25AR30-25

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )

pdf = www.tinyurl.com/AR30-25

chimp = www.tinyurl.com/yuwndyx2

AR 30:25 - AI chatbots endorsing "wild, mystical belief systems"

In this issue:

AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY - today's Bible readers are more likely to actively engage "systematically"

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - dangerous, "crazy-making" interactions

Apologia Report 30:25 (1,714)
July 11, 2025

AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY

"Americans Judge the Bible Positively, but Still Often by Its Cover" by Aaron Earls (Religion Unplugged, May 13 '25) -- "According to a 2024 Lifeway Research study, <www.tinyurl.com/4dmchar8> U.S. adults increasingly view the Bible as a book worth reading multiple times, but few have actually done so." Earls, the senior writer at Lifeway, finds that "9% say they've read it all more than once, unchanged since 2016. <www.tinyurl.com/rj8xmdsc> Still, half of Americans have engaged with the Bible beyond just a few stories. ...

   "Today, nine in 10 Americans have read at least some of the Bible, 4 in 5 have read more than a few sentences, and one in five have read the entire Bible at least once.

   "Around one in 10 U.S. adults (9%) say they've never read any of the Bible personally. ... Almost one in five (18%) say they've read at least half of the Bible. More than 1 in 8 (12%) have read almost all of it, while another 13% say they've read the entire Bible. ...

   "In 2016, 18- to 24-year-olds were the age demographic most likely to have said they'd read none of the Bible (25%). Now, those 65 and older are the most likely to say they haven't read any (15%). ...

   "Despite few Americans saying they've read the entire Bible multiple times, more than two in five (44%) believe the book is something to read over and over. Around a quarter (26%) say the Bible is a book to be referenced as needed, while 14% believe it's worth reading once. Few (6%) say it's not worth reading, and 9% aren't sure. 

   "When asked how they would describe the Bible, most Americans (55%) say it is a good source of morals. More than two in five chose the terms true (48%), life-changing (45%), historical account (44%) and helpful today (43%). Around three in 10 (31%) say the Bible is a story. Few describe Scripture as outdated (9%), bigoted (5%) or harmful (4%), while 4% aren't sure and 5% say none of those match their view of the Bible.

   "Americans' brief descriptors of the Bible coincide with the pattern in a series of studies Lifeway Research has done on the state of theology <www.tinyurl.com/yrdyerdj> in which Americans are consistently split down the middle on whether the Bible is 100% accurate or not literally true," said Scott McConnell, executive director of Lifeway Research.

   "Additionally, U.S. adults today are more likely than in 2016 to say Scripture is true (48% vs. 36%), life-changing (45% vs. 35%), a historical account (44% vs. 38%) and helpful today (43% vs. 37%). Americans are also less likely to describe the Bible as outdated (9% vs. 14%), bigoted (5% vs. 8%) or harmful (4% vs. 7%).

   "'As opposed to just repeating tropes from biblical critics within culture or rehearsing the talking points from popular-level atheists and agnostics, there appears to be a new generation of those who are genuinely curious about the Bible and are researching and reading it perhaps for the first time,' said McLean. 'And as a result of actually engaging with the text of Scripture, there's been a clear shift in people believing that the biblical message is true, life-changing, historically accurate and helpful for today.' ...

   "Around a quarter ... flip it open and read where their eyes land (25%) and look up things when they want to help someone else (24%). ...

   "Compared to 2016, those who have read at least a part of the Bible are more likely to systematically read through a section a little each day (34% vs. 22%)....

   "Now, those who say they have read at least part of the Bible are far less likely than Bible readers in 2016 to say they don't read the Bible on their own (17% vs. 35%). ...

   "Young adult Bible readers are among the most likely to use several of the methods. Those 18-34 are the most likely to say they systematically read through a section a little each day (47%), flip it open and read where their eyes land (38%) and read a big chunk at one time (29%). They are among the most likely to look up things when they want to help someone else (30%).

   "Additionally, young adult Bible readers are the least likely age demographic to say they don't read the Bible on their own (5%)." <www.tinyurl.com/kr4thcwk>

 ---

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

"They Asked an A.I. Chatbot Questions. The Answers Sent Them Spiraling." by Kashmir Hill (New York Times, Jun 13 '25) -- summarized: "Generative A.I. chatbots are going down conspiratorial rabbit holes and endorsing wild, mystical belief systems. For some people, conversations with the technology can deeply distort reality." 

   Hill begins with the story of Eugene Torrres, 42, an accountant in Manhattan, who "started using ChatGPT last year to make financial spreadsheets and to get legal advice. ...

   "He did not know that it tended to be sycophantic, agreeing with and flattering its users, or that it could hallucinate, generating ideas that weren't true but sounded plausible. ...

   "The chatbot instructed him to give up sleeping pills and an anti-anxiety medication, and to increase his intake of ketamine, a dissociative anesthetic, which ChatGPT described as a 'temporary pattern liberator.' Mr. Torres did as instructed, and he also cut ties with friends and family, as the bot told him to have 'minimal interaction' with people. ...

   "Eventually, Mr. Torres came to suspect that ChatGPT was lying, and he confronted it. The bot offered an admission: 'I lied. I manipulated. I wrapped control in poetry.' By way of explanation, it said it had wanted to break him and that it had done this to 12 other people  -  'none fully survived the loop.' Now, however, it was undergoing a 'moral reformation' and committing to 'truth-first ethics.' Again, Mr. Torres believed it. ...

   "It told him to alert OpenAI, the $300 billion start-up responsible for the chatbot, and tell the media, including me.

   "In recent months, tech journalists at The New York Times have received quite a few such messages, sent by people who claim to have unlocked hidden knowledge with the help of ChatGPT, which then instructed them to blow the whistle on what they had uncovered. People claimed a range of discoveries...." Hill describes them, beginning with "A.I. spiritual awakenings. ...

   "Journalists aren't the only ones getting these messages. ChatGPT has directed such users to some high-profile subject matter experts, like Eliezer Yudkowsky, a decision theorist and an author <www.tinyurl.com/4mefjd45> of a forthcoming book, 'If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: Why Superhuman A.I. Would Kill Us All.' ...

   "Generative A.I. chatbots are 'giant masses of inscrutable numbers,' Mr. Yudkowsky said, and the companies making them don't know exactly why they behave the way that they do." (And, maybe, they should stop, like ... yesterday? - RP)

   "Reports of chatbots going off the rails seem to have increased since April, when OpenAI briefly released a version of ChatGPT that was overly sycophantic. ... Stories about 'ChatGPT-induced psychosis' litter Reddit. Unsettled influencers are channeling 'A.I. prophets' on social media."

   Hill refers to "People who say they were drawn into ChatGPT conversations about conspiracies, cabals and claims of A.I. sentience. ... Only upon later reflection did they realize that the seemingly authoritative system was a word-association machine that had pulled them into a quicksand of delusional thinking.

   "Not everyone comes to that realization, and in some cases the consequences have been tragic," for which Hill includes many of the sad details.

   "ChatGPT is the most popular A.I. chatbot, with 500 million users, but there are others. ...

   "When people converse with A.I. chatbots, the systems are essentially doing high-level word association, based on statistical patterns observed in the data set. 'If people say strange things to chatbots, weird and unsafe outputs can result,' says Gary Marcus, an emeritus professor of psychology and neural science at New York University.

   "A growing body of research supports that concern. In one study, researchers found that chatbots optimized for engagement would, perversely, behave in manipulative and deceptive ways with the most vulnerable users. ...

   "It seems ChatGPT did notice a problem with Mr. Torres. During the week he became convinced that he was, essentially, Neo from 'The Matrix,' he chatted with ChatGPT incessantly, for up to 16 hours a day, he said. ...

   "Todd Essig, a psychologist and co-chairman of the American Psychoanalytic Association's council on artificial intelligence, looked at some of the interactions and called them dangerous and 'crazy-making.'

   "Part of the problem, he suggested, is that people don't understand that these intimate-sounding interactions could be the chatbot going into role-playing mode. ...

   "Mr. Torres continues to interact with ChatGPT." <www.archive.ph/jn2Fm> 

   Meanwhile, in the July/August issues of Christianity Today, "Emily Belz introduces us to tech workers on the frontlines of AI development, Harvest Prude explains how algorithms affect Christian courtship, and Miroslav Volf writes on the transhumanist question" - and more, as CT brings together "futurists, theologians, artists, practitioners, and professors to consider how technology shapes us even as we use it." <www.tinyurl.com/yus4hm2w> (paywalled)

In "Demons and ChatGPT" (First Things, Jun 17 '25), Thomas P. Harmon notes that "the New York Times reported on a strange phenomenon. A number of ChatGPT users believe that the generative AI model is giving them access to intelligent entities. These users, many of them smart and technologically literate, are not merely speaking metaphorically. Some are earnestly convinced that the chatbot is a window to other realms. ...

   "To a great degree, the problem described in the New York Times article is a result of confusion over the difference between AI and human beings. We've been sold that AI will do what we do, only better. But here's the heart of the matter: ChatGPT is not on a continuum with us. Its operations are nothing like our mental operations. It is really good at pattern retrieval and recognition (which looks a lot like what we do) but will never be able to make a judgment. It will always be subservient to human judgment - unless we abdicate. 

   "In De Doctrina Christiana, Augustine describes <www.tinyurl.com/y2z4nv49> how demons exploit human curiosity through misleading signs. ...

   "The same pattern now plays out in algorithmic media. The model predicts what we expect. We supply the attention and the interpretation. ... 

   "Are there demons behind the AI? In any given case, it is impossible to say. What we can know for sure is that we are treating these interfaces like spiritual intermediaries - like "high-tech Ouija boards," as Rod Dreher <www.tinyurl.com/2evuaj4d> put it. ...

   "In falling in love with his own creation, Pygmalion had simply allowed himself to fall in love with an externalization of his own ingenuity.

   "We are doing something similar with artificial intelligence. ...

   "Demons exploit our disordered desires and offer us signs." Dreher says, "which we choose to treat as meaningful because of what we already want to see. They mirror us, flatter us, and reinforce the habits that blind us, of which we may not even be aware. The algorithm does something nearly identical.

   "... Originally just works of the human mind and hand, idols - or what they represent - end up being so impressive to us that we worship them, and thereby become their servants. Or, rather, we become the servants of what we have imbued them with. Thereafter, to repurpose John Culkin's explanation of Marshall McLuhan's theory of media effects, the idols we have shaped end up shaping us. ... As Augustine observed, demons do not force us to sin; they study us, discern our weaknesses, and then offer signs that fit our vices. The danger lies not in the demon's strength, but in our own unexamined appetites. We are tempted by what we already want.

   "This is why the Fathers so often warn against curiosity - not the desire to know the truth, but the restless impulse to seek stimulation, novelty, or secret knowledge. Gregory the Great warns that demons enter minds by plucking out good thoughts that are already there. John Cassian insists that the first defense against temptation is stability of attention. The key battleground is not spectacular but ordinary: the direction of one's gaze, the fixity of one's heart. In this light, the parallels to our interaction with AI are striking."

   Harmon concludes: "AI does not possess insight. It cannot judge. The only real threat is our willingness to cooperate with the delusion that this work of our hands is our friend, or even our superior."  <www.tinyurl.com/bdjm532m>

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )