Catholic Against Nuclear War

Blurring the difference between the human intellect and AI is a central part of the transhumanist worldview critiqued in Paul Kingsnorth’s Against the Machine and @hemingquay's The Transhumanist Temptation, which I review in the Claremont Review of Books: claremontreviewofbooks.com/g…

The absolute difference in kind between the human intellect and the mere simulations that AI technology yields is a longstanding theme both of Christian philosophical anthropology (recently reiterated in Pope Leo XIV’s Magnifica Humanitas) and of secular philosophical critiques developed by thinkers like John Searle, Hubert Dreyfus, Roger Penrose, and many others. If there is any problem with the phrase “artificial intelligence,” it is with the word “intelligence,” not “artificial.” Indeed, calling it “artificial” at least has the merit of suggesting that it is a mere simulation, just as artificial grass is merely a simulation of grass. By contrast, “super intelligence” and the other phrases Trump uses here imply that AI technology does in fact have intelligence in the sense we do, and to a greater degree. If Trump insists that this is so despite having no competence whatsoever to speak on the subject, that would be laughable but harmless enough if it were merely the expression of a personal opinion. But it is an outrage for him to try to use the power of his office to pressure those engaged in public discussion of this issue to adopt his favored terminology. Normalizing this usage can only facilitate the spread of the grave error of conflating AI with genuine intelligence. No self-respecting academic or public intellectual who agrees with the critiques of AI mentioned above should go along with this ridiculous novel usage. More importantly, no one who has any respect for the truth should do so.