Artificial Intelligence has made tremendous progress in recent years, and its presence is now felt in almost all areas of human activity. However, despite its successes, it is still unclear whether AI can develop a general intelligence similar to human intelligence. AI is rather a set of “Artificial Intelligences” in plural, each specialized in solving specific problems. The question remains whether AI can teach us about what it means to be human and whether it can be a teacher of humanity. The use of AI must be humanized, and its potential risks must be addressed through directives and initiatives that protect human values.
AI is a product of human intelligence, and it raises questions about the natural and the artificial. The boundaries between the two are not always clear, and AI challenges our understanding of what it means to be human. AI operates on the basis of external purposes imposed by programmers, whereas living beings have natural desires that aim at ends that complete and complement them. AI lacks the capacity for self-determination and creative freedom that is unique to human beings.
The question of ends is often forgotten by supporters of AI, and AI’s ability to establish new ends in new contexts is limited. AI does not live, and its purpose is not determined by its own desires or needs. AI’s teleological process is not creative, and it does not have the capacity to want in a way that is coherent with its own history.
The article highlights the limits of AI and its inability to understand what its representations are about. AI does not authentically relate to the world in the way its representations represent it. AI is not capable of having “good judgment” and does not have a religious dimension. The article concludes that AI teaches us about our human religiosity and what it means to live humanly.
