The perils of uncontrolled AI

Chris Gousmett

We can be confident that we will not become subject to AI despite the claims that it could “go rogue” and be trying to take over the world. Besides the more philosophical arguments I gave in my first post, there is a Biblical argument to be made.

That argument is based on the commission given by God to the first humans, in Genesis 1:26-28.

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them;male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

The dominion (rulership) granted to humankind from the beginning is not just an instruction to follow, but is a commission and an office integral to the very nature of humanity.

That office places human beings at the pinnacle of creation, with a task and a responsibility to rule (to guide, manage, protect) every living thing within God’s creation. That includes ensuring we do not destroy the non-living environment on which living creatures depend.

This office is not a task that can be abdicated or neglected without being held accountable. We cannot avoid being rulers over creation, since it is not simply being given a task, but it defines the very nature of what we are. To be human is to be in the office of ruler over creation. Without that office, that commission, we would not be the humans God made us to be.

But humans have culpably failed to carry out this task in the way that God intended us to do. The importance of this task can be seen in the description given of how God made the first humans: in the image and likeness of God. There has been much ink spilled in trying to discern what it is that constitutes the image of God in humans. Most of that endeavour focused on seeking to discover the ways in which humans are like God, what they have in common, something which God has in an ultimate degree, which humans have in a significantly lesser degree.

But this is mistaken. There is no property shared in common between God and humans regardless of the extent of what is supposedly shared.

Rather, we can understand Genesis 1 as expressing that human beings were created in order to be the image of God.

The image is something that is to develop and grow within us. We see this in the New Testament when we are told that God has intended for us “to be conformed to the image of his Son.” [Romans 8:29] This is the renewal of the image which we were to display. “We have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.” [Colossians 3:10]. Now we are to be (become – be renewed) the image of God which we see in Christ.

But instead of growing in faithfulness to become the image which God desires us to be, humans have instead turned aside to follow after idols. And as Psalm 115:8 tells us, those who make idols will become like what they have made.

Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.But their idols are silver and gold, made by human hands.They have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but cannot see.They have ears, but cannot hear, noses, but cannot smell.They have hands, but cannot feel, feet, but cannot walk,nor can they utter a sound with their throats.Those who make them will be like them,and so will all who trust in them. [Psalm 115:3-8]

Those who make them will be like them: the image of God is exchanged for the image which humans imagine and craft for themselves – becoming like that which they have made. If the image of God were a property or attribute which all humans have by nature, then we could not obliterate that to become the image of an idol instead. So the “image of God” is something we are meant to be in the process of becoming, not something static which we already and always possess.

Similarly, the task and office we were given, to be rulers over all the creation, is not something that we can abdicate from, but defines what it is to be a human being: to be (becoming) the image of God expressed in the way we rule over all things as God’s obedient, accountable, responsible stewards. We rule over the earth regardless of whether we are submissive to God in doing this – it is what constitutes us as humans. But because of human disobedience and rebellion against God’s laws, that ruling is carried out in despoiling, exploitation, desecration, extermination, of what God also created and placed under our care.

Turning aside after idols is expressed in the creation of images to represent that which we are subjecting ourselves to. Why is the creation of an image of God prohibited? It is not least because God has already provided himself with images to represent him within the creation – it is we human beings who are to be the image of the living God.

That is why it is so terrible for humans to turn away from God and make idols for themselves out of wood, stone and metal: we are replacing the living God with something we have made ourselves. And since we cannot create anything living (that is, not developed out of something already living which can be only a creature of God) then whatever we create for ourselves must be lifeless. [Note: “lifeless,” not “dead,” since only that which has previously been alive can be dead. That which is lifeless, however, has never been alive.] Human procreation shows that it is only from two living parents that new life can be born.

The folly of humanity in imagining for itself a representation of its god(s) is expressed by Isaiah 44:9-20 and Jeremiah 10:3-9, where people pray to a carved image they have made and expect it to save them, all the while failing to see that something they have control over (cutting down a tree and fashioning it into a likeness of a pretended, imagined god) can do nothing for them. Having made an image from a log, the rest of the log is used to cook dinner. What folly then to expect it do anything at all!

What has any of this to do with AI?

Simply this: AI is the product of human formative activity, developing the hardware and software necessary to support enormous data sets for training, the necessary chips for calculating, composing text, creating images, analysis of x-ray images, and the many other tasks for which AI can be used. An AI system is formed out of lifeless materials: metals, silicon, plastics, and so on. Since the AI is created using lifeless materials, it is impossible for it ever to develop a consciousness, awareness, true thinking and feeling. This is because only that which is alive can be conscious – specifically, those living things with a sufficiently developed neurological system to enable reception and integration of the senses, to be a centre of initiative, able to form intentions, and so on.

We need to avoid the sloppy reference to “AI” becoming conscious, acting against human interests, etc. Which AI are we referring to? There is not one single “AI” but many different and competing systems being promoted by various tech entrepreneurs: medical AI to assist in delicate operations, accounting AI to assist with management of budgets or cash flow through a large business. These independent (unconnected) AI systems are not colluding together to take over the world and enslave us.

One question to raise with those who claim that an AI system can be “alive” (some seem to think that being “conscious” does not entail the need for “life”) is to ask where the life is located – in the physical materials of the computer? Obviously not. In the software? That is simply a set of code instructions stored as magnetic orientations (represented as the 1s and 0s), the “on” and “off.” So no life there. Where then? In the software in combination with the hardware? Nobody can say. The claim that AI can become conscious is then just hype.

Having been formed from lifeless materials, how then can we introduce life into an AI system? Is this not the same problem faced by those condemned by Isaiah and Jeremiah – you make an idol out of lifeless materials, and you know exactly how you have done this, yet you still expect it to respond to prayers and to act to deliver you from distress.

Maybe the very concept of lifeless things developing life (spontaneously, unaided, perhaps unexpected) depends on that same concept from biological evolution: that which is non-living (i.e., never having been alive) becomes alive. How, we may ask? Nobody can say, and even the most sophisticated evolutionary theory can only presume that the non-living became a living thing, that is, the early earth had no living things on it, now it does, so the living must have come from the non-living in order to produce what we now see - myriads of living creatures.

We must also avoid the error of saying that this was the evolution of “life.” There is no “life” which can evolve – life is always and only a property of living things, it does not exist independently from things which are alive.

I have established then (I trust) that AI cannot be alive in any sense. That is, it cannot be conscious, or have a “self” able to form intentions. So we can conclude that it will never be able to rebel against human rule and enslave us all to carry out its plans for dominating the earth. Being only a machine, a tool, a cultural product of human ingenuity, humans can always rule over it. We are conscious, we can form intentions, we can decide to act in ways which AI cannot fathom or anticipate. For instance, if an AI system is left to itself, that is, receives no instructions from a human, then it will do nothing. Just sit there, for all eternity.

How would we deal with an “AI apocalypse”? Simply switch the computer off. Problem solved. Except we are dealing with people who in fear have ascribed independent agency to what is not that, i.e. idolatry aroused by fear of a delusion. We need to address those fears pastorally, for instance by teaching about the reality of AI as a humanly-developed technology now and always subordinate to our control.

That is not to say there are not dangers in AI. Developing an autonomous AI system to locate and kill an enemy without reference to human controllers is a real possibility if it is not already in use in e.g. Ukraine and Gaza. We must therefore remain vigilant of developments and warn of dangerous or unethical directions in technology. But AI is not any different from any other technological developments. The lack of coherent response to the development of AI indicates that we have not been seriously addressing the same issues arising from other technologies.

But we must also keep it in perspective. As Bender and Hanna argue, “artificial intelligence” is not a technology label or a scientific description: it is a marketing term. They helpfully suggest:

The set of technologies that get sold as AI is diverse, in both application and construction—in fact, we wouldn’t be surprised if some of the tech being sold this way is actually just a fancy wrapper around some spreadsheets. The term serves to obscure that diversity, however, so the conversation becomes clearer if one speaks in terms of “automation” rather than “AI” and looks at precisely what is being automated (my emphasis) [Emily M. Bender & Alex Hanna. The AI Con. How to Fight Big Tech’s Hype and Create the Future We Want, 2025, p. 6].

Taking such an approach enables us to evade the hype and confusion, and very real fear, which is generated by the way AI is unhelpfully being promoted.

It is a technology shaped by human beings, and as such, human beings are and remain responsible and accountable for it and how it is used. Having been formed by us, it is inevitably subject to us. It cannot take on human characteristics and make decisions, form intentions, act in a way not provided for in its software instructions. It is not human, it is not super-human. Any suggestions that it is, is merely apostate delusion which is contrary to all Christian convictions.

Our failure to love God in everything that we do leads us into dead ends where those who with all their heart, and mind, and soul and strength are directed otherwise are engaged in developing AI which is detrimental to human life and society. Their words and deeds have an impact on the words and thoughts and deeds of others. The result is fear and confusion, since without speech framed by wisdom from above we end up in destructive perspectives from which it is difficult to escape.