AI and Grace…?!

As most of you know, Dr. Weaver, Kiran, Michael and I are putting together a book on grace based largely on Dr. Weaver’s talks in class, but also informed by your contributions in our class discussions. 

Inevitably, the book has a Christian theological bent. It is based largely on the Bible, because this is after all a Bible study class, and it therefore presents the Christian perspective on grace. However, we are hoping to make the book—like our class discussions—of interest to anybody, of any religion or philosophy, who is intrigued about things of the spirit in general and the topic of grace in particular.

Kiran has done most of the heavy lifting in getting the manuscript to a state where it is almost complete and ready for editing. That task of editing, however, is somewhat daunting. As it stands, the manuscript is just a very disjointed collection of chapters, each dealing with some aspect of grace. It lacks clear transitions between the chapters, and is stylistically somewhat stilted and dry. To try to make it less dry and more personal, more applicable to what grace means in our lives, we thought of somehow incorporating the story of Fay into it. 

Most of you are familiar with that sad story. Only months after losing her husband to illness, our own dear Alice lost her daughter Faten (known as Fay), who died of brain cancer on January 2, 2013. As she lay dying in hospital, Fay had been reading our blog, and when we had a discussion about Evil in early December, she wrote us an email expressing her thoughts on the topic of Evil in relation to her own situation. It blew us away, because grace glowed like a gemstone through her words.

Here’s what she wrote: 

From: Faten 

Date: December 13, 2012

Re: Notes from December 8

Hello everyone,

This is Fay, Alice’s daughter.

I just read this, as I read all your beautiful thoughts and words that have been such a blessing to me in these past months since my beloved mother has been sharing these wonderful emails with me.

Even though I don’t see you all or know you well in person, I feel such closeness, love, appreciation, and admiration to you all, my beloved teachers and elders. I’ve been sitting in the shadows and listening and learning and loving you all from afar.

I, like my father, have been a stoic, quiet, shy, introverted person all my life, but today, if I may, I feel I would like to express my mind to you beautiful, kind, gentle, compassionate souls.

As I’m sure you’ve heard, I have seven tumors in my brain, which are causing some difficulty, but I hope I will be able to make some sense here. If not, just chalk this up as ramblings of a dying mad woman. 🙂

To be completely honest, I feel a bit misunderstood, and would like to clarify my alternative perspective a bit.

My choice not to be a member of our church does not mean that I am any less of a believer than any of you. I just have my own interpretations. 🙂

I studied psychology and philosophy most of my life. I must admit, I am not a fan of organized religion, indoctrination, legalism, and dogma. Fear, judgment and damnation do not inspire me.

I don’t label myself, but I identify most with scientific and humanist thought (sadly, to my beautiful mother’s dismay.)

I have such affinity for Zen, Taoist, and Advita Vedanta (nondualism) philosophies. I guess I’m mostly agnostic/ignostic. Though I do believe in a higher power, I do not believe that it is possible for us limited five-senses-humans to fully understand the “mind of God.”

“God” to me is a Divine Mystery. HE/SHE/IT/THEY is Life, existence, nature, and the universe itself. The ground of all Being. 

I do not believe in “evil” or the “devil.” I believe ALL is One, ALL is good, ALL is God. And that there are creative and destructive aspects to God. If my memory serves me right, I think in Hindu philosophy it is called Shakti and Shiva (?). Or, in a simpler way, the Yin and Yang of God. The Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Birth and Death.

To me, this is life, nature, with no malice, no remorse, only an infinite cycle of regeneration, progress, evolution, manifesting in myriad forms, inside and outside the realms of time and space. Matter and energy.

My beloved brothers and sisters, in spite of what is happening in my body, I assure you I am not suffering. I want you to know and believe that all is well with my soul. God’s mercy is so abundant and overflowing. He has blessed me with such fierce grace. I am in complete acceptance and surrender to His will.

And I am very comfortable in my solitude. I am in complete peace, and unafraid. I have everything I want and need. I do not want or need pity or help; please do not feel sorry for me, or like I am a lost soul or whatever, because it is simply not true. I am in bliss. My soul is ripe for the harvest. I am ready. This is not a tragedy to me at all, it is like my wedding day! I am fully in the Here and Now, in the Zone. All is well. I do not want to be mourned, I want to be understood, and celebrated.

I am, we are, so much more than our bodies. The body is just the tip of the iceberg. What is unseen, the spirit if you will, is so much more powerful. It is the ever awake giant that lies within us and animates us.

I do not believe in looking outside of the self for answers. We are all endowed with an inner knowingness (Gnosis), in our consciousness, of the right path. It is built-in, natural, innate. That is my faith and belief. I follow that only. It is my God and only master.

I thank you all immensely for your kindness and understanding and for being such an awesome support system of comfort to my beloved mother. I know she needs it.

If I can ask for one thing, I ask that you please help her release me. Of course I know that she, as my mother, loves me like none other, but I also feel that her deep attachment isn’t healthy for either of us.

Mom, my love, I apologize if I made a fool of myself and embarrass you in front of your friends. Forgive me for being a difficult and rebellious child, I am well aware that I have so many shortcomings. But I promise you, I’m trying my best.

The LORD is my Shepherd, I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures,
He leads me beside quiet waters,
He restores my soul.
He guides me in paths of righteousness
for His name’s sake.
Even though I walk through
the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me. 
You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.
Surely goodness and love
will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will dwell
in the house of the LORD forever. Amen.

 Much Peace, blessings, gratitude, respect, admiration, and unconditional love to you all.

 Fay

So we decided to somehow incorporate Fay’s story into our book, and did so by creating a prologue and an epilogue based on Fay’s emails to us. And there the book stands—a more or less disorganized collection of fairly dry and unconnected chapters, sandwiched between a prologue and epilogue intended to add “the human touch”, as it were. Our group will be meeting again on Sunday to discuss next steps. Much may change, including the sandwiching of the dry theology between the covers of Fay’s emails.

I was thinking about all of this yesterday morning when an email arrived with news about a Google app called NotebookLM, which is an AI trained to take written content and turn it into a podcast. Within minutes, I was staring at the NotebookLM screen on Google—it’s free, dead simple, and doesn’t require you to download or install anything—and uploading the mash-mash of our manuscript about Grace. I hit a button, and ten minutes later this is what I heard:

David: If you are not blown away by this, or “gobsmacked” as the Brits and Dr. Weaver like to say, then perhaps there’s something wrong with me, because I sure am. The podcast you’ve just heard is the work of pure AI, no humans involved—except for the original content on which the podcast was based. It would take an entire production team a week to accomplish what the AI did in 10 minutes. 

My aim in showing you this is not merely to amaze you. I’m doing it for two reasons that I think are rather important: First, I think we all need to be sensitive to the exponential acceleration in its abilities of AI; and second, I’d like your honest opinions of what you think about our book based upon what you’ve just heard in the podcast.

With regard to the first point: What you’ve just heard is only going to get rapidly better. Right now you can only press a button and take whatever the AI gives you, but before you know it you will be able to give some direction to the AI so that the podcast will be tailored just the way you want it. If you want it to bering out some parables it didn’t mention, for example.

I am also sure that within a very short time the same or a similar AI app will be able to edit the entire book, in a matter of minutes, and save us countless hours and even months of editing. 

The capabilities of AI as demonstrated here today are such that it is bound to have application in the daily lives of all of us, to just those of us assembling a book. Could you tell that the podcasters were not human? Wouldn’t you like to have them as friends you could turn to at any time for advice or just a friendly chat on any topic you like? 

With regard to the second point: Having listened to the podcast, would you want to read the book? Do you have any suggestions for improving it?

So: What do you think about the book, about AI, and about the future?

Sharon: I’m impressed with the technology, but the thesis of the book, for me, is extremely profound because it’s getting to the heart of very difficult questions that many of us in the church have been grappling with for many, many years. I think the podcast is very well done. The nuances, innuendos, and everything were spot on, and for me, they did not distract from the profound challenge of the core premise of the book. 

I think this book is going to be extremely meaningful to people, and I think it’s going to answer some questions for the next generation of young people who really despise the boundaries of religious games that are played. I think it’s going to meet the core goal, which is to share that grace is unbounded and the love of God is infinite.

I think I can also comment from understanding where Connie’s coming from. You know, it’s wonderful to have the technology aspect, but I don’t see AI ever replacing the need for us to interact and relationally affirm and challenge each other in ways that we don’t anticipate. In the extreme near future, at least, AI will never replace the relational side.

David: At great risk of hogging this whole show, I’m going to read something from this morning’s New York Times that I think is very relevant to your point. it’s an opinion piece, a guest essay in the New York Times by a doctor, Jonathan Reisman. It doesn’t tell us anything about him, except that he is a practicing physician. This is what he wrote (used without permission, for which we beg forgiveness but hope we ameliorate the transgression in providing a direct link to the article in the Times: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/05/opinion/ai-chatgpt-medicine-doctor.html

I’m a Doctor. ChatGPT’s Bedside Manner Is Better Than Mine.

Oct. 5, 2024 

By Jonathan Reisman

Dr. Reisman writes often about the human body, nature and the practice of medicine.

As a young, idealistic medical student in the 2000s, I thought my future job as a doctor would always be safe from artificial intelligence.

At the time it was already clear that machines would eventually outperform humans at the technical side of medicine. Whenever I searched Google with a list of symptoms from a rare disease, for example, the same abstruse answer that I was struggling to memorize for exams reliably appeared within the first few results.

But I was certain that the other side of practicing medicine, the human side, would keep my job safe. This side requires compassion, empathy and clear communication between doctor and patient. As long as patients were still composed of flesh and blood, I figured, their doctors would need to be, too. The one thing I would always have over A.I. was my bedside manner.

When ChatGPT and other large language models appeared, however, I saw my job security go out the window.

These new tools excel at medicine’s technical side — I’ve seen them diagnose complex diseases and offer elegant, evidence-based treatment plans. But they’re also great at bedside communication, crafting language that convinces listeners that a real, caring person exists behind the words. In one study, ChatGPT’s answers to patient questions were rated as more empathetic (and also of higher quality) than those written by actual doctors.

You might find it disturbing that A.I. can have a better bedside manner than humans. But the reason it can is that in medicine — as in many other areas of life — being compassionate and considerate involves, to a surprising degree, following a prepared script.

I began to understand this in my third year of medical school, when I participated in a teaching session on how to break bad news to patients. Our teacher role-played a patient who had come to receive the results of a breast biopsy. We medical students took turns telling the patient that the biopsy showed cancer.

Before that session, I thought breaking such news was the most daunting aspect of patient care and the epitome of medicine’s human side. Delivering bad news means turning a pathologist’s technical description of flesh under the microscope into an everyday conversation with the person whose flesh it is. I presumed that all it required of me was to be a human and to act like it.

But the process turned out to be much more technical than I had expected. The teacher gave us a list of dos and don’ts: Don’t clobber the patient over the head with the news right when you walk in the room. But do get to the point relatively quickly. When delivering the diagnosis, don’t hide behind medical terms like “adenocarcinoma” or “malignancy” — say “cancer.” Once the news is delivered, pause for a moment to give the patient a chance to absorb it. Don’t say phrases like “I’m sorry,” since the diagnosis isn’t your fault. Consider using an “I wish” line, as in, “I wish I had better news.” Ask what the patient knows about cancer and provide information, since many people know little other than that it is bad.

I initially recoiled at the idea that compassion and empathy could be choreographed like a set of dance steps marked and numbered on the floor. But when it was my turn to role-play the doctor, following the memorized lines and action prompts felt completely natural. To my surprise, surrendering my humanity to a script made the most difficult moment in medicine feel even more human.

Suddenly the technical and human sides of medicine didn’t seem so distinct after all. Somehow the least scientific thing I learned in medical school turned out to be the most formulaic.

In the years since, I’ve recited versions of the “bad news” script to scores of patients while working as an emergency room doctor. For patients and their families, these conversations can be life-changing, yet for me it is just another day at work — a colossal mismatch in emotion. The worse the prognosis, the more eagerly I reach for those memorized lines to guide me. During the brief minutes after I learn the diagnosis, before returning to the patient’s room, I rehearse the conversation, plan my approach and make sure to have a tissue box nearby.

Until A.I. completely upends health care (and my career), doctors will have to work in tandem with the technology. A.I. can help us more efficiently write notes in medical charts. And some doctors are already using A.I.-generated lines to better explain complex medical concepts or the reasoning behind treatment decisions to patients.

People worry about what it means to be a human being when machines can imitate us so accurately, even at the bedside. The truth is that prewritten scripts have always been deeply woven into the fabric of society. Be it greetings, prayer, romance or politics, every aspect of life has its dos and don’ts. Scripts — what you might call “manners” or “conventions” — lubricate the gears of society.

In the end, it doesn’t actually matter if doctors feel compassion or empathy toward patients; it only matters if they act like it. In much the same way, it doesn’t matter that A.I. has no idea what we, or it, are even talking about. There are linguistic formulas for human empathy and compassion, and we should not hesitate to use good ones, no matter who — or what — is the author.

Sharon: Very profound.

Michael: I think we can’t conflate AI with grace. And with regard to the personal connection:  Even if the AI can phrase things better, the technology does seem to enhance the loneliness epidemic, so I don’t see AI answering this fundamental human question of the need for other people—which seems to be part of grace, if you will.

Reinhard: I think AI is still good for busy people. In this time and for the generation to come, podcasts will have an impact because people are often doing something—cooking, doing carpentry, whatever—while listening to podcasts. So podcasts are a very effective way to learn more about a subject. In this case, the podcast is talking about religion. Some people will find it very helpful. It will appeal to people who are curious about grace, so I think this is very helpful to them. There’s no emotional touch because they don’t see the people talking like they would in a visual medium, like television, but to me that’s fine—it is still a means to reach people. 

We cannot stop the advancement of technology. We have to accept it, whether we like it or not. But if we take the good things from it and apply them to our lives, then, as in this case, I think it’s fine.

Regarding the doctor’s article: Certainly, the human touch is not there if there is just AI. There would need to be at least a robot in human form that comes into the room to talk to a patient. Still, I think it’s not going to replace the human touch, the emotion, the feeling. Even if someday they make robots that act like doctors, it’s still not going to be the same. 

AI can simplify ideas and complex subjects, like the dos and don’ts of bedside manner for doctors—providing information beneficial to them in terms of what to tell patients about a diagnosis or a disease. 

Some people will accept all of this, even people who might not already know what’s going on. For our class, we already know what’s happening because we interact and discuss everything. But again, we have to accept what’s coming.

[Editor’s note: Toward the end of the playback of the podcast, CJ commented that she found it intolerable. She said she joined us to be with everybody here, not listen to what we’ve discussed in a podcast, but rather to be in conversation, in community, with real people. She felt that AI is taking over our entire life and that this was not good journalism. It was letting somebody else take what we’ve created and owning it. She concluded: “I love the people here, not that machine.”]

Don: I have a certain sympathy for CJ, because I’m about her age and am skeptical—or maybe the better word would be afraid—of the technology. 

I’m wondering, though, how this technology will affect things of the Spirit. Do we have a clear path forward on how to utilize—or how to minimize, depending on your perspective—this kind of technology when it comes to things of faith?

Do we accept the fact that this is a reality we can’t do anything about and embrace it, letting it embrace us? Or do we somehow try to resist it? Do we resist or do we surrender? I guess that’s the question when it comes to things of faith. Carolyn, what are your thoughts?

Carolyn: I am so mixed in my thoughts toward AI. I’m definitely fascinated by it. I’ve even tried to utilize it. Some people have a wonderful way of writing or speaking that makes their subject relevant, that resonates with their audience. Not all people hear things the same way, not all people use words the same way, and I have been very fascinated today with how AI has talked about grace, faith, and trust in a way that has personally affected me. But I also love to hear the same story from four different people, each telling it in their own way. To me, AI like just another person telling me the story. What I do with it after is up to me—and we’re supposed to do everything in prayer.

Sharon: I agree with Carolyn that there’s more than one way for the face of God to be viewed by different people. Issues of faith are deeply personal, and some aspects of artificial intelligence actually allow us to personalize our strategies and approaches to meet diverse perspectives. So there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. 

From a diversity perspective, the voices in the podcast would not work well in the context of my African, British, and English people. The advantage we have with AI is that we could probably designate the target and the AI would then produce culturally appropriate voice narratives.

I’ve been talking with some people in a mission project I’m involved in about creating some short-term nuggets of content we could share with church members around the world. Our project is currently in 24 different countries, and a one-size-fits-all approach wouldn’t serve our ministry outreach effectively. For example, the division in Eastern Africa—one of the leaders yesterday said, “We have 17 languages in our division, and we need to put out these nuggets in 17 different languages.” Producing that with AI could enhance our dream of reaching out to people, sharing the story of grace, and promoting the abundant life that Jesus offers.

But to the point of the human touch: The AI doctor didn’t hand the patients a tissue, didn’t pat them on the shoulder, and I don’t see AI doing that in the very short run. Hopefully, our lives will still have purpose and meaning, even though AI may take some of the challenges we’ve faced and make them easier, giving us more energy for the relational things that are still so important to many of us.

David: I do think everyone is absolutely right that the key in all of this is to accept that this thing is coming anyway, and that the question then is: What to do about it? There are clearly ways in which it could be very, very helpful, and as long as most people focus on that, that’s great. But of course, there will be some people who will look upon it as a tool to help them do bad things, and that’s going to be terrible. 

So the battle is the same—it is still a battle between good and evil, at heart—but each side will have powerful new tools—or new weapons—to assist them. So the battle is going to intensify. 

I knew, going into it, that my talk this morning would be shocking to some people. I just think that we can’t hide our heads in the sand about it. It’s going to happen, and there will be major consequences. Let’s face them.

As for the human touch: Sharon is right that emulating the actual physical human touch is still some way off. But it is on the horizon, “hull up” in nautical terms—you can make it out in the form of humanoid robots that look exactly like us—you can’t tell us and them apart—and they have soft skin that can sense and touch as sensitively as we can. That technology is definitely on the horizon and heading our way. It will be here, maybe not quite as quickly as really smart AI, but it’s coming. 

So again, the question is: When robots and AI can do everything we can do, and we can’t tell the difference between us and them (except that they are much smarter and more empathetic), what does that imply? Yes, it is deep. But now is the time to be talking about this. Love it or hate it, it’s happening.

Anonymous: I’m not against AI; it can help people who are seeking to find answers and strength in faith, and may lead them to believe in God. I’m not against anything with the technology, even though I once was; but now, seeing the bigger picture, my only concern is that I’m afraid people will be so impressed with AI that all eyes—believers and non-believers—will turn to AI and trust it, forgetting God. 

God is like AI in the sense that He knows everything, He helps with everything, and He’s a very important aspect in our lives. So who knows? This technology may lead some people to be more faithful and some people to deny God and turn their eyes to technology, becoming more detached from the divine. My only concern is that it ay replace God in some people’s lives.

Don: I think you’re right. This is the danger—that we’re so overwhelmed by AI’s power that we see it as a substitute for God. That was part of my question related to AI and faith: how do we draw the line between what is divine, what is miraculous, and what is simply an expansion of technology that we’ve never seen before?

I want CJ to know that we love her and that we certainly value her input. This is not an attempt to try to disenfranchise her in any way, but I feel like we also need to let people know what’s coming down the pipeline so that they can respond—either by employing the technology, as Sharon discussed, in a way that brings God forward rather than putting AI at the forefront.

I would also like to thank Elise for letting us use some of Fay’s material. This has been very moving to those of us working on the book, and we were quite impressed—if that’s the word—that her thoughts, so many years later, have been resonating in this blog and in the podcast. The expression of her definitions of grace has been beautifully rendered, even all these years later.

Reinhard: To me, AI is a means or a tool to convey a message, like the main topic we talk about—faith in Jesus. As long as the content of the message is not against us, then (as Jesus said) it’s with us. I think that’s the key. If AI is used to bring the message and spread it to many people—maybe while they’re doing something else, like driving or cooking—I think this is going to be helpful to many people.

David: Forewarned is forearmed.

Don: Let’s hope that our dear friend CJ finds peace with this. We’re not trying to stir up trouble; we’re just trying to let people know that this is a reality, and we need to figure out how best, as believers, to utilize this reality.

David: This also has a bearing on next week’s topic, which addresses the question: “Is it a wicked world?” Given the advances we’ve just talked about, will it still be a wicked world tomorrow? Or will it be a better world?

Anonymous: Listening to the story of Fay, bringing it to life again after 12 years, I can see the difference in my life over those years. God is indeed working in mysterious ways. I hope what happened to me during these 12 years will happen to every listener of this podcast. I hope and pray that every listener will experience a change of heart.

It is not that during those 12 years I turned to AI to learn about grace. I did not. I learned through personal experience. AI probably cannot cause a true change of heart in us, no matter what we hear. But you never know—God may lead hearts, even through AI. You never know. But now, I see God’s hand working in my life, changing me, and making Fay’s letter mean a lot more than before. It’s deeper, it’s brighter, it’s reality, it’s fact. It’s not just words.

I think God used what I heard today to show me, or to help me look back and see His hand in my life during these 12 years—how much He worked on me, how patient He was with me, and how much He taught me through the class, through the Bible, and through personal experiences. That’s something irreplaceable, and I don’t think AI can do that.

David: God bless CJ for her frankness and honesty and for reminding us that while some of us may think all of this is wonderful and amazing (or at least potentially so) not everyone sees it that way. She did us a service, I think, by stating her mind and letting us know that there is another view out there. 

* * *