AI is better thought of as a tool or a weapon, a piece of technology. Something like the printing press is a better analogy: it had a huge effect on society and information transfer, and while companies that owned printing presses did exert influence (newspapers) they were not worshipped or treated as some kind of protected class, and the technology itself dispersed over time as it became cheaper. It seems like the same thing could happen with AI.
Some people literally run a "model" of ChatGPT in their minds which they ask questions of, the way people pray to God, because they implicitly trust "the voice of God" more than their own. People use AI for moral guidance, as a primary source of truth, and for emotional connection. And then people who believe in the Singularity believe AI will become so intelligent that the rules of reality will simply cease to exist and the Eschaton will reward the faithful with infinite abundance and eternal life and punish the unbelievers with endless torture. There is a theology and an eschatology at work. You can see it in almost every AI related thread now. The language of AI and the language of religion are intersecting.
I don't think viewing AIs as gods is the wrong analogy, rather like any religion it's wrong outside of an academic sense because obviously gods aren't real. Viewing AI as simply a tool in the same vein as printing presses is ignoring the greater cultural context forming around it, and that context is worth paying attention to. One claim theists often make is that the secular world fails to provide the sense of belonging, meaning and community that religion one did, and it seems obvious that modern always-online and always-commercial society alienates and dehumanizes people, leading to a longing for real connection that it can't provide. AI is clearly filling that void for many people, and it is becoming a secular religion in many real ways.
And no, most of the things you're describing are not religious behaviors, they're just obsessive ones. This is a common misunderstanding, that "doing something a lot = religion. Religions are not that simple, but people claiming that social media is a religion, or AI obsession is a religion, etc. are just lacking knowledge of what a religion actually is. Religions are pretty much the most complex topic there is, sociologically/anthropologically/philosophically, but "serious" people don't study them anymore, hence the half-baked opinions of otherwise educated people.
And even then - if we assume that all of what you said is true, it's not really clear how that maps to the Catholic Church analogy. Certain people may obsess over what ChatGPT thinks about something, but it's not really clear why they would value the opinion of someone that works at ChatGPT, which is what the post was about.
- If You Knew God Exists, Wouldn't You Become a Priest? (joecmarshall.com) 9 points by webappsecperson 19 days ago | past | 23 comments | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49521724
- If You Knew God Exists, Wouldn't You Become a Priest? (joecmarshall.com) 7 points by CoreSet 20 days ago | past | 1 comment | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49504187
What is happening (or will) with LLM on the other hand is very human driven. So I am sure if we reach something perfect ( I kinda hope to see it but I don't think we will as my understanding of today llms ) it will be used by everyone because you can't contain progress ( open sources, piracy, countries that unite etc ).
Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad
I wouldn’t trust this argument by analogy enough to risk the fate of the world on it, but it doesn’t seem obvious to me that a super intelligence would be totally disinclined to care about the interests of lesser intelligences
Really figured out that they can make more $$$ by selling it than actually using it themselves and selling the result.
I find these comments boring because they lack the theory of mind into EAs and rationalists.
Never said LLMs are not capable of some things...May be try to comprehend, before you respond.
But it seems that your arguments is that "a bunch of guys got sold on the idea, so it must be legit"...is that it?
>[avoid] thinking about AI risks in a quasi-religious way
Should I call my kids "god" because they're smarter than me?
So please sit down, evangelize your new God who will carve the stone tablets for you (Moses was a Luddite) and remember that there is no alternative!
Even granting an LLM reasoning abilities far beyond our own, I don’t see how that gets us any closer to either. Calling such a system godlike seems less a statement about the capabilities of the system than about how little we’re demanding of the word “God.”
Although clearly the model people are working with when they describe AI as a religion or they invoke AGI or the Singularity is based on the Abrahamic faiths rather than paganism or animism. I assume a lot of people with such beliefs also believe in some sort of simulated universe (as proxy for a metaphysical/supernatural realm) and that a sufficiently intelligent AI would simply be able to take root on reality... somehow. That direct analogy between technology, raw intellect and Godlike omnipotence has been a staple of science fiction for decades. Two early examples I can think of offhand being "the Jesus Incident" and Asimov's "The Final Question." And of course it's all over pre-LLM AI accelerationist stuff written by the likes of Ray Kurzweil and Rudy Rucker, Charles Stross' Accelerando, Vernor Vinge's Fire upon the Deep, the Culture series, etc.