I love the last sentence most of all. May God protect and envision this, and the next, generation of venturers and entrepreneurs, to build redemptive direction for human flourishing.
Appreciate the thoughtful article! Working on my own current series on the implications of seeing AI as a "novel entity", as Anthropic has suggested, and what that means for Christian interaction. I'm glad more people are interested in the converging space of religious perspectives on emerging technologies! Get me connected to more people in this space!
The second one just hit. First one is linked in it. I’ll definitely check out their work! https://substack.com/home/post/p-209867719Part 2 of Theological Reflections on AI as a "Novel Entity"
As a Christian builder working within the Graduate Medical Education field where my work impacts the quality of life and training of our future physician leaders, I’ve been looking for a sort of Hippocratic Oath to adopt in my building. I believe I have found it here in this article about “redemptive AI”. Thank you for publishing this and the many other ways you are supporting vocation today!!
I've referred to this manifesto several times since it was first published. I'm curious if/how you think the developments in the past couple of years have fulfilled or changed the redemptive directions? @ahcrouch @daveblanchard1 @praxispress
AI should help me use better judgment, not save me from having to use judgment at all. The moment I hand over responsibility along with the task, I’ve given the tool too much.
Really appreciate this piece. As someone wrestling with how to write about faith and work in a way that feels authentic, this landed.
The tension is real: AI can help us think more clearly and write more efficiently, but it can also tempt us to outsource the very things that make our voices worth hearing, our lived experience, our struggles, our convictions.
What strikes me most is the idea that AI does not have to diminish our humanity if we are intentional about how we use it. It can be a tool that amplifies human insight rather than replacing it. But that requires discipline, transparency, and a commitment to keeping humanity at its centre.
Looking forward to seeing how this conversation develops. Thanks for putting this out there.
I appreciate the heart behind this, but in addressing only those who can influence the situation “from below” and acknowledging the importance of, but offering no substantial guidance for the crucial cooperation of oversight “from above”, it offers no guidance whatsoever for those who are the intended users of AI—influence ”from the trenches,” you might say. For ethical AI to succeed, it will have to compete with the unethical version. That means you will need:
Enough people to refuse to use the quicker, cheaper, unethically sourced and trained AI that is currently available so that you can prove market-fit for your slower, more expensive, more ethical product (historical comparison could be alternatives to slave-cotton and silk made with child labor)
Enough industry professionals who are willing to work within ethical constraints and don’t set standards according to what is most profitable (best supported by a non-profit structure or a highly self-restrained and spiritual-formed private enterprise)
I would encourage Praxis to look for the voices who are articulating why to opt out of the current iteration of AI (think John Woolman convincing the Quakers to divest from slavery), as well as those casting a vision for a less digital, more embodied lifestyle, because AI is already so integrated that simply doing digital work is tantamount to adopting AI in its current unethical form.
And there are a lot of reasons why the general public are not likely to be the partners this plan would need—mostly because of the deeply ingrained impulse for instant gratification and habit of accepting technological change with “naive enthusiasm”, to quote Pope Leo.
Thanks for weighing in. You’re right, we’re re-sharing this particular framework with AI entrepreneurs in mind. We have more perspectives on AI in the coming weeks and months, including some focusing more on our decisions as users—how and whether we adopt certain developments at all.
I’m glad to see something like this written, but what’s missing is “we will reject this technology if the human costs outweigh the benefits”. There’s too much money being thrown at this to even consider this question.
I love the last sentence most of all. May God protect and envision this, and the next, generation of venturers and entrepreneurs, to build redemptive direction for human flourishing.
Really thought-provoking. Many thanks, @Andy Crouch, for sharing your wisdom.
Appreciate the thoughtful article! Working on my own current series on the implications of seeing AI as a "novel entity", as Anthropic has suggested, and what that means for Christian interaction. I'm glad more people are interested in the converging space of religious perspectives on emerging technologies! Get me connected to more people in this space!
Looking forward to your series! You should check out @Josh Brake (https://joshbrake.substack.com/) and @Mark Sears (https://www.sproutai.com/manifesto)!
The second one just hit. First one is linked in it. I’ll definitely check out their work! https://substack.com/home/post/p-209867719Part 2 of Theological Reflections on AI as a "Novel Entity"
As a Christian builder working within the Graduate Medical Education field where my work impacts the quality of life and training of our future physician leaders, I’ve been looking for a sort of Hippocratic Oath to adopt in my building. I believe I have found it here in this article about “redemptive AI”. Thank you for publishing this and the many other ways you are supporting vocation today!!
I've referred to this manifesto several times since it was first published. I'm curious if/how you think the developments in the past couple of years have fulfilled or changed the redemptive directions? @ahcrouch @daveblanchard1 @praxispress
Good question! We will be publishing more pieces related to AI as an Opportunity for Redemptive Imagination later this summer and fall so stay tuned.
And @Josh Brake—one of our Venture Partners on AI—is a good follow here on Substack if you are interested in more regular updates on the topic.
AI should help me use better judgment, not save me from having to use judgment at all. The moment I hand over responsibility along with the task, I’ve given the tool too much.
Really appreciate this piece. As someone wrestling with how to write about faith and work in a way that feels authentic, this landed.
The tension is real: AI can help us think more clearly and write more efficiently, but it can also tempt us to outsource the very things that make our voices worth hearing, our lived experience, our struggles, our convictions.
What strikes me most is the idea that AI does not have to diminish our humanity if we are intentional about how we use it. It can be a tool that amplifies human insight rather than replacing it. But that requires discipline, transparency, and a commitment to keeping humanity at its centre.
Looking forward to seeing how this conversation develops. Thanks for putting this out there.
I appreciate the heart behind this, but in addressing only those who can influence the situation “from below” and acknowledging the importance of, but offering no substantial guidance for the crucial cooperation of oversight “from above”, it offers no guidance whatsoever for those who are the intended users of AI—influence ”from the trenches,” you might say. For ethical AI to succeed, it will have to compete with the unethical version. That means you will need:
Enough people to refuse to use the quicker, cheaper, unethically sourced and trained AI that is currently available so that you can prove market-fit for your slower, more expensive, more ethical product (historical comparison could be alternatives to slave-cotton and silk made with child labor)
Enough industry professionals who are willing to work within ethical constraints and don’t set standards according to what is most profitable (best supported by a non-profit structure or a highly self-restrained and spiritual-formed private enterprise)
I would encourage Praxis to look for the voices who are articulating why to opt out of the current iteration of AI (think John Woolman convincing the Quakers to divest from slavery), as well as those casting a vision for a less digital, more embodied lifestyle, because AI is already so integrated that simply doing digital work is tantamount to adopting AI in its current unethical form.
And there are a lot of reasons why the general public are not likely to be the partners this plan would need—mostly because of the deeply ingrained impulse for instant gratification and habit of accepting technological change with “naive enthusiasm”, to quote Pope Leo.
Thanks for weighing in. You’re right, we’re re-sharing this particular framework with AI entrepreneurs in mind. We have more perspectives on AI in the coming weeks and months, including some focusing more on our decisions as users—how and whether we adopt certain developments at all.
@Praxis Press would you be open to receiving and possibly publishing responses to your plan that offer thoughtful scrutiny?
Very good!
I’m glad to see something like this written, but what’s missing is “we will reject this technology if the human costs outweigh the benefits”. There’s too much money being thrown at this to even consider this question.
Thought-provoking. Thank you.
Grateful for this thoughtful analysis and hopeful it will be considered- though, I’m afraid, doubtful as well.