Curious work of art. I asked ChatGPT about the barren tree and picked this out from its response:
The barren tree in The Sixth Day may represent the Tree of Life after Adam and Eve’s fall from grace, when it was no longer able to grant immortality. The tree’s lack of leaves may symbolize the loss of eternal life, and the inevitability of death and decay.
These are good questions. I would like to emphasize that I don’t think we are anywhere near the place of AI having the general intelligence of humans. But, I am trying to be open to the question of AI achieving something like human intelligence.
AI language models, programmed by humans, use so-called “deep learning” algorithms (Deep learning - Wikipedia).
Science tells us that humans, as biological organisms, seemed to come about by natural processes. We people of faith in a Creator God believe that God created humans in His image using these processes. But, what exactly does it mean to be created in His image? We believe that God “breathed life” into us, so that we are living beings with immortal souls. But how exactly did He do this? Perhaps a prerequisite was that we have brains capable of housing souls. But is that all? If so, why in principle couldn’t we humans endow a machine with the requisite intelligence?
Let’s say an AI was capable of free will (and I don’t see why, in principle, this would not be possible - we can use fundamentally unpredictable input sources in computer programs). Let’s say it decided, after being trained on theology and experiences of “others”, that it believed in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Then, it may indeed ask to be baptized, because that is commanded by Jesus Himself.
It seems to me that what your question can be made into a sort of “Christian Turing Test”. Let’s say that a Pastor didn’t have direct access to a convert who professed faith in Christ. Let’s say they could only communicate by electronic messaging (for whatever reason, the convert does not have in-person access to other believers). If the Pastor decides that they sincerely wish to be baptized, should the Pastor lead the convert in some kind of “Baptism by proxy”?
I wish to leave aside the question of physical presence, because computers with blinking lights don’t give us a feeling of person-hood, nor do even the most advanced robots. I also want to leave aside the great theological questions of immersion in water or sprinkling. (Some people, because of severe physical disabilities, cannot be safely immersed in water.)
Alan Turing wrote about the “theological objection” to the question “can machines think?” in his famous paper “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dprecup/courses/AI/Materials/turing1950.pdf
I quote a section here:
Thinking is a function of man’s immortal soul. God has given an immortal soul to every man and woman, but not to any other animal or to machines. Hence no animal or machine can think.
…
It appears to me that the argument quoted above implies a serious restriction of the omnipotence of the Almighty. It is admitted that there are certain things that He cannot do such as making one equal to two, but should we not believe that He has freedom to confer a soul on an elephant if He sees fit ? We might expect that He would only exercise this power in conjunction with a mutation which provided the elephant with an appropriately improved brain to minister to the needs of this soul. An argument of exactly similar form may be made for the case of machines. It may seem different because it is more difficult to “swallow”. But this really only means that we think it would be less likely that He would consider the circumstances suitable for conferring a soul. The circumstances in question are discussed in the rest of this paper. In attempting to construct such machines we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates.
I’ve heard so much good about it amongst weavers I know that I assumed it must be specialized in that direction. Good to know.
Yeah it’s on general stewardship and paradigms within the indigenous community. It touches on several subjects, usually connected to ways to manage plants and memories they have of conversations and people all interwoven together. It’s really good. I’m not sure if I like this one or her book on moss better. I think I like the one on moss better. It’s similar, in its approach but the stories keep circling back around to moss. I have such a burning hole in my pocket to just buy a handful of moss ID books and magnifying lenses. I keep telling myself, in 2025 I’ll begin to look at moss. I’ll dedicate that year to predominantly focusing on moss. Still debating on if I just want to combine moss and lichen. Maybe 2025 will be both but an emphasis on moss snd 2026 with be an emphasis on lichen.
If only I could be a vampire for a few centuries. Just dedicate every non feasting moment to learning everything I can about nature. Spend a few decades becoming an expert on moss, finding new species, then a few decades on moths and then this and that lol.
Always think about how people say “ oh in heaven you’ll know everything and have a mansion with streets of gold “ and I’m just like…. Tbh that sounds miserable. I want mystery, the unknown to explore and the reward of challenging myself to travel further into the woods and swamps. Hopefully it will be a literal physical restoration and the ability to learn more. It would suck to be this immortal that knows almost everything and just spend my days with others who know everything too. What can you talk about if you all know everything lol.
I have started reading “Braiding Sweetgrass” too. It was on my reading list, and I bumped it up when I learned that it may be on the BioLogos Book Club. I’m enjoying it.
I am advocating for the unorthodox view of the possibility of AI achieving something like human intelligence, which some church people may find controversial, so don’t expect me to throw rocks at your views 
.
I am also much more open to believing that many animals have souls, at least based upon intelligence, which some church people find unorthodox, and would have been highly unorthodox in Turing’s time.
Finally, regarding your table, my dictionary defines “animate” as “having life”, so your definition of living things seems somewhat circular. I am interested in the question of whether AI will ever achieve human-like intelligence, and I understand and respect that you are firmly of the opinion that it will not.
Although I am agnostic to the question of whether we will ever have truly conscious AGIs, I do wonder if one way to think theologically about human-level AIs, if they emerge, would be to compare them to angels. Like angels, AIs are potentially powerful, and as far as we know, non-corporeal beings that are part of the created world and can act in the interest of humans. They can also act in a way that is unconcerned with or hostile to human interests. They would also be rational beings with a relationship with God that is not identical to his relationship with humans. They may also serve as God’s servants at some point in the future. To clarify, I am not saying that AIs are angels, just that their nature and potential role is comparable.
That is a great point. Angels are an example of a created being of a different order than human beings. Angels’ status in the new heaven and earth has already been determined. Perhaps, if AGIs were to emerge, they would be yet another order of created being. But one that humans must take responsibility for.
This “program” and all things called “Artificial Intelligence” are not intelligent at all. They are programmed to do certain tasks. They do not learn anything they are not programmed to be able to learn, they do not do anything they are not programmed to be able to do. And they do not think or feel. Artificial Intelligence, such as portrayed in sci-fi films, or in the way those such as Elon Musk WANTS you to view it, are not real and are currently, perhaps forever, out of the ability of man to create.
True Artificial Intelligence does not exist. Enjoy ChatGPT by all means, but do not be fooled by this push that computers can truly think.
You haven’t read many college freshman term papers, have you?
There’s legal software that draws up motions for court that are just as good as many paralegals manage.
I’ve caught it making up references.
It’s like the curse of the weeds
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.