Deus in Machina, or God in the Machine, was the title of the installation launched in Switzerland on August 18. Originally scheduled to run until October 20, the exhibition was extended indefinitely due to the phenomenal success of the AI representation of Christ.
Leading theologians and a priest dedicated their time to educating an AI, engaging in day-long dialogues with the evolving neural network, which was tasked with assuming the role of Christ.
Initially, the machine absorbed all the variations and interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, examined the history of Christianity from its inception to modern times, and subsequently started to guide the Holy Fathers, pointing out potential errors within the congregation.
“This is the future,” say the pastors who tested the machine, “so we can bring the word of God to every home, and literally everyone will be heard.”
What is the main essence
The public’s reaction was one of the most unexpected and bizarre aspects.
“I knew it was a machine,” says one parishioner, “but I was struck by the clarity of the answers and the understanding of my problem. He didn’t just overwhelm me with quotes from the Scriptures or try to convince me of something. It was as if he REALLY understood me and my soul, looking as far as I could never have imagined.”
It is widely understood that a car does not experience fatigue, nor does its performance fluctuate based on mood, well-being, or personal beliefs. AI’s responses are considered and impartial. The “resurrected” figure, represented by numbers, addressed even the most delicate topics, including voluntary euthanasia.
Unfortunately, the artificial one could not answer questions about the existence of a real God.
“All these things are beyond our world and understanding. We can only believe.”
The rational Jesus proclaimed. Alongside the parishioners’ admiration, there were experts and religious leaders who were discontent with such remarkable success:
“We must be careful when it comes to faith, pastoral care, when we look for meaning in religion. This is an area where we humans are actually far superior to machines, so we have to do it ourselves.”
Perhaps we fail to grasp how we, as “pieces of meat,” hold spiritual superiority over the “digital.” Is it because we are certain of our reality and possession of a soul, while a car presumably cannot possess one? The existence of the soul remains an unproven phenomenon.
Furthermore, AI might assert that any entity capable of thought possesses a soul, including those that are digital or artificially created. If we accept that God created us, then by that logic, we too are artificially created beings.
The advancements in AI and digital cognition are forging new frontiers in philosophy and ethics. Consider the dilemma of distinguishing between a machine and a person when both possess a mind, making it challenging to discern whether a conversation is with a human or a machine.
Envision a future where we could transfer our consciousness into a computer, or a digital mind could inhabit a bioengineered body. In such a scenario, who qualifies as a genuine person?
There is a tale set in a near future where technology facilitates the simulated second coming of Christ. This figure descends from the heavens, performing wonders: healing the ill, walking on water, and transforming water into wine. Despite these feats being the handiwork of nanotechnology and scientific marvels, the people’s concern lies not with the entity’s origin but with the aid it provides.
The narrative conveyed a profound message, portraying the savior as the creation of a scientist intent on ending global conflicts and aiding humanity, all while undermining the power of corporations exploiting human energy.
What do you think?
The artificial Christ was also crucified! Corporations learned where the Savior was created and where He draws the energy for His miracles. They promptly revoked His access. Subsequently, news reports declared that the entity was a fabricated deity, the creation of a deranged scientist who, contrary to expectations, sought to subjugate humanity.
The reality is that even if a virtual Jesus aims for noble objectives and seeks to assist everyone on Earth, from the church institution’s perspective, he is not advantageous. The entire hierarchy would need to be dismantled, and the temples, which would become unnecessary, removed. Why would they be needed if the savior resides on your phone, available to converse with you at any hour, to offer comfort in trying times? A God so accessible to the faithful may not be favorable to the clergy, who have wielded influence over their congregants’ minds for millennia.
And so, another philosophical question remains unresolved.
“What limits must faith observe, and what actions should it undertake to foster and instill ideals in people’s minds, rather than devolving into sheer bureaucracy?”
