Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!

A A
By:

Will AI replace reading?

Empty libraries and human-less humans

*****

Many new technologies are sold with the promise of freeing people from menial tasks. Dishwashers, dryers, tractors, and word processors are just a few of the many inventions that have made life easier, reducing the amount of backbreaking labor involved in necessary chores and leaving users more time for things worthwhile, like learning, creating, and enjoying relationships.

But what happens when technology promises to “free” us from even those worthwhile activities? That’s one of the many questions we face in the age of artificial intelligence. For example, entrepreneur and “Shark Tank” judge Davie Fogarty recently told his 40,000 followers on X that

“(r)eading books is now a waste of time. AI reasoning models can distill key insights and tell you exactly how to implement them based on everything they know about you.”

Can reading really be outsourced to AI? Should it be? Is this a post-schooling version of the new epidemic of AI-based cheating where students have chatbots do their research and compose their assignments? Is the study and reflection on ideas now as much of an historical anachronism as plowing a field by hand?

The process is the point

The belief that reading and writing should be delegated to AI betrays a confusion not only about what technology is for but, even more, what we are for. Also, it lands us in some dark places, philosophically and spiritually. Author and classics professor Spencer Klaven wrote on X that many students who outsource the slow work of reading and writing soon find themselves wondering what the point of life is. After all, why go on if humans are obsolete, and chatbots can perform every task better in a fraction of the time?

All new technologies require humans to wrestle again with what it means to be human. Human work is vital, not only because it is a way in which humans love and serve our neighbors, but because it is a fulfillment of the creation mandate. It’s true the Fall has turned much of our work into toil, and so any technology that alleviates futile, dangerous, and pointless work is a blessing. However, for some of our work, like reading, the process is the point. Not all activities can be measured in the narrow, utilitarian way that Fogarty and other over-eager fans of AI claim. Assuming AI can “distill” a work accurately, or that we need to be made “free” of sitting with an author, following an argument, or experiencing a narrative reduces truth, goodness, and beauty to mere data. To optimize or automate reading is simply not to read. It is like asking AI to free us from eating a delicious meal or taking a walk in the park with our kids. Some things cannot be optimized or outsourced, because they are irreducibly embodied, conscious, and human.

Required to read and wrestle

The best case-in-point is the Bible. God could have revealed what He wanted us to know in a bulleted list of “distilled” theological “insights” or moral pronouncements. Instead, He gave us a library of stories, proverbs, epistles, history, and authors, writing diverse types of literature over centuries, all of which comprise Holy Scripture. Part of what makes the Bible such a gift is the work and the humility God requires of us as we wrestle with It.

Describing the slow and divinely blessed act of reading the Bible as a “waste of time” is a failure to grasp what it is, why it was given to us, and why we, as creatures, need it. And this is also true of many other books. To “free” us from this wonderfully inefficient process is to free us of our humanity. It is asking to be liberated from the nature given us by the God whose image we bear. To paraphrase the Psalmist, this will be how humans in this technocratic age become like our artificially intelligent idols.
Novelist and songwriter Joseph Fasano wrote a poem entitled “For a Student Who Used AI to Write a Paper”:

I know your days are precious
on this earth.
But what are you trying
to be free of?
The living? The miraculous task of it?
Love is for the ones who love the work.

The most important part of that work, in fact, reflect what it means to be made in the likeness of God instead of a computer.

For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to Breakpoint.org. This is reprinted with permission from the Colson Center.

Enjoyed this article?

Get the best of RP delivered to your inbox every Saturday for free.



Red heart icon with + sign.
Internet

Is AI just another tool, or something else?

We must ask how the technology fits into the Creation story lest it takes away from meaningful work and connection. **** It’s not uncommon to hear artificial intelligence (AI) described as a new “tool” that extends and expands our technological capabilities. Already there are thousands of ways people are utilizing artificial intelligence. All tools help accomplish a task more easily or efficiently. Some tools, however, have the potential to change the task at a fundamental level. This is among the challenges presented by AI. If in the end it is not clear what AI is helping us to achieve more efficiently, this emerging technology will be easily abused. AI’s potential impact on education is a prime example. Since the days of Socrates, the goal of education was not only for students to gain knowledge but also the wisdom and experience to use that knowledge well. Whether the class texts appeared on scrolls or screens mattered little. Learning remained the goal, regardless of the tools used. In a recent article at The Hill, English professor Mark Massaro described a “wave” of chatbot cheating now making it nearly impossible to grade assignments or to know whether students even complete them. He has received essays written entirely by AI, complete with fake citations and statistics but meticulously formatted to appear legitimate. In addition to hurting the dishonest students who aren’t learning anything, attempts to flag AI-generated assignments, a process often powered by AI, have the potential to yield false positives that bring honest students under suspicion. Some professors are attempting to make peace with the technology, encouraging students to use AI-generated “scaffolding” to construct their essays. However, this is kind of like legalizing drugs: there’s little evidence it will cut down on abuse. Consider also the recent flood of fake news produced by AI. In an article in The Washington Post, Pranshu Verma reported that “since May, websites hosting AI-created false articles have increased by more than 1,000 percent.” According to one AI researcher, “Some of these sites are generating hundreds if not thousands of articles a day. … This is why we call it the next great misinformation superspreader.” Sometimes, this faux journalism appears among otherwise legitimate articles. Often, the technology is used by publications to cut corners and feed the content machine. However, it can have sinister consequences. A recent AI-generated story alleged that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s psychiatrist had committed suicide. The fact that this psychiatrist never existed didn’t stop the story from circulating on TV, news sites, and social media in several languages. When confronted, the owners of the site said they republished a story that was “satire,” but the incident demonstrates that the volume of this kind of fake content would be nearly impossible to police. Of course, there’s no sense in trying to put the AI genie back in a bottle. For better or worse, the technology is here to stay. We must develop an ability to evaluate its legitimate uses from its illegitimate uses. In other words, we must know what AI is for, before experimenting with what it can do. That will require first knowing what human beings are for. For example, Genesis is clear (and research confirms) that human beings were made to work. After the fall, toil “by the sweat of your brow” is a part of work. The best human inventions throughout history are the tools that reduce needless toil, blunt the effects of the curse, and restore some dignity to those who work. We should ask whether a given application of AI helps achieve worthy human goals – for instance, teaching students or accurately reporting news – or if it offers shady shortcuts and clickbait instead. Does it restore dignity to human work, or will it leave us like the squashy passengers of the ship in Pixar’s Wall-E – coddled, fed, entertained, and utterly useless? Perhaps most importantly, we must govern what AI is doing to our relationships. Already, our most impressive human inventions – such as the printing press, the telephone, and the internet – facilitated more rapid and accurate human communication, but they also left us more isolated and disconnected from those closest to us. Obviously, artificial intelligence carries an even greater capacity to replace human communication and relationships (for example, chatbots and AI girlfriends). In a sense, the most important questions as we enter the age of AI are not new. We must ask, what are humans for? And, how can we love one another well? These questions won’t easily untangle every ethical dilemma, but they can help distinguish between tools designed to fulfill the creation mandate and technologies designed to rewrite it. ***** This column was first published to Breakpoint.org on January 8, 2024, and is reprinted with their gracious permission. We're sharing it because it's a good article on an important topic. But we have another reason. We wanted to give RP readers this sample of Breakpoint's Daily Commentaries to, hopefully, pique your interest. Breakpoint has an American focus and is not specifically Reformed (though some writers are), so we differ in some notable respects: they are anti-evolution and RP is specifically 6-day creationists; and while we'll highlight problems with the Pope both when he is acting Roman Catholic and when he is not, they'll stick to the latter. So, as with everything, there is a need to read with discernment. But when it comes to the hottest cultural battles of our day – sexuality, gender, the unborn, and God's sovereignty over "every square inch" of creation – they get it right, consistently, and they are timely, often replying to events that happened just the day before. That's why Breakpoint articles have been featured in our Saturday 6 column for years now. If this article did grab your interest, then you'll want to sign up here to get Breakpoint sent right to your email inbox each day....