ive already. rambled about this. god and robots and hatred and MAD. yeah ok. noteworthy, but this is different. here's something more grounded in reality.
i went to this ethics panel about AI in healthcare. (which i know AI is a polarizing subject and all, but this IS the path we are on and we must be vigilant in dictating how and where its used. ignoring this revolution will not help us.)
a lot of things were said but it mostly boils down to accountability
when things go wrong, who do you blame?
the ai? the developer? the user? none of these are perfectly clear cut
(the strongest answer is the user, especially in healthcare, but there IS some grey area here im not going to let you ignore. especially in Non Professional Settings, and theres a lot of commentary on mental health and AI for casual users, and expectation that developers and corporations are in charge of regulation and nipping obvious detrimental buds in society. we dont have time to break this down piece by piece)
but the thing is ... every wrong doing of AI is human failure. every single time.
morals of sharks vs dolphins and whatnot
there was some panel questions about handing medical bias.
an argument FOR AI is that it would help eliminate medical bias formed from internal prejudice. but if the AI is fed purely on data collected with said prejudice, your AI is doomed to carry it over.
and you cant point your fingers at the AI. the AI cannot repent for its actions. No one would be satisfied if we just blamed the AI and moved on. Without that guilt and pressure, there would be no reason to avoid these problems in the first place. Someone must bear the cross.
and the thing is. even though there is some grey area in this issue, there is ALLOWED to be grey area. we can divide messy lines and go situation by situation or abstain all together.
we can talk about this ALLL day. we can cover every talking point and every counter argument and still disagree at the end of it. and... thats okay! with all the uncertainty and things we do not know at this time, its natural that we all draw different conclusions.
now we are going with the mormon perspective because A) thats where im the most well versed duh and B) because theres a lot of... unique traits here that i wanna talk about.
this is like. a BIG part of why mormonism is "special" and "different". the idea of a "living religion" is that it can change. we have living prophets who still talk to god and can establish and edit doctrine need be. idk maybe we dont HAVE to be racist.... or HAVE to hate gay people.... or maybe we CAN wear mixed fabrics yk?
it has an ability to progress with the times. which in theory, is good!
now im much more familiar with the gears than the teeth, so full disclosure there is some detail work here missing.
which is sloppy of me, but i also think theres a conversation to be had about who's fault it is when your gears dont match your teeth, what are you REALLY saying? which matters more? what you actually said, or the collective community beliefs you dont take care to clear up?
like mormons dont technically believe in hell. or like eternal punishment. its complicated. but damnation is still a very real threat looming over everyones heads.
...or maybe im just dodging accountability. maybe we all are.
ANYWAYS. "living religion", does it work?
well. this is hard. because YES a religion SHOULD change with the times, (what does god have to say about chatgpt i wonder) but it brings to question an omnipresent god.
you cant just... change your mind about racism, as an omnipresent ever loving being in charge of the universe. while YES it was a GOOD AND MORAL decision to let black people hold the priesthood...
it begs the question... why wasn't it like that from the get go? how are we all children of god when he refuses to step in and protect the vulnerable until it's "socially acceptable" to do so?
i believe the current explanation is that the church was already under so much scrutiny and targeted religious violence, that they would have never stood a chance if they were also victims of racial violence.
but thats. unsatisfying. if love and goodwill is the work of god, shouldnt he help protect it? faith perseveres and blessings for the devoted and all that.
love thy neighbor until its dangerous or controversial to do so
is that what god stands for?
and what about corruption in church authority. those men are called BY god. they are the direct pipeline.
like BYU. which has to function as a religious institution and university simultaneously, is therefore playing by different rules.
i bring it up because tiktok user @/youraprilflowers is going through something like this like... rn. and shes currently sharing her experience as a trans woman trying to navigate the honor code.
to summarize her story, (which you should just go hear from her) when she enrolled in BYU they said it was totally fine she was a trans woman and she was allowed to have her hair to the womans grooming standards instead of the mens
theres some background politics about how BYU was trying to get into like. some football club or something? and in order to get in they needed to seem more progressive and cut back on a lot of the harsher honor code shit.
but now. YEARS LATER they decided to change the rules, they NO longer recognize her as a woman and are forcing her to comply to the mens standards (despite the letter from her psychiatrist saying it was a suicide risk)
and thats. its own picture i could spend more time painting. and BYU is kind of... special idk. but it IS run by the mormon church, religious studies is a huge mandatory part of their curriculum. this isnt just dress code, this is much larger moral claims about the validity of trans people and what is or isnt permissible by god and. they are flipping the switch based on what suits them best in the name of doctrine.
i think Russel M Nelson (the. recently deceased prophet) said something about keeping a journal by his bed where he writes down all his personal revelation when he prays at night. it's always stood out to me.
thats. a LOT of trust to put in one person. is there really such a clear line between personal revelation and personal thoughts? how does he tell the difference? how should WE know the difference? we cannot account for who KNOWS how many other influences he may be working under (white salamander anyone?)
and then theres the new prophet. whatshisname Oaks, who, most notably, is The Most Homophobic Apostle. a lot of people are worried about what he may do or say, not that what he already does or says isnt damaging enough.
do i think god would call for a ten day social media fast while his daughter just so happens to be on trial for sex crimes? do i think god would increase the volume of his homophobic views as soon as his grandson came out as gay?
arent these... antithetical to the teachings of christ?
and yet god itself appointed these men into the HIGHEST level of authority
we are being asked to trust man as we trust god, and yet neither can prove their worth
man can not exist, and god cannot change, without either of them making mistakes. and yet for either of them to do so, is to undermine the entire system. an infallible god just... doesnt hold up. not under the expectation of unwavering faith.
so here we are back to accountability.
when the church fucks up, who do you blame?
because we no longer have room for gray area. we cant just agree to disagree at the end of the day. blind faith cannot cancel out all the blatant harm or "mysterious ways".
who bears the sin? who faces your anger?
the developer, the AI, or the user?
