A while back I wrote about the future of AI-generated pornography. I pointed out something I thought was important: Christian arguments against pornography that focus on “dehumanization,” abusive production practices, or trafficking are not going to stick when it comes to computer-generated content. The entire point of AI content is that it removes the human element entirely. What you’re watching are pixels, not people. So the more that Christian strategies against porn consumption zero in on collateral harm, the less convincing they will be.
So what do we do? Here is a quote from that article:
The arguments against consuming or licensing pornography that will matter in the age of AI will be moralistic arguments: arguments rooted in the goodness of embodied sexuality in the context of marriage, and the destruction that occurs to hearts and emotions by feasting on a fake version of sex that collapses us inward. “This is somebody’s child” will have to become, “You are somebody’s child.”
Here will be a good stress test for Christian moral theology. Western Christians can articulate a vision of life that makes sense in a radically fractured, technologically isolated context. But that vision requires helping people get beyond the “Does it harm anyone” framework, not simply appropriating the question. So it seems very likely that Christians will have to bring God into the discussion. When there’s no one to exploit, there is still God to offend. When there is no one to be trafficked, there is still God who sees. And when there is no one to stand over your shoulder to intervene or care, there is still God who saves.
I think this idea applies pretty equally to another AI genre: Therapy.
Put simply, I think pastors and church leaders are going to spend a lot of time over the next several years talking to folks whose beliefs and decisions are shaped to a huge degree by their interactions with therapeutic bots. This is going to pose a lot of challenges in ministry. But one of the biggest will be simply trying to articulate why this is a bad idea. A lot of really faithful Bible teachers won’t be able to. They’ll feel like AI therapy is a bad idea, but they won’t be able to convince many others.
The push toward AI therapy is already well under way. Here is a recent academic paper that evaluates ChatGPT’s potential for psychology and counseling services. Of course, there are bunches of caveats that this doesn’t replace actual psychotherapy. But these are like warnings that Google doesn’t actually replace research; for the vast majority of people, it really does and really will replace it.
The allure of AI therapy is going to be irresistible for a lot of people. In many cases it will be free. In all cases it will be anonymous and available 24/7. It’s just not hard at all to imagine hundreds of scenarios where someone might not feel able or comfortable with talking to a real person. Modern loneliness and isolation have made inability to talk with somebody normal. Technological addiction has made us far less comfortable with person-to-person conversation. AI therapy is going to occupy the intersection of technopoly and friendlessness…and that’s a very big intersection.
So, is AI therapy a bad idea? I think so. I’ll offer three (of many!) Bible-oriented reasons why I think so, and then follow that up with why I think a lot of evangelicals will have trouble articulating these points.