I'd be fine with an AI-driven research tool for people to find the human-authored articles CA has, but chatbots and animated priests are no way to do this.
Also, I've listened to CA for years, and I'd be shocked if it takes only eight questions in the course of a show. Eight per hour seems barely right, or even low (unless Jimmy Aiken, bless him, is the apologist on duty).
To be fair, I tried it out today and he did give an awesome response (concise even!) on the difference between Thomist and Molinist approaches to predestination. The chatbot potential for getting *good* answers to Catholic questions is one thing— I’m less sold on why that needs to come from an avatar with a backstory.
In 2016 Microsoft released an early AI chatbot onto Twitter, and the Internet quickly accepted the challenge to train that AI to be as racist as possible. It lasted 16 hours.
I appreciate that the Catholic version of that is "how many canonical crimes can we get this chatbot to commit?"
Mr. Sorenson & his team absolutely have caused scandal by inflicting upon the Church "Father Justin," which simulates the sacraments, about which Sorenson is—at least in this interview—completely unconcerned & unapologetic.
Canon law question: Are Sorenson & his team guilty of violating Canon 1379?
"Can. 1379— § 1. The following incur a latae sententiae interdict or, if a cleric, also a latae sententiae suspension:
1° a person who, not being an ordained priest, attempts the liturgical celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice;
2° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in can. 1384, though unable to give valid sacramental absolution, attempts to do so, or hears a sacramental confession."
I love Catholic Answers! They recommended The Pillar on their Live show and that is how I found The Pillar. I think we should give them some grace. They are an outstanding apostolate.
So while sections of the Internet express concerns about actual demons lurking within the bits and bites of AI, Catholic Answers recruits AI to lead souls in search of a shepherd. This won’t end well.
The interviewer here (not sure if it was Ed, JD, maybe Michelle?) did a good job following up; Sorenson really shied away from acknowledging the real problems here and why the use of AI when trying to talk about the faith or matters of doctrine and the priest avatar, in particular, can cause scandal. He did not want to address that directly! I’m surprised that CA didn’t think this through more carefully before rolling it out.
"But the other part of it is that there seems to be a misunderstanding about how AI works, or a general fear about AI. "
How condescending. No one has expressed fear of AI.
"But that’s the only way this gets better. And if we just don’t work on this at all — if we don’t try to learn about and understand AI — then we in the Catholic world fall behind on it."
It's very clear that no one at Catholic Answers really understands how AI chatbots work, even if they spent six months testing it.
Look, the Church doesn't allow confessions to take place over the phone. People can't receive sacraments over the Internet. Does that make the Church anti-technology, or "behind"? Of course not. The appropriate use of technology is fine. Pretending that an AI chatbot is somehow a person is not fine, and it will never be fine.
I’m sorry; the very online reaction to this is a disgrace and embarrassment to the Church. People are scandalized that an obviously fake, animated avatar pretends to perform sacraments? Are we three?
Just because "AI is here to stay" doesn't mean that we need to have AI solutions looking for non-existent problems.
I'd be fine with an AI-driven research tool for people to find the human-authored articles CA has, but chatbots and animated priests are no way to do this.
Also, I've listened to CA for years, and I'd be shocked if it takes only eight questions in the course of a show. Eight per hour seems barely right, or even low (unless Jimmy Aiken, bless him, is the apologist on duty).
To be fair, I tried it out today and he did give an awesome response (concise even!) on the difference between Thomist and Molinist approaches to predestination. The chatbot potential for getting *good* answers to Catholic questions is one thing— I’m less sold on why that needs to come from an avatar with a backstory.
In 2016 Microsoft released an early AI chatbot onto Twitter, and the Internet quickly accepted the challenge to train that AI to be as racist as possible. It lasted 16 hours.
I appreciate that the Catholic version of that is "how many canonical crimes can we get this chatbot to commit?"
Mr. Sorenson & his team absolutely have caused scandal by inflicting upon the Church "Father Justin," which simulates the sacraments, about which Sorenson is—at least in this interview—completely unconcerned & unapologetic.
Canon law question: Are Sorenson & his team guilty of violating Canon 1379?
"Can. 1379— § 1. The following incur a latae sententiae interdict or, if a cleric, also a latae sententiae suspension:
1° a person who, not being an ordained priest, attempts the liturgical celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice;
2° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in can. 1384, though unable to give valid sacramental absolution, attempts to do so, or hears a sacramental confession."
https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib6-cann1364-1399_en.html
I love Catholic Answers! They recommended The Pillar on their Live show and that is how I found The Pillar. I think we should give them some grace. They are an outstanding apostolate.
"AI is not going away" until it does. This is not a premise for anything. Gambling and gemology are also not going away (until they do). So what?
So while sections of the Internet express concerns about actual demons lurking within the bits and bites of AI, Catholic Answers recruits AI to lead souls in search of a shepherd. This won’t end well.
I would love to see an AI Catholic Avatar called Vichael Morris, who gets really aggressive and gives the most tardy answer possible.
Somebody call Microsoft Office and see if "Clippy" is available. He'd be more popular than "Fr. Justin."
CA really should know better than to give this AI the persona of a priest in the first place.
The time spent on developing this would be better spent praying for IRL vocations
As I stated in my earlier comment, a bad and terrible idea.
I suggest that Catholic Answers take the money they're spending on AI and direct it towards hiring an additional staff apologist.
The interviewer here (not sure if it was Ed, JD, maybe Michelle?) did a good job following up; Sorenson really shied away from acknowledging the real problems here and why the use of AI when trying to talk about the faith or matters of doctrine and the priest avatar, in particular, can cause scandal. He did not want to address that directly! I’m surprised that CA didn’t think this through more carefully before rolling it out.
"But the other part of it is that there seems to be a misunderstanding about how AI works, or a general fear about AI. "
How condescending. No one has expressed fear of AI.
"But that’s the only way this gets better. And if we just don’t work on this at all — if we don’t try to learn about and understand AI — then we in the Catholic world fall behind on it."
It's very clear that no one at Catholic Answers really understands how AI chatbots work, even if they spent six months testing it.
Look, the Church doesn't allow confessions to take place over the phone. People can't receive sacraments over the Internet. Does that make the Church anti-technology, or "behind"? Of course not. The appropriate use of technology is fine. Pretending that an AI chatbot is somehow a person is not fine, and it will never be fine.
I’m sorry; the very online reaction to this is a disgrace and embarrassment to the Church. People are scandalized that an obviously fake, animated avatar pretends to perform sacraments? Are we three?