Genesis 3:1-7
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
In my Hereticon talk “Spiritual Technology” - I discuss technologists’ obsession with “…reaching god (lowercase g) AS technology. Instead of reaching God (uppercase G) through technology”. And that what we are searching for, in our pursuit of technology, are the holy properties of God. That by understanding God and his properties, we can actually decipher where technology is heading.
I believe this is most vividly depicted in the race for super-intelligent AI. God possesses a holy property of omniscience. And if you watch how AGI/ASI chasers discuss what happens when we reach and somehow harness this quality… it is nothing short of deistical ambition.
This ambition, however naive or sophisticated we may view it, made me meditate on original sin. When I was younger, I was fascinated with the idea that two people that communed with God in the garden could still rebel against Him. What fools they were! They had one job, and they ruined it for all of us. Now, some years wiser and softer, I feel a deep sympathy for them.
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
“and you will be like God”“and you will be like God”“and you will be like God”“and you will be like God”“and you will be like God”“and you will be like God”“and you will be like God”“and you will be like God”“and you will be like God”“and you will be like God”“and you will be like God”“and you will be like God”
This desire, eyes wide and knowing, this is at the core of all our pursuits. It was there during the renaissance, the enlightenment, and it is ever present in this very moment.
AI labs full of researchers desiring to cross the chasm of producing their own god. With what end goal?
Unlocking the cure to diseases that currently plague us. (God as healer)
The discovery of novel physics that allude us. (God as creator)
Sam recently talked about the need for a new social contract. (God as justice)
Bryan Johnson talks about “don’t die”. (God as savior and triumph over death, which is the cost of sin)
WHY DOES ORIGINAL SIN MATTER IN THE CONTEXT OF AI? OR ANY TECHNOLOGY FOR THAT MATTER? ARE WE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF GOOD PURSUITS THAT WILL ALLEVIATE THE EFFECTS OF ORIGINAL SIN WE DEAL WITH TODAY?
For those less familiar with Christian doctrine and are looking for a formal definition of sin. I can offer you this from Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem, “sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature.”
Notice it goes beyond act, and includes attitude and nature. Sin, and the pursuit of moral purity in our lives, is equally concerned with the desires of our heart. And as such, this should show us the seriousness of sin. In fact, the entire Bible is an arc to relieve not only us (the individual) from the grip of sin, but also the world from the effects of original sin.
Let’s deconstruct how original sin entered, still relying on Systematic Theology. I will give it in simple bullets to return to AI.
Their sin attacked at the basis for knowledge. They sought to understand “what is true”. In not relying on God’s original promise, they had to experiment through eating the fruit.
Second, it (their sin) attacked the basis of morality. God’s word as law and justice, and their eating of the fruit directly disobeying, to challenge the question of “what is right”. Remember the fruit is described as “pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom”.
Finally, their sin changed the original answer of identity. We were made in the image of God, dependent on Him, and subordinate to Him. By eating the fruit they fell to the temptation to “be like God”. And thus original sin is born, they are casted out of the Garden, and a redemption arc becomes necessary.
These three questions: what is true - what is right - who are we?
We face these questions at greater voracity as AI continues to improve. Can we trust the images that we see as authentic? Is it good to potentially displace this many workers in such a short period of time? What is my purpose if all my previous contributions are getting replaced? Does any of this even matter…
I think my biggest beef with technology today, is that we are chasing ends that are meaning dissolving, instead of meaning making. This is probably what AI and memecoins hold most in common.
And this is what original sin has to do with our pursuits of technology.
It is fundamentally a question of if we choose to “be like God” or pursue HIS divine plan for us. To be like God is to desire to set our own plans, and if the Bible as well as other moments in human history show us what that brings unto us, we should be rethinking the heart of many of our current technologies.
To race full force towards a rhyming original sin, may mean a new type of casting out of our current garden. Perhaps it is necessary for us to labor in the desert once more. To witness the murder of Abel. To receive new commandments. If this was Dune, it could mean a Butlerian Jihad (when humans went to war with thinking machines).
But this heart of technologists’ pursuits comes back to the point that I brought up at my FWB Fest talk 2 years ago. Technologists have lost the ability to speak about themselves, and as an extension → what their efforts even are. Language produces expectations, and the expectations many of these leaders produce are intentionally dark at worst + incredibly undefined at best.
“Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” - Luke 6:45
This write up is not to be a doomer. I find too many Christians can fall into being a luddite, and that’s not the point.
I look forward to super powerful AI the same way that I’m a big fan of nuclear energy and want to distribute its benefits as widely as possible.
As I’ve written before, when we expand a technology we expand it towards both the divine and the profane. But it is up to us to both define that which is divine/profane — instead of a broad acceptance of the profane as “just another use case that we can’t avoid”.
If we care for others more than our own status that accrues from building popular technology, regardless of its effects, we have a moral obligation to be critical of these things.
To pick good and hard quests. And to keep our hearts oriented towards the divine, not in hope of replacing it with ourselves.
I don’t do edits really, so excuse typos and things that don’t make sense.
Thanks so much for giving me your attention. I hope it was worth it, if not… unsubscribing will not hurt my feelings, and will give you back time you literally cannot have back.
Much love.
Live in the light