I was counting each, even if there were several from the same book in a row (which they did a lot with Genesis), basically anything they separated with a “;” I got 64 my 2nd time through.
I count 15 pastors, 29 associated with a university (faculty or administration), 18 in leadership of some sort of Christian organization (ERLC, SBC, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, etc.), and 7 have something to do with media (author, editor, etc.)
But those associated with university are all theologians right? I’m describing them as “largely pastors and theologians.” Do you agree?
1 Like
Okay, I’m going to say “over 60” references.
1 Like
Absolutely. I didn’t see any sign of anybody with a Computer Science or similar background, certainly no researchers in the field.
There was one guy from Amazon I’ve never heard of before.
That’s why “almost all” or “almost entirely” would be warranted 
Hello All,
My WSJ OpEd just hit print. Contact me privately if you’d like to see the text.
@Nlents also is publishing an article that is coming out tomorrow. I’ll post it when it hits too.
Thank you everyone for helpful conversation on this topic. I’m curious to see how @epkruger covers this in his blog too.
2 Likes
Hello, looking forward to reading your opinion piece. I’ve been having trouble with my site this week and hope to have it back up by the weekend. At that point and after reading your opinion piece, I plan to write my comments and reactions on it. Per our conversation here, I anticipate a much more robust engagement than the ERLC statement.
1 Like
Russell Moore (President of the ERLC that put out the statement) also posted his thoughts on his blog:
AI is OK (sort of)
I respect Russell Moore a lot and he is a very influential voice within the Evangelical community, especially for younger “intellectuals” or politicos. It would be great to see more engagement on this topic, rather than it be seen as a battle line.
Russell’s view of the benefits of AI seems pretty limited (Bible translations, etc.) I think one thing that would help is to see where AI is being used, not for entertainment or convenience, but to really enhance “human flourishing”.
1 Like
Hah! From the article @Patrick shared
Article 1 declares that technology ought not to “be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency”—robots are not, and will never be, human. And unsurprisingly, Article 6 states that A.I. should not be used to pursue sexual pleasure and “should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife”: It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and HAL.
So, now, we are starting to go after robosexuals too? Wonderful. 
On a related note, since Adam and Eve are the optimal model for marriage, does that mean that I am not only allowed, but encouraged to marry my genetic twin?
1 Like
While I have not yet been involved in AI or Machine Learning, my field is computer science (I’m an applications developer) and AI is of interest to me. I’m annoyed by a lot of the hype and disinformation surrounding AI (e.g. Sophia - the world’s first AI citizen who, when unscripted, is about as engaging as Siri).
However, there are some very real questions, some of which have been brought up here: How do we maintain privacy? What do we do about replacing jobs with AI? How do we prevent governments and corporations from abusing AI and technology? What should we be teaching our children so they can be prepared for a future/present when any computer can produce any fact or calculation faster than they can? And, yes, can an AI ever be considered a sentient “person”?
The issues of job loss and privacy tend to weigh most heavily on my mind. Privacy in our digital age has already been lost and many people haven’t realized it or don’t care, though there are some initiatives like the GDPR that are attempting to reclaim it, or at least grant us possession of our own data. Job loss has begun, but I think the economy will be able to adapt for a while, until we reach the point that the total workforce will begin to shrink.
3 Likes