The problems with promoting Ai generated Bible teaching
Hey there Logosians.
I have a concern. I love solid exegesis, deep dive hermeneutics and teachers who practice such things. I go to great lengths to follow professors and authors down these rabbit holes once I trust their scholarship, because I love God’s Word.
A.I. generated content does the exact opposite. It scans most popular responses and spits out a synthesis. A.I. has no sense of Truth, right, tact, ethics, wisdom, insight or understanding. It’s quite simply the average of available answers put in a blender and squoze out through a tube. Pastors should not be encouraged to rely on this.
Consider this recent (most likely A.I. generated) Logos advertisement on what a.i. can do for you as a pastor:
- Summarize articles and chapters. That way you’ll know if something is worth investing your time in reading.
- Spend less time coming up with effective illustrations and questions. Customizable options give you a launchpad to get your gears turning
So pastors are encouraged to let A.I. summaries of Bible chapters guide their valuation of chapters of Scripture and then trust the hermeneutics and current social understanding of A.I. to create relevant illustrations o that pastors flock, for their sermons.
If I appear to be hyperbolic, please watch the advertisement videos in which pastors are encouraged to do just that and then shown an example of how that might turn out.
Pastors, please, for the Love of God and His Word, do not outsource the process of understanding, summarizing and creating illustrations of God’s Word for your people. This is like…. Literally your main job. It’s what Paul encouraged in His final writing before dying (2 Tim 3) it’s what Peter emphasized in HIS final writings before dying (2 Peter 3). A.I. may proove good for lots of things, but this ain’t it! You are filled with the Spirit of God for being able to understand and relate it. Don’t get lazy on us now! The church needs you. 
What are your thought on this? Am I off base?
Comments
-
Ryan said:
If I appear to be hyperbolic, please watch the advertisement videos in which pastors are encouraged to do just that and then shown an example of how that might turn out.
I haven't watched the videos so can't comment on those.
Ryan said:Summarize articles and chapters. That way you’ll know if something is worth investing your time in reading.
Ryan said:So pastors are encouraged to let A.I. summaries of Bible chapters guide their valuation of chapters of Scripture
I recognise the summarisation feature can be used to summarise Bible chapters - but I would be more inclined to use it to summarise chapters of other books to get a sense of whether that chapter / article is talking about something I want to explore further.
It would be interesting to know the basis on which the biblical chapter summarisation works. I doubt if it is simply generating it "itself" but drawing on some existing Logos resources (but I don't know any specifics)
Ryan said:Spend less time coming up with effective illustrations and questions. Customizable options give you a launchpad to get your gears turning
I think the launchpad comment is key here - with the idea of suggesting some areas to consider as opposed to starting from scratch
0 -
It would be interesting to know the basis on which the biblical chapter summarisation works. I doubt if it is simply generating it "itself" but drawing on some existing Logos resources (but I don't know any specifics)Graham Criddle said:Ryan said:If I appear to be hyperbolic, please watch the advertisement videos in which pastors are encouraged to do just that and then shown an example of how that might turn out.
I haven't watched the videos so can't comment on those. Ryan said:
So pastors are encouraged to let A.I. summaries of Bible chapters guide their valuation of chapters of Scripture
Ryan said:Spend less time coming up with effective illustrations and questions. Customizable options give you a launchpad to get your gears turning
I think the launchpad comment is key here - with the idea of suggesting some areas to consider as opposed to starting from scratch
Blessings Graham! My hope would be that the tool would be used as you say. That pastors would only use it as a launchpad. But that still doesn’t answer the question of origin, where are the lesson illustrations being lifted from? Who is to be cited for the illustration and what is the underlying belief of the author of that illustration that may color its choice of wording.
Theres a huge issue right now plaguing medical journals with A.I. generated content not based on real research, that is finding its way into major peer-reviewed journals, only to be retracted later. They’re calling this a real crisis of scholarship. How are we as pastors with LESS accountability than a peer reviewed paper and LESS experience or training in research using a LESS well developed A.I. (guessing on that one) supposed to do a better job at vetting what the A.I. spits at us.
It’s literally being marketed as a time saver ( as in, don’t worry about spending time on all that bothersome research) which is the wrong message to sell to young busy pastors. A dangerous message for a young pastor to buy into actually.
Heres the video if the link works for you.
1 -
Here’s more from Logos current advertising:
“No need to stop what you’re doing to visit Google or search through illustration books. Instead, get reliable illustration ideas right inside Sermon Builder“
What makes these A.I. teachings reliable? Who determined their level of reliability? They are being sold as reliable and that is concerning if you convince a pastor to believe that, and then it turns out to be just some junk an A.I. bot made up. And then a congregation gets a distorted teaching. That could be so very problematic If used how advertised.
0 -
Ryan said:
Theres a huge issue right now plaguing medical journals with A.I. generated content not based on real research, that is finding its way into major peer-reviewed journals, only to be retracted later.
This use of AI was news to me, so I just went and verified. There has been AI generated content and that can be a problem but much of the retracted research falls on the human factor - people deliberately fudging data and/or neglecting to attribute work to its rightful owner. I am considerably less impressed with the current state of AI than many in the forums. It needs to get better at reasoning and evaluating. On the other hand, it will be a growing force in the scholarship so we best starting learning how to use rather than abuse it.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
1 -
Ryan said:
So pastors are encouraged to let A.I. summaries of Bible chapters guide their valuation of chapters of Scripture and then trust the hermeneutics and current social understanding of A.I. to create relevant illustrations o that pastors flock, for their sermons.
It is worth mentioning that Bible search does not include the summarize feature, only books search. You can do a books search, restrict it to type:Bible and use the summary feature. But it is certainly not obvious or promoted.
Here is the summary it generated of Psalm 142 when I forced it to do so. It isn't bad.
[quote]
The Psalm 142 is a prayer by David for help in times of trouble. He cries out to the Lord, pouring out his complaints and declaring his overwhelming spirit. David seeks refuge and deliverance from his persecutors, feeling trapped and uncared for. He asks for his soul to be freed from prison so he can give thanks to the Lord. Despite feeling low and weak, David trusts that the righteous will surround him and that the Lord will deal bountifully with him. The prayer reflects a deep sense of reliance on God during difficult times and a belief in His ability to provide comfort and assistance.
The illustrations are basically just prompts for ideas. Here are my results for "seeking a lost sheep" with an emotive tone, any type (personal, historical, hypothetical, and biblical) for adults or teens. I don't think they are great, but I don't use books of illustrations either. For someone who does, I don't think the quality is much different. I suspect that it has been trained on those illustration books already in the Logos ecosystem because they all have that feel.
The sermon illustrator is a sideshow; the summarization and smart search are the meat of the AI at this point. In my opinion, the difference in Logos's AI and a generic one like ChatGPT is that Logos is not just making stuff up, it is all tied to your library. It isn't generating answers to questions, it is summarizing what a book in my library says where I can see who the source is and read it with a click.
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
1 -
Ryan,
I appreciate your comments and position regarding AI. Currently I am using Logos Pro for searching and summarizing the search results. My search is not much different than if I had run in the old way, except I do not need the search syntax. The results are from my library. I can look at a result and click summarize to see if I want to look further into that resource.
I do not see the way AI is implemented in Logos currently for those two functions represents much of what you are concerned about. It is using tools similar to how I would without AI to gather information from my library to use in my biblical studies. This is different than me opening google AI and asking it to answer my questions.
I just want to make sure things are in perspective to how they are being implemented.
2 -
Welll... while I share some of the concerns raised in this thread.... I'm one that loves all the help I can get.... But.... I realize fully that I am the one responsible for getting God's word into my heart. No program will ever do that....
So... while I love all the helps... I still have to study "to show myself approved" and to make God's word mine.
It's like digging a ditch.... with all the tools available... I still have to dig the ditch no matter which tool I use....
So... love the helps! I just try to keep them in perspective.... [8-|]
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
2 -
John Fidel said:
I just want to make sure things are in perspective to how they are being implemented.
A 26 page thread describing a new product line is probably not the best vehicle for marketing. Combined with refusing early test access (logically), to insure the confusion.
But my impression is the first stage of a AI search is old-potatoes syntax processing ... improved presentation is the new boys. But you're suggesting AI is simplifying your initial syntax. I'm getting confused over Mark's description.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Ryan said:
Theres a huge issue right now plaguing medical journals with A.I. generated content not based on real research, that is finding its way into major peer-reviewed journals, only to be retracted later. They’re calling this a real crisis of scholarship...
There's a similar issue in the legal community. (Eugene Volokh, "14th Court Case I've Seen in Which AI-Hallucinated Citations Appeared," Reason.com.)
0 -
DMB said:John Fidel said:
I just want to make sure things are in perspective to how they are being implemented.
A 26 page thread describing a new product line is probably not the best vehicle for marketing. Combined with refusing early test access (logically), to insure the confusion.
But my impression is the first stage of a AI search is old-potatoes syntax processing ... improved presentation is the new boys. But you're suggesting AI is simplifying your initial syntax. I'm getting confused over Mark's description.
There is no search syntax in a smart search. Type reprobation and the love of God in a smart search and it finds very good articles in my library discussing the matter.
That's simplifying my search syntax wouldn't you say?
1 -
DMB said:John Fidel said:
I just want to make sure things are in perspective to how they are being implemented.
A 26 page thread describing a new product line is probably not the best vehicle for marketing. Combined with refusing early test access (logically), to insure the confusion.
But my impression is the first stage of a AI search is old-potatoes syntax processing ... improved presentation is the new boys. But you're suggesting AI is simplifying your initial syntax. I'm getting confused over Mark's description.
There is no search syntax in a smart search. Type reprobation and the love of God in a smart search and it finds very good articles in my library discussing the matter.
That's simplifying my search syntax wouldn't you say?
1 -
Justin Gatlin said:
I suspect that it has been trained on those illustration books already in the Logos ecosystem because they all have that feel.
People can subscribe to these AI tools without buying the illustration books then, isn't it? Won't this then amount to copyright violation if it recommends illustration from books that I don't own?
I am not a tech person, so pardon my lack of AI-related knowledge.
I believe in a Win-Win-Win God.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Ryan said:
Theres a huge issue right now plaguing medical journals with A.I. generated content not based on real research, that is finding its way into major peer-reviewed journals, only to be retracted later.
This use of AI was news to me, so I just went and verified. There has been AI generated content and that can be a problem but much of the retracted research falls on the human factor - people deliberately fudging data and/or neglecting to attribute work to its rightful owner. I am considerably less impressed with the current state of AI than many in the forums. It needs to get better at reasoning and evaluating. On the other hand, it will be a growing force in the scholarship so we best starting learning how to use rather than abuse it.
Here was the most egregious example to make the nightly news. https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/scientists-aghast-at-bizarre-ai-rat-with-huge-genitals-in-peer-reviewed-article/
Perhaps more pertinent to the discussion though is just how wide spread the issue is amongst tech savvy research scientists. These features are not ready for prime time. Now, scale that to less educated, part-time pastors with less ability to fact check. Those selling this product as a quick and easy way to skip time consuming methods of looking up biblical facts themselves, should bear some responsibility for the inevitable outcomes that’s already present across the board.
Im not preaching doomsday, I’m just saying this tool is causing harm in every other sector because we haven’t figured out how to use it well yet. Of course it will also cause harm in this sector (ministry).
0 -
1Cor10 31 said:Justin Gatlin said:
I suspect that it has been trained on those illustration books already in the Logos ecosystem because they all have that feel.
People can subscribe to these AI tools without buying the illustration books then, isn't it? Won't this then amount to copyright violation if it recommends illustration from books that I don't own?
I am not a tech person, so pardon my lack of AI-related knowledge.
Yes. I’m in the education sector and a.I. is frequently used to bypass proper citation requirements and obfuscate originality.
0 -
EastTN said:Ryan said:
Theres a huge issue right now plaguing medical journals with A.I. generated content not based on real research, that is finding its way into major peer-reviewed journals, only to be retracted later. They’re calling this a real crisis of scholarship...
There's a similar issue in the legal community. (Eugene Volokh, "14th Court Case I've Seen in Which AI-Hallucinated Citations Appeared," Reason.com.)
Oh wow! Thanks for sharing.
0 -
EastTN said:Ryan said:
Theres a huge issue right now plaguing medical journals with A.I. generated content not based on real research, that is finding its way into major peer-reviewed journals, only to be retracted later. They’re calling this a real crisis of scholarship...
There's a similar issue in the legal community. (Eugene Volokh, "14th Court Case I've Seen in Which AI-Hallucinated Citations Appeared," Reason.com.)
Oh wow! Thanks for sharing.
0 -
EastTN said:Ryan said:
Theres a huge issue right now plaguing medical journals with A.I. generated content not based on real research, that is finding its way into major peer-reviewed journals, only to be retracted later. They’re calling this a real crisis of scholarship...
There's a similar issue in the legal community. (Eugene Volokh, "14th Court Case I've Seen in Which AI-Hallucinated Citations Appeared," Reason.com.)
I hadn’t heard of this. Thanks for sharing.
0 -
I want to stop AI from being used in my searches.
Checking a phrase to make certain it wasn’t Scriptural AI pulled up an Astrology book. I assumed it would use my resources. I assumed any resources outside my personal library would be Biblical books because AI in Logos was sold on us this way. Neither were true and I see no place to restrict it or turn it off.
If anyone can help me, please let me know. My son just complained about his AI search that pulled up another resource we don’t have.0 -
Sherry,
To search just the books in your library and not Logos's whole catalogue, select "Books" on the search menu:
To not use AI, select "Precise" rather than "Smart" search:
1 -
People always overreacting. AI is a tool and when used wisely it can help you prepare better sermons. Besides, it’s your responsibility to search the Scriptures daily to see if what AI is telling you is true or not. Even solid exegesis and hermetics have proven to be flawed or else how do you explain the many different interpretations that have come up through out the years by so called solid exegetes throughout history. Hermeneutics, AI, Logos, etc. they’re just tools, nothing more. No need to get paranoid. So yes, you’re a little off base, but I can see where you’re coming from. In my opinion, only lazy preachers will let AI do everything for them and they’ll just wing it without any consideration to AI generated content.
DAL
4 -
That was really helpful! Thank you and I’ve forwarded your reply to my son as well.
After talking with my husband yesterday about it we agreed that if we wanted to search the internet for an answer we could do that in a regular web browser, but when we want solid, theological content we intend to use the material we chose because it is trustworthy and that’s supposed to come from our Logos Bible software (and any physical books we have on our bookcases).
I was easily able to transfer your instructions to my mobile app.
God bless you and yours.
0 -
@xnman said:
It's like digging a ditch.... with all the tools available... I still have to dig the ditch no matter which tool I use...
Unless you use The World’s First Fully Autonomous Trenching Solution instead. 😁
1 -
I know I'm using AI wisely. Why, everything it says, I check (saves me time!). And I don't actually have to read anything too (more time saving)!
OK, OK … it's cold and windy and there's a big fire in the next state west.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
My concern is that AI, in its current state, is like a dull chisel. It works poorly enough that it's a danger to the inattentive user (and we're all inattentive at times).
1 -
It's one thing to use AI to help you find the right material. That can be very beneficial and incredibly time saving. But it's a completely different matter to use the AI to do your own thinking. Any tool can be used both wisely and poorly.
3 -
Logos has set up AI to assist in finding resource that are relevant to your study, not to answer your questions. The synopsis can be closed if users find it too helpful or leading. I Just answered a new user questions about finding resources on adoption and justification. Smart search was so much easier that setting up and explaining how to do a headword search and the results were similar, although I think the All smart search provided more options for this user.
AI in Logos in not intended, at least at this time, to do more that assist in finding resources in your library or the full Logos library. Use it and appreciate it for what it is.
3 -
Any tool can be used both wisely and poorly.
Wisdom can be exercised in the choice of tools, and not just in how they're used. Tools vary in both quality and safety. There's currently a lot of hype around AI. There are some well-developed use cases, some of which I love (e.g., digital image processing). But there are numerous cases of people using AI for research purposes who're getting seriously tripped up by it. The instances I'm most familiar with are in the legal arena. It's easy to say that people should check the AI's work, but experienced attorneys who are just as smart as me are missing AI hallucinations and being professionally reprimanded for it. Maybe they got rushed, or just lazy, and didn't check as well as they should have. But I get rushed and lazy too.
The risk just isn't worth it to me.
0 -
I've attended many Charismatic churches over the years. It's not uncommon for a pastor to have had zero theological training. The only extra-biblical resource they tend to use is the Strong's Concordance, and they don't use that properly. I can't tell you the number of times I would have gladly listened to AI-generated content instead.
8 -
Perhaps so. But noting that there may be a worse danger out there is hardly a strong argument for using a potentially flawed tool.
0 -
I would argue that all tools are potentially flawed.
0 -
That's a truism. It's also not very helpful. We all know that some tools are much more dangerous than others. (I say that as someone who has ended up in the ER after making a simple mistake with a table saw.) As I mentioned before, the use of AI in legal research has led to attorneys being censured in court due to hallucinations in their filings. That level of danger goes way beyond "all tools are potentially flawed."
For me, it's not worth the risk. You may view the trade-offs differently.
0 -
Anything powerful has inherent risks if used improperly. The answer isn't getting rid of AI (which isn't going to happen anyway). The answer is proper training on how to use it effectively.
3 -
Actually, much of the Logos tagging was done using AI … less powerful and more directed but AI nonetheless.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
2 -
"AI" is a blanket term encompassing a variety of technologies. Many are mature technologies now, and have solid, well-understood use cases. The current rush to deploy the newer generative AI tools is the focus of my concerns. Its use has caused documented real-world problems in a variety of settings. Given the professional embarrassment that research performed using generative AI has caused for professionals in other disciplines, I personally consider it dangerously premature to use it in my own Bible study and teaching.
0 -
Actually, I don't mind folks using AI to their hearts content. I've never met an admittedly unwise Logosian (ok, maybe spending so much). We ARE all wise.
My problem is presenting AI as an 'oh wow', and leaving those thousands of authors in the dust of 'summaries'. Lost nuances. The logical arguments. The AI chooses … but the AI also looses. It's much like telling our pastor, yep, I read the AI summary on your sermon. Great work.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
2 -
[Blank page]
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I share your concerns but tend to be more pessimistic re: the use of natural intelligence. Simply listening to a few of the social/political statements on the California fires provides negative evidence.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Coming from a background like you described, I can totally agree with you! I get more from the AI generated synopsis on a passage than I used to get from the long winded sermons the two persons in charge of “preaching” used to preach! I kid you not! The preaching was mostly this: Read a story from the OT and then fill it with your own stories for about an hour and change. It was terrible 😣
1 -
AI is a starting point, not a destination. I have discovered many resources I owned (and many I didn't) that I never knew existed, that nevertheless proved useful. And I only discovered them because of AI summaries.
4 -
Maybe spending a bit of time in your library might be of use? Open a book, maybe? I'm smiling.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
1 -
@MJ. Smith You're not wrong about that. But I'd like to think those of us who serve the church by preaching and teaching would hold ourselves to a higher standard. (I'll admit that this hope may be a bit naive, though.)
1 -
Being of the not-a-denomination background, the elders were/are the criticality, the 'preacher' potentially just visiting. I've never expected elders to have a great informational sermon available. I do expect them to have good judgment and good example. Neither, yet AI-able.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
IMO, no, y'ain't.
Stories are told of how POWs in the Hanoi Hilton were able to reconstruct almost all of the NT from their collective memories. That will never happen in an AI world.
I'm not afraid of the new technology, and see positive uses for it. What I'm afraid of is how badly totally depraved people will abuse it. 👍️
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
0 -
I don't think the 'View Post' works. I clicked on Doc B's referenced Ryan post and then 'View Post' and it just reloaded this page. No benefit to reporting bugs that become features.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
[Blank page]
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I don't see any advantage part of searching resources.
Blessings in Christ.
0 -
“1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.” - James 3:1
I believe James said it right! Not many know how to "rightly dividing the word of God" - 2 Timothy 2:15. If one does not study and understand the word of God for themselves, they are nothing more than a hinderance to the work of God. We must know God's word, not what some machine or someone else says about it. How will we know if what the machine of the someone else is following God's word or embellishing it?
AI may be a help, but it is definitely not a substitute for one knowing the word of God! IMHO…. 😎
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
Mark has a point. Smart search allows me to identify relevant resources that I would not have found using precise search. The ability to switch between the two is a great asset to me.
It is worth considering that there are different approaches to library building. I am not suggesting that one approach is better than the other, but after a few purchases of large Logos library bundles one quickly loses sight of one's library. I agree that for small, carefully curated libraries smart search is less necessary. But things look a bit different for a library of 20,000+ books.
1
