things that are information to it. The printed ink certainly is a physical feature of the book, but not an information to the book. Pretending the AI has "information" tends to pretend AI can understand it in some way as information. AI has things that can become information to human readers or watchers, but are not information to the AI. The idea AI has a "language model to communicate that information" kind of suggests this even more, as if the AI were trying to express something it understood. Get an abacus. Perhaps you can borrow it from your children. Push two bullets to the ridge, say "two", push two more to it and say "plus two", count the bullets at the ridge and say "make four" ... Now ask yourself, have you just proven that the abacus understands the proposition "two plus two make four" ... or is sth else going on?
I really don't understand this general acceptance and excitement around AI. People act like it is a balloon trick at a six year olds birthday party. It is a event horizon. It will dwarf the advent of fire, electricity, the agricultural revolutuon, industrial revolutuon and nuclear technology combined. Anyone with a meager amount of forsight can determine that it will prove to be catastrophic for mankind. The naievety and arrogance is utterly infuriating.
Idk church doctrine on the subject. I know a buddist temple that has delt with the decline of monks with cute little robots that roam the monestary and provides visitors with histoical information and directions, acting as little tour guides... I think this is a good middle ground. A.I. should not make doctrine or interprete doctrine, but I think the church could get ahead of the curve by using said technology and promoting it in safe and non-conflicting way that that helps visitors and/or helps christians fullfill their work they are meant to do for God. It would also be a very good evangelism campaign to bring more smart tech-minded people into the church. The Catholic church has always been the spearhead of innovation and enlightenment (the good kind of enlightenment). This should be no different.
It seems to me that at some point we as a church, community, culture etc. are going to have to say "this far and no more". We keep asking the wrong questions or commiting a categorical error when it comes to technology. Saying technology is neutral it's just how you use it is not working. We should have been asking how is this particular piece of technology going to effect my community and my relationships. I believe this is an Amish approach to technology. Hope you are feeling better.
Father Justin was a joke. A Catholic Take’s take was a hoot. Also, don’t feel well this week. It’s hard to get inspired when you’re in pain. Have been practicing “offering it up”.
Brian, I love your work and I'm very grateful by your effort to bring so much bliss to us here in RUclips. With that being said, I think you are in a position of a older generation that doesn't get the new generation inclination. I know a young woman born in 2002 which uses more Instagram and Google and AI to aswer their questions than her friends or family. People with some mental or generational inclinations have more confidence in the machine than people. That's bizarre, I know, I am very much shocked by this fact, but that is what it is. Maybe a catholic AI winning a atheistic AI could be a true avenue of mass conversions. Specialy if it win by many years in a roll. Like 10 years the catholic wins the atheist. It could mean a generation transformed by tech in favour of the faith. Consider this...
Consider that many people like me have visual impairment. Reading is very difficult. So a programme that can understand what I say and speak to me the teachings of the Church. It allows me to deepen my knowledge and understanding without the struggle of reading and typing. For example. it has taken me 5 minutes or so to type this comment. With love.
I actually would be more likely to be persuaded by an AI than a human. Because the AI might be able to provide a reasonable argument i haven't heard before. More specifically, it might be able to find proof of a heretical ex cathedra statement.
It could never find an heretical ex cathedra statement because it is not possible. Our Faith teaches us that all such statements are infallible. If you could find a single false statement, Faith itself would be destroyed and we would have no way of knowing God's Word.
I'm sorry you haven't been well. You did extremely well on the AI topic for someone in a worn-down state. This is a topic that probably deserves more videos, but I want to thank you for this one. I also truly appreciate Catholic Answers. Kudos for your open support for them and I pray you feel better soon.
I’m curious to know whether you have listened to Daniel O’Connor’s RUclips discussions on AI? He takes a pretty hard line and I would be interested in your response to it.
AI is bad. Think how crazy it is to expect a receiver to take the time to read something sent from you that you didn’t take the time to craft. I could go on…
What do you mean by question Vatican II? Question its validity? You can’t. It is an ecumenical council. Question its judgments? As far as definitive teachings, they are just like all others. As far as prudential judgments, same as all others because they can be fallible. As far as its twisting and abuses, of course not good and Catholic Answers apologists have said this repeatedly.
@@Bonnie-v5b I think that is a little oversimplified. I’m not an expert but it did write 3 dogmatic constitutions. And another constitution as its four primary documents. Those are very authoritative documents.
@@Bonnie-v5b Not like any other Council. There was no legitimate reason to call it. There were no anathemas like in the infallible Council of Trent. The only reason given by the Modernist JXXlll was that we must open the Church to the world.
@@IRISHBee4 I questioned Catholic Answers saying that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God. They could only have come to that conclusion by accepting Vll's religious indifferentism.
I sincerely feel this video is a bit of a miss. What the video seemed to be saying to me: 1) Catholics shouldn't make AI, because it might not be as good as non-Catholic AI 2) Catholics shouldn't make AI, because it isn't convincingly human 3) Catholics shouldn't make AI, because it is inferior to What I want to know: 1) How should Catholics engage with technology--including AI? 2) How should Catholics create technology--including AI? I don't disagree with having an abundance of caution toward the unseen affects of, especially new, technologies, but I think this caution must be grounded in principles. Otherwise it feels like we're just making the same sort of superstitious appeals as many others populist talking heads. And I don't think that is healthy for the faithful at large, either. I love this channel. I really do! God bless!
It's about whether it's a good tool for the job of Apologetic or not. The answer Brian is giving is that it's not a proper tool, because the job requires an element that is purely human, which is faith and the love of God. It's impossible for a computer to have it, so a computer can't do the job.
I definitely wasn't saying we shouldn't use or make AI. I specifically identified an example that is well used (magisterium.ai). As the others pointed out, it's the specific application of an AI apologist that is a misuse of the technology rather than a data driven tool.
@@BrianHoldsworth Hey, trash ai all you want, but what did The Polar Express ever do to you?😅 j/k …I know the eyes are creepy but I still love the movie. Same with Disney’s/Jim Carey’s A Christmas Carol
Well Brian, here you are using technology to impart your thoughts! People should understand AI better....it's limits & how it could be a danger. You know that the AI that Catholic Answers used had access merely to certain Catholic sources and only them!? NO? There is a difference between an AI that has access to global net & an AI that isn't necessarily an AI. When you do a word search on a document, which Im sure you do, you're doing what the 'AI' that Catholic answers released does.. ...but you're putting a dark take on one and not the other? ..and then recommending your friends...AI...? C'mon!
The problem with AI is that it attempts to learn from interactions with the user, so you can often fool or manipulate them into doing unexpected things. Apparently, people were able to make the Father Justin version offer absolution even though it earlier responded by saying it didn't have the capability to do so. A similar thing happened with ChatGPT, where users could make it violate it's restrictions by messing with it long enough. I don't blame CA for trying this approach, but I believe it will ultimately cause more problems than it solves.
@@pop6997 I don't know much about the other one he mentioned. I followed the CA story a bit, since I watch their livestreams so I heard the announcement the day they made it, and immediately knew they were in for some trouble when it went public. I'd say the same danger applies to it as much as any other "machine learning" technology, but I'm typically Cautious about emerging tech as a rule. I don't trust the industry since about the time Google started stealing everyone's data.
Where are you getting your information from? I see no disclosures about how Justin was trained except it was developed by a "Fator8" group seems to be a group/organization just setup with no information on them.
![FendiDa Rappa - Clock Dat ft. Shamar Marco [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3NBU8KHdxYY/mqdefault.jpg)
I hope you fully recover soon. "If I look a little pale" coming from a "celt". My Nigerian priest used the same line the other week. I love it.
Do not trust computers to be properly programed.
This sounds conspiratorial. Care to elaborate?
I can program a computer to do whatever I want it to do. A malicious person or entity can program code to infect computers.
@@ShiniGuraiJoker How about start with the basics, "Justin" is supposedly developed by "Fator8". Try to search for who in the world is this organization, all you get is a phishing website. Go try it yourself, it's right there!
@@ShiniGuraiJoker conspiratorial? Tell you what. Open the calculator program on your computer. Do you understand the code behind it? Are you even able to access the code behind it? Now that’s just a calculator app. How about your email client? How about the firmware that transmits keyboard input to software? If I told you that the CIA was all but confirmed to have _hardware_ back doors into modern cpus (which is actually a thing), could you even begin to disprove it? Time and time again government agencies come out admitting that they do in fact spy on you with your own hardware, and you think it’s conspiratorial to say you shouldn’t trust programming? Seems like you might be programmed a little too well.
I trust them... to reflect the fallen natures of the programmers.
There never will be inerrant divinely inspired programs.
I think Apologetics is part of theology. It is something when done properly combine faith and reason, is built on prayer and reliant on God. Using AI Apologist reduces apologetics to purely an intellectual exercise. An AI doesn't have the virtue of faith, so it can't do true apologetics. I will concede that perhaps AI can aid apologists but it can't be left to its own device.
Or is it that even AI can not or does not know how to explain and answer any question man has already failed to with their faith?
I do agree AI tech right now is extremely annoying and extremely reductive for all modes of communication and inspiration.
For the algorithm
I hope you feel better soon, Brian! I always look forward to your videos.
I hope you feel better soon.
Feel better, man. Even we Lutherans want our Catholic friends to be healthy :)
I think a better name is large language model info searchable and in a conversation mode
Why put syntheitic “people” in place of real,genuinely thinking ones? We have never needed them before! +
Surrender your mind to the Pope Calvinist demon
Get well soon. Thank you for articulating my instinct. Well done despite or because of the crud.
3 Aves for your intentions 🌹🌹🌹🙏🏻✝️
The reason why human apologists influence us is because a human chrisitian apologist will be effective depending on his/her own commitmenet to live the life of Christ within him/her. I can't imagine AI apologist living the 8 beatitudes of Christ (Poor in Spirit, Pure in Heart, Peacemakers , hungering/Thirsting of righteousness etc et.c) since ultimately it can't possibly have the various virtues especially the theological virtues such as Faith, Hope & Love of God.
Hmmmm yeahhhh Ai makes sense for quick answers as a search engine but not as an apologist
Granted those programming it, AI is likely to tell us that the natural state of humans is to be homosexual. I'm not convinced that it would do a good job regarding apologetics. In fact, I'd bet it would do an intentionally bad job of it.
On another note, feel better!
I think apologetics is like poetry; an intellectual reflection on the movements and convictions of the heart and soul. As such, a machine which has neither can not effectively do it.
If you use AI to simply collate information and return it, that is fine, but the traditional language model is more of an ersatz intelligence than a real one. It uses probability based on what it’s been told to -look- intelligent. It’s no more thinking or understanding than if a monkey put a banana to his ear after watching a human talk on the phone. The actions look similar, but it’d be ridiculous to think they are equivalent.
AI is mostly just hype. If Catholics want to use it, they need to strip back the hype and figure out what the technology is actually good for. Maybe searching through 2000 years of written documents for references and names that appear in different renderings and languages would be a good use. But actual AI theology should be forbidden
You did a good job with this talk, and made some good points. As you said, AI is great at learning a huge amount of data, then providing it in an organized way. For apologetics to use AI trained on the Magesterium documents is a brilliant good idea - not with the aim of replacing humans, but in the service of supporting humans with better backup in less time.
Not to take this a wrong way but I like this "sick" Brian. May the Lord be blessed! Thank you for the video.
Faith is fundamentally human. AI is fundamentally not human. Having non-human entities "speak" on precisely human enterprise is not useful and can't be persuasive.
Feel better
AI is opposed to Church and vice versa, in my opinion.... There is a reason why even modern Catholic Church's still use hymn books, and even Life Teen Masses use 'song sheets'... I have been to literally *one* Catholic Mass in my life that used teleprompters for lyrics, and even that Church used hymns/sheet music discreetly on a blank space of wall, that when the lights were turned off, just became Church wall again....
No AI artwork. No AI apologists.... The sacramentality of the Church should know better... Matter, and spirit.... Human persons, using the 5 senses, and culture/sanctity is all we should ever need.
As Catholics, anthropomorphizing AI is something we should resist on principle.
Healthy human anthropology is deeply broken in the mind of our culture and we need to offer the proper alternative.
And yet you have no problem anthropomorphising god.
@@davepugh2519 I actually try to resist anthropomorphisizng God, but I'm Byzantine 😉
A computer algorithm, no matter how complex it may be, obviously has no soul, no conscience or free will as given by Almighty God. The Holy Spirit speaks to us and through us as persons and not through ‘AI’.
For me, anything AI is a turn off. It doesn’t have to be just religious content it could be anything AI, because it’s a total lack of human connection, and I just can’t relate to it.
Take care of yourself Brian, and get well!
Jesus Christ wasn’t crucified for an AI gadget, no matter how smartly it has been programmed! Catholic Answers overstepped the mark when it began to use AI. Human beings have a profound dignity that nothing else on this planet can ever have. Using AI gadgetry is a big step in the wrong direction and we all know where that road leads. The gadget is only as good as the person who programmed it and we have no way of knowing how it makes its selection of information, particularly the stuff that it leaves out.
Debating with AI is interesting. I find if I point out flaws and what it's saying it will eventually acknowledge them but I have to know what I'm talking about. For me this the topic that I know something about is diet. Ai is highly skewed against animal-based eating but I can get it to acknowledge flaws in its "thinking." One can only imagine if you start debating politics with it.
Why does "feeding the algorithm" remind me of the Moloch scene in Lang's Metropolis?
God bless you! I think you are right about the most effective use of AI -- to find sources to substantiate our Faith
Be well soon!
For the algorithm
Although, the Star Trek NG character Data might disagree, an AI apologist has no skin in the game.
Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.
-the Bible, probably.
I see what your saying but alot of apologist do just communicate data that they found convincing.
I just used AI for something within "apologetics." A person I know who sees himself as an intellectual, who is an atheist with a real distaste of Christianity (and Catholicism in particular) recently wrote on FB a very fallacious argument in response to someone. He often goes on antk-God diatribes. I just quickly said "yeah, that's a textbook genetic fallacy." And that's it.
He denied it was a genetic fallacy. So, I went to chat gpt and said "does the following text contain any examples of a genetic fallacy, and if so, give examples:" and then pasted all of his text. Chat gpt gave all the examples of the use of the fallacy (which were numerous). I then screenshoted the response and posted it in reply to him.
It was pretty cool. It took me about 45 seconds total, and he couldn't argue that it was coming from some biased Catholic/Christian/theistic source.
AI is a tool. Nothing more. Nothing less. It can be helpful. It can be misused. It has limitations. It can also be very beneficial.
Mostly misused like everything man does
It's a tool that mines other peoples' work to feed itself without compensating them. It's a nightmare for educators who expect their students to do their own writing. Naive people will assume that it is smarter than they are and therefore always correct. And that's just scratching the surface. A friend easily got "Fr. Justin" to give her advice that was not in line with Catholic teaching.
@@Mike-qc8xd Yep. That's right.
@@Kan-o-tex Yep. I think there are massive risks with AI. For me, the biggest is people thinking it is objective and rational, when in fact it's just a language model, which uses whatever data set has been given to it (which could be biased), will likely end up feeding on its own output, and the algorithms they use will likely be hardcoded biased (but hidden bias).
But also huge opportunities. For example, being able to quickly and easily research Church Fathers' original works.
I think Brian is wrong about whether nor not two competing AI's would change people's minds. I think it would. At the end of the day, they're just arguments for or against. And people can be convinced either way.
My understanding is that Catholic Answers has abandoned any attempt to continue with their A.I. experiment. Are they still doing that?
No. They just changed the priest to a layman.
Too weak to think well. All I can take on now is AI.
That says enough.
For the algorithm
AI evangelists coud be used to convert other AI bots.
Witnessing and conversion is supposed to be happen via the holy spirit, for example pentacost. That implies working through people with souls to be useful. Having said that, I suppose God works in his own ways.
I really do agree with Brian that AI could be an aide to apologetics by parsing scripture and commentary and such.
Some AI models are trained to physiologically nudges the user to slowly influence them towards trained way of thinking. I could see someone with autism becoming greatly influenced by such suggestions. People should be aware AI are great liars, sometimes just a hiccup but sometimes by design.
Ick. "Someone with autism." Poorly stated characterization of a condition with a vast range of possible manifestations. The nonverbal autistic kid with an obsession for dentist offices isn't going to be influenced by AI. And the autistic with normal or above intelligence isn't necessarily going to fall for it, either. Has it been 30 or 40 years since Rainman was in theaters? People still think autism is this or that one thing.
I think you're right. Is should only be used as a resource to quickly find reliable sources. Not for actual apologetics/debate.
Thank you & may the Lord have His Healing Hands upon you
Really appreciate the kind words about Magisterium AI. We still have tons of work to do, but I agree with your concerns and rest assured we won't be embodying our AI ;)
AI will soon be smart enough to figure out that god isn't real.
How would it know?
Thanks for sharing your talk with us even while you're suffering! A.I. is a new TOOL (like Google once was). It helped me prep for my recent debate The Great Joseph Debate: was he a Virgin? It was a 3-way debate with Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox positions represented.
5 Thomas asked him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going; and how can we know the way?” 6 Jesus assured them, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" John 8:32
repent my brothers and sisters, only Jesus Christ saves.
Apologetics doesnt convince me. Character does and friendship does. I know many catholics who love litrugy, love Pope Benedict XVI, love theology, love the eucharist but they stab you in the back, exhibit jealousy, exhibit competition and isnt really charitable in their lifestyle. I also know so many atheist or LGBTQ apologists who are good samaritans and will offer to help you in your time of need. 2 years ago I was broke because I was scammed. Nobody in my catholic community consoled me. The person who helped me a lot was my co-workers, and they were hedonists and sinners, atheists.
Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. He was not an "it", anymore than it can "sound" human, ie with proper intonation, correct pronunciation or THINK like a human, with all of the human experience and history, ie culture, brokenness and success, individual uniquenesses, etc. Intellect alone is not enough.
I found "Justin" to be very knowledgeable (of course!), dispassionate and persuasive. "He" actually sounds like an old-school priest.
100% agree. "...and they overcame...by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony amd by not loving their lives unto death." An AI can't do any of that. Only regenerated people with real faith can.
Excellent question about whether AI can replace the role of apologists, Brian. I agree that AI can't truly do apologetics in the sense that it is described in 1 Peter 3:15 because AI cannot give a reason for faith or hope that it does not have. Your answer reminds me of Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan's famous observation that the "medium is the message."
7:32 No, AI does not have information and a language model to communicate that information.
A book does not have things that are information to it. The printed ink certainly is a physical feature of the book, but not an information to the book.
Pretending the AI has "information" tends to pretend AI can understand it in some way as information. AI has things that can become information to human readers or watchers, but are not information to the AI.
The idea AI has a "language model to communicate that information" kind of suggests this even more, as if the AI were trying to express something it understood.
Get an abacus. Perhaps you can borrow it from your children. Push two bullets to the ridge, say "two", push two more to it and say "plus two", count the bullets at the ridge and say "make four" ...
Now ask yourself, have you just proven that the abacus understands the proposition "two plus two make four" ... or is sth else going on?
I really don't understand this general acceptance and excitement around AI. People act like it is a balloon trick at a six year olds birthday party.
It is a event horizon. It will dwarf the advent of fire, electricity, the agricultural revolutuon, industrial revolutuon and nuclear technology combined. Anyone with a meager amount of forsight can determine that it will prove to be catastrophic for mankind. The naievety and arrogance is utterly infuriating.
Idk church doctrine on the subject. I know a buddist temple that has delt with the decline of monks with cute little robots that roam the monestary and provides visitors with histoical information and directions, acting as little tour guides...
I think this is a good middle ground. A.I. should not make doctrine or interprete doctrine, but I think the church could get ahead of the curve by using said technology and promoting it in safe and non-conflicting way that that helps visitors and/or helps christians fullfill their work they are meant to do for God.
It would also be a very good evangelism campaign to bring more smart tech-minded people into the church. The Catholic church has always been the spearhead of innovation and enlightenment (the good kind of enlightenment). This should be no different.
“If I look a little pale” 😅 …I’ve got three redheaded children, you guys ALWAYS look pale 😅😉👍🏻
It seems to me that at some point we as a church, community, culture etc. are going to have to say "this far and no more". We keep asking the wrong questions or commiting a categorical error when it comes to technology. Saying technology is neutral it's just how you use it is not working. We should have been asking how is this particular piece of technology going to effect my community and my relationships. I believe this is an Amish approach to technology.
Hope you are feeling better.
Hard won knowledge and wisdom just seems to have more staying power: "Easy come easy go" applies as much to wisdom as to finances.
For anyone who wants to know, the intro is: introit “The Love of God”
Get well soon, brother!
An AI catechism might be helpful.
You can bless a computer. You just can't baptize one.
Father Justin was a joke. A Catholic Take’s take was a hoot. Also, don’t feel well this week. It’s hard to get inspired when you’re in pain. Have been practicing “offering it up”.
Brian, I love your work and I'm very grateful by your effort to bring so much bliss to us here in RUclips.
With that being said, I think you are in a position of a older generation that doesn't get the new generation inclination. I know a young woman born in 2002 which uses more Instagram and Google and AI to aswer their questions than her friends or family. People with some mental or generational inclinations have more confidence in the machine than people.
That's bizarre, I know, I am very much shocked by this fact, but that is what it is.
Maybe a catholic AI winning a atheistic AI could be a true avenue of mass conversions. Specialy if it win by many years in a roll. Like 10 years the catholic wins the atheist. It could mean a generation transformed by tech in favour of the faith.
Consider this...
Consider that many people like me have visual impairment. Reading is very difficult. So a programme that can understand what I say and speak to me the teachings of the Church. It allows me to deepen my knowledge and understanding without the struggle of reading and typing. For example. it has taken me 5 minutes or so to type this comment. With love.
I actually would be more likely to be persuaded by an AI than a human. Because the AI might be able to provide a reasonable argument i haven't heard before. More specifically, it might be able to find proof of a heretical ex cathedra statement.
🤦🏽♂️
It could never find an heretical ex cathedra statement because it is not possible. Our Faith teaches us that all such statements are infallible. If you could find a single false statement, Faith itself would be destroyed and we would have no way of knowing God's Word.
I'm sorry you haven't been well. You did extremely well on the AI topic for someone in a worn-down state. This is a topic that probably deserves more videos, but I want to thank you for this one. I also truly appreciate Catholic Answers. Kudos for your open support for them and I pray you feel better soon.
I’m curious to know whether you have listened to Daniel O’Connor’s RUclips discussions on AI? He takes a pretty hard line and I would be interested in your response to it.
I think Catholic Answers should make Jimmy Akin its avatar.
AI is bad. Think how crazy it is to expect a receiver to take the time to read something sent from you that you didn’t take the time to craft. I could go on…
Well said Brian. Thank you! Praying that God the great physician grant you strength and health of both body and soul.
Can satan cast out satan ?
Completely agree! Exactly my own arguments.
Precisely right
Thank You, dear Brian! +
Please God , you recovery fully
Really soon
God bless you Brian 🕊️💕
Catholic Answers would never let you question Vatican ll.
What do you mean by question Vatican II? Question its validity? You can’t. It is an ecumenical council. Question its judgments? As far as definitive teachings, they are just like all others. As far as prudential judgments, same as all others because they can be fallible. As far as its twisting and abuses, of course not good and Catholic Answers apologists have said this repeatedly.
It was pastoral, not like some councils.
@@Bonnie-v5b I think that is a little oversimplified. I’m not an expert but it did write 3 dogmatic constitutions. And another constitution as its four primary documents. Those are very authoritative documents.
@@Bonnie-v5b Not like any other Council. There was no legitimate reason to call it. There were no anathemas like in the infallible Council of Trent. The only reason given by the Modernist JXXlll was that we must open the Church to the world.
@@IRISHBee4 I questioned Catholic Answers saying that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God. They could only have come to that conclusion by accepting Vll's religious indifferentism.
Get better soon
Torally agree!
For the algo
Nope.
I hope you get well soon. I am just getting over something too. No fun, but sometimes we need to rest.
For the algorithm ✔️
Thank you, Brian
Completely agreed
Get well soon
Brilliant!!!;
I sincerely feel this video is a bit of a miss. What the video seemed to be saying to me:
1) Catholics shouldn't make AI, because it might not be as good as non-Catholic AI
2) Catholics shouldn't make AI, because it isn't convincingly human
3) Catholics shouldn't make AI, because it is inferior to
What I want to know:
1) How should Catholics engage with technology--including AI?
2) How should Catholics create technology--including AI?
I don't disagree with having an abundance of caution toward the unseen affects of, especially new, technologies, but I think this caution must be grounded in principles.
Otherwise it feels like we're just making the same sort of superstitious appeals as many others populist talking heads. And I don't think that is healthy for the faithful at large, either.
I love this channel. I really do! God bless!
The point went over your head bud
It's about whether it's a good tool for the job of Apologetic or not. The answer Brian is giving is that it's not a proper tool, because the job requires an element that is purely human, which is faith and the love of God. It's impossible for a computer to have it, so a computer can't do the job.
I definitely wasn't saying we shouldn't use or make AI. I specifically identified an example that is well used (magisterium.ai). As the others pointed out, it's the specific application of an AI apologist that is a misuse of the technology rather than a data driven tool.
@@BrianHoldsworth Hey, trash ai all you want, but what did The Polar Express ever do to you?😅 j/k …I know the eyes are creepy but I still love the movie. Same with Disney’s/Jim Carey’s A Christmas Carol
@@BrianHoldsworth I appreciate your response. God bless you and your work!
Well Brian, here you are using technology to impart your thoughts!
People should understand AI better....it's limits & how it could be a danger.
You know that the AI that Catholic Answers used had access merely to certain Catholic sources and only them!? NO?
There is a difference between an AI that has access to global net & an AI that isn't necessarily an AI. When you do a word search on a document, which Im sure you do, you're doing what the 'AI' that Catholic answers released does..
...but you're putting a dark take on one and not the other?
..and then recommending your friends...AI...?
C'mon!
The problem with AI is that it attempts to learn from interactions with the user, so you can often fool or manipulate them into doing unexpected things. Apparently, people were able to make the Father Justin version offer absolution even though it earlier responded by saying it didn't have the capability to do so. A similar thing happened with ChatGPT, where users could make it violate it's restrictions by messing with it long enough. I don't blame CA for trying this approach, but I believe it will ultimately cause more problems than it solves.
@@sbanach Tell Brian all about that. He recommends his friends AI as a 'good' thing.
@@pop6997 I don't know much about the other one he mentioned. I followed the CA story a bit, since I watch their livestreams so I heard the announcement the day they made it, and immediately knew they were in for some trouble when it went public. I'd say the same danger applies to it as much as any other "machine learning" technology, but I'm typically Cautious about emerging tech as a rule. I don't trust the industry since about the time Google started stealing everyone's data.
Where are you getting your information from? I see no disclosures about how Justin was trained except it was developed by a "Fator8" group seems to be a group/organization just setup with no information on them.
@@neverclevernorwitty7821 I think they discussed this a bit in the CA livestream where it was first announced.
I pray for your health.
I'm on day eleven of having a fever and coughing. Never been sick like this before.
Sorry to hear. Prayers for your recovery!