Official: What's your attitude towards AI?

Mark Barnes (Logos) · 2025-07-24T14:14:36+00:00

There was an error rendering this rich post.

We often think about how we should and shouldn't use AI in Logos, and we'd love to hear your opinion. Are you bullish on the place of AI in Bible study, or do you think the risks outweigh the gains? Do you think it has broad application, or should only be used in limited situations? This short questionnaire should take no more than five minutes to complete, and will help shape the direction Logos takes in the future.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BibleStudyAIforum

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DAL

AI as Logos is using it is great! Is not like we’re going to be having conversations with Logos and alienate ourselves from society like some people are doing with AI chatbots. AI is a great tool!

Doc B

How it started.

How (where) it's going.

DMB

For me, you're kludging together 'AI'-ness.

Your smart queries really hit a good market; folks that aren't oriented to fancy queries but 'want to know'
Summaries, people seem to like. That's good too.
OL: you're not in the AI game, and I suspect you don't have a source. Phrasing patterns, unexpected deviations, etc. Been around for 20 years.
Fragmentation. Your need to 'feature' creates a growing 'this and that'. Not an integrated product.
Intrusions. The only major negative. You really, really want to treat Bible study as secular, not religious. Even defensive about it.

My attitude: deliver value, yes. Deliver chaos, no. Results.

GaoLu

TBH, I don't know. I can imagine all kinds of good things as well as all kinds of awful things. Life experience says that the best doesn't usually happen and the worst doesn't usually happen.

My attitude for now is Wait and See.

Richard Dowdy

It has a lot of potential. The smart search and summary features are a good start, but there's also potential for a conversational, ChatGPT-style AI that has read the books in one's library. Most chatbots use a vague, unspecified set of training data, so you never really know whether they've read the book you're asking about, read third-party discussions about it, or what.

The AI application I would be most excited to see in Logos though would be the ability to use AI credits to get high-quality AI narration in Read Aloud instead of the usual robot voice.

David Jonescue

AI can be useful. But it can also be harmful. I really think, if at all possible, that Logos do a simple AI On/Off option. That if On enables all the functions that use AI. If Off, AI is not used in any part of the program. This offers the best of both worlds, and allows Logos to move forward with its plans for AI, all while allowing those who do not want to use it at all, to do so. This would also mean that Logos will need to keep a separation of not allowing the program to become so dependent on AI that it cant function without it, and instead keeps AI in the realm of "enhanced" capability, instead of central to the program as a whole.

Lynden O. Williams

I have a library of almost 21,000 resources (including the Greek and Latin) Richmond Times and all of the other free stuff.

Have more commentaries than I care to count. Dictionaries, Encyclopedias etc..

Want A.I. to respond to my prompts by looking at my entire library, or collection if I specify it and answer my question.

Would also like it help in organizing the library. I have not been tagging my resources for collections so asking it to search a subset is not too helpful.

Could AI do this on its own?

Expand the search box to handle more characters similar to ChatGPT. The single line is not working for long queries. I do not see a way to go back and review the answers from the search box. Why run the search a second time if it is storing it as history.

For those whose computers can handle it, give the option to download a module so that we can have our own A.I. in Logos running on our machine using the resources that are on it. (Gives someone an excuse to buy a new computer).

"Using Nestle Island latest Greek Bible, analyze Revelation chapter 4 and look at the themes that are brought out in the chapter based on word usage." Run this in ChatGPT (and those with large libraries) using smart search and see the difference.

There are many journals that I have not purchased, and if the software is not able to narrow them down on its own, I fear that purchasing them will not be profitable.

Too often colleagues say that they have more resources in Logos than they can ever read. Having the software do the heavy lifting encourages them to keep adding resources.

Eg.

A. All books by authors who identify as Baptist, Methodist, etc.

B. Ask a question and have it limited to authors who wrote on the subject from year 1858 - 1920

C. Narrow down the field to authors who spoke on the subject and also addressed topic "C"

Basically, I am asking for you to create ChatGPT formatted for Logos.

Lynden O. Williams

Ran this prompt in Logos and got stuff from Compton's Encyclopedia talking about the Civil War .

"examine the subject of the incarnation only using authors who wrote from 1898 - 1925"

David Anfinrud

I have not used it much but trying a few things when I think of them. Found it interesting working on Gal 5:19-26 using the AI to get the verses for each of the works and fruits. Espicially interesting using "Works of the flesh" and "Will not inherit the Kingdom of God" as part of the queries. still reading thru the passages but Found it very useful. Just letting the AI pick the verses then copy to a passage guide to sort. So I can walk thru Gen to Rev different aspects of each of these searches. It can sometimes become a rabbit hole but it does open up some very interesting things to think about. I do not have the Bible memorized but it sure found verses quickly for works of the flesh I had not put into the same context before. Galations work of the flesh is just a small number of things the Bible sees as sins that separate us from God.

Jonathan Bradley

While I do a lot of double-checking/verifying, I use the smart search a lot when researching what something is, and some of the finer points of things frequently. Every once in a while, I just do searches for fun, asking random questions.

I do utilize the sermon assistant a lot, mainly for application points to find a good foundation to build upon when it comes to applying what I have been preaching to life.

Also, the AI-aided Bible search does really well, at least in all the times I have used it. It's like the fuzzy search but better, in my opinion.

MJ. Smith

My concern with AI is the same as my concern with Logos tagging - the user does not understand what they are looking at. Fortunately, for most users most of the time, this doesn't matter. User expectations are such that Logos must implement AI to meet user demand. You are doing a decent job of using it where it is most apt to be helpful and least likely to be harmful. However, marketing needs to exercise control so that expectations are reasonable and caveats known.

Steve Bentley

The Catholic Church has emerged as a principled leader in the conversation regarding AI, particularly its capacity and risks for humans and humanity. The Vatican issued an encyclical titled "Note on the Relationship Between
Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence" in January that is very thorough and worth considering. Pope Leo XIV has stated that AI is a major issue for his pontificate so there will likely be more work done in this area in the coming months.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20250128_antiqua-et-nova_en.html

Graham Criddle

Ran this prompt in Logos and got stuff from Compton's Encyclopedia talking about the Civil War .
"examine the subject of the incarnation only using authors who wrote from 1898 - 1925"

On the other hand, I got what looks like some reasonable results

Jeff Rodrigues

For me, I have absolutely no consideration at all for any use of AI. Only speaking for myself, I don't want to utilize something that would cause me to get lazy in sermon and study prep (and considering the need to verify if what AI reports is indeed accurate, I'd rather just avoid it completely and go straight to reliable sources). I've avoided getting a Logos subscription partly because of A.I. (among many other reasons). I've gotten by fine without the use of A.I., I don't need it, and I don't want it.

Michelle

Pastors/Teachers/Leaders/Believers/Anyone who had years or decades of experiences of getting their resources flipping thru pages of multiple books on a very limited table surface (however I find that those who memorize with space-geographically-idk-whats-it-called benefits from this exercise which they can remember for life if there's no trauma) will appreciate the speed & time-saving benefits from AI, which might enable them to use those freed-up time to get more information or learning or to my own opinion where the Holy Spirit stirs them to. These will probably have some sense when something is off. Wisdom comes from experiences…

It might or might not be harmful for the microwave generations who doesn't really understand how the algorithm is made.

Given some experience in the past, I'm frantic about cyber security because of the capability of the insides of program from people with ill-intent. On the other hand, I also agree that programs & apps are really helpful & beneficial towards humanity.

For example :

An architect or contractor in construction, they know the inside out of a building, they know what materials were used for the pipes, electrical lines, foundations etc, saw with their own eyes if they were diligent in overseeing. They will be able to confidently express their trust in the building, testing it with a tonnes of water tanks on the building or inside the floor of a second floor (not recommended) lol

I'd not walk on a second floor balcony of a building extended out of walls when I don't know if there's any proper lattice that goes under those flimsy floor. At least when it cracked, you'll feel it and prevent catastrophe.

It's that saying "people fear the unknown" due to many factors.

this should be divided as my opinion for both is different.

Summarizer = Unacceptable

Translator = Acceptable

Jeff Williams

I would rather see Logos improve what they've already got. Instead of adding even more stuff to the platform, fix sermon builder issues and keep it consistent. Preaching Mode could definitely use some revitalization, and look smoother with more screen space dedicated to the preaching notes. Notes itself could be less cluttered. Adding AI sounds nice, and I'm sure helps get people to try it, but mostly people are using Logos for research and preaching/teaching. Also, it's getting kind of tired seeing some of the personalities Logos is promoting (ie Karen Pryor, NT Wright). It seems the program gets further and further from their target demographic - people who actually care about what the Bible says.

unknown

This content has been removed.

GaoLu

Summarizer = Unacceptable
Translator = Acceptable

@Michelle

You may have a higher view of AI translation than I do. I use it many times daily for multiple languages and find it a possible approximation at best. It is quite useful if you keep proper expectations.

Michelle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1375156#Comment_1375156

mmm 😂… there were "my ugly moments" of finding out where the Chinese translation of the Bible differ so much from the English translation that raises "that inner fire" in me where I felt so cheated lol but .. that's another story

GaoLu

@Michelle

mmm 😂… there were "my ugly moments" of finding out where the Chinese translation of the Bible differ so much from the English translation that raises "that inner fire" in me where I felt so cheated lol but .. that's another story

Let's not hijack the thread with our private conversation here, but what you describe above is what motivated me to become familiar with Hebrew and Greek. Original language comparisons are better than AI translated foreign language comparisons. That very issue of translation differences in foreign language Bibles is what led me to dive deep into Logos.

DMM

I think AI has it's place primarily as a research assistant - helping you find what information you need quickly, and perhaps making relevant suggestions.

But I think it's a slippery slope using it for things like sermon or lesson preparation. Sure, I bet AI could come up with a much more eloquent sermon or lesson than I could. It could probably come up with good application points and questions to ask. But we forget that with many of these things, the benefit to the person isn't just in the finished product, but it comes from time put in, the time wrestling with the material. Learning can never be rushed or "instant".

Just like if I wanted to drop some pounds and gain some muscle… I could get surgery done to get quick results - but that doesn't make me healthier - the real benefit comes from the exercise. The exercise does a lot of things to my body that end up making me healthier which result in weight loss and muscle gain, which wouldn't have happened if I didn't put in the time.

AI should never replace critical thinking.

NichtnurBibelleser

I tried Smart Search and based on my experience, I createt a poll here.

Todd Thornton

Here's the question Logos should be asking: What if a large existing AI company bought a large publisher of Biblical content and launched 'Theology Chatbot' with all their commentaries and resources baked in? Pay big bucks for exclusive scholar partnerships, charge maybe $5 extra per month on top of their normal service, and suddenly you've got AI doing a majority of what Logos does (with high quality resources) but faster and cheaper.

How many Logos users stick around after that? Your response to that possible reality should drive your entire AI approach. As Wayne Gretsky once famously said, you should "skate to where the puck is going, not where it has been."

Here's an example Google DeepMind posted 3 days ago. Article describes how they've trained the first model for contextualizing ancient inscriptions, designed to help historians better interpret, attribute and restore fragmentary texts.

Aeneas transforms how historians connect the past - Google DeepMind

John

One thing that AI is currently doing that is helpful and worthwhile is the narration of audiobooks. The technology has improved so much that it is difficult to tell you are not listening to a human narrator. Amazon/Audible is rapidly expanding the number of titles available for listening, and I have been listening to some of them recently.

If Logos were to utilize this new technology so that Logos users could listen to any of their resources, Logos could quickly become the number one destination for those looking for Biblical and Theological audiobooks.

I am not currently a subscriber and do not feel any need for AI in my Bible software. But a high quality AI narration of any of my Logos resources would be a huge incentive for me to become a subscriber.

Dean Stow

I am just getting back into using LOGOS after some health issues. I have concerns about AI.

I just upgraded to the 2025 subscription model this morning and was shocked to see an icon on my toolbar that tells me I have used <1% of my AI credits. It didn't say 0% so, I am assuming that one of the searches I have done following tutorials invoked the AI. More about that shortly.

First, the good…

As John (above) pointed out, narration of audiobooks is a good thing! I remember at university (last century LOL) going to the media library and listening to a recording of the Shakespeare play we were studying in literature class. I was having a difficult time wrapping my head around the 'old' English while reading it. Surprisingly, listening did not help much. What DID help was listening and reading at the same time.

I currently have some software called TextAloud that I use when I am having trouble pushing something into my brain, but a feature like AI narration could be useful.

Now the fearful…

As some others have mentioned (without trying to copy the same phrases), IMO it is concerning that AI may not have had time to be trained well enough to be trusted. In a field of study where there can be differences of interpretation based on denominational background, even if the AI search results are spot on accurate, they may not reflect the desired results. This can be good in that horizons are broadened or it can be bad by confusing those who are early in their path of learning.

A more experienced student will have less to be concerned about as (again as others have pointed out) they will realize that something seems off.

Suggestions

At the very least, it would be nice for AI searches (or results) to be highlighted in some way (not necessarily like with a marker) so that it is more obvious that they are the new, non traditional methods. (Maybe they are and I just haven't learned how to reliably recognize them. I do remember a search that returned results that did not seem to relate directly to what I thought I was looking for. Again, I was following a training video and was told not to click what I had just clicked but to click somewhere else.

I think there might be the option to turn off AI searches somewhere but I hate to do that because I might never bother to turn them on again. At the very least, perhaps it should be an option and I apologize if it is there and I haven't noticed it yet.

Conclusion

Sorry for the long post. Thanks for reading if you did.

My final conclusion (as a career long computer professional) is that it is possibly a good tool as long as we remember that it is a tool and not an authority. Imagine what your house would look like if you let the power saw decide where to cut the wood instead of doing your own measurements.

In more direct terms, the real danger from ANY AI system is when we trust it more than we trust ourselves. I fear this will cause calamity in the real world some day. Let's be careful and make sure it doesn't disrupt or degrade our study.

Lynden O. Williams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1375179#Comment_1375179

I love the idea. As one who listens when I drive, being able to listen to any resource in Logos in a "human" voice is excellent. The mobile reader is improving, but I want something similar to what Amazon Audible has.

I am aware that there are challenges considering the tagging etc., in some of Logos books, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Steve Bentley

One thing that is apparent is that many Logos users associate the subscription service with Logos AI. Logos AI is a great feature, but it is not the totality of the features and improvements within the current version of Logos, which is subscription based.

NichtnurBibelleser

My main use of third party AI is building Macros for PBs which I upload here.

David Jonescue

Logos will never have to worry about another AI leasing all of the theology books in the world and becoming a TheologyBot, because that will only work for fragmented and specific answers to inquiries. Kind of like searching on Google Books. The licenses one purchases from Logos allows one to do unlimited deep research within the contents of each owned book, as well as read them in their entirety on tablets, as well as listen to them with read aloud function. For an outside TheologyBot to have that power, it would be a licensing nightmare, and the subscription to something like that would be so pricey, that only a few people would be able to afford it. Sure, it may give some answers to questions quickly, but you will never have access to the full contents of any book. Not for a reasonable monthly fee. This makes scholarly use of it almost impossible, because you cant double-check answers directly in the text in case the TheologyBot may be hallucinating.

William Pankey

I love it. As a retired academic librarian and college teacher, I can fully appreciate it. AI is a powerful research tool, but not an excuse for laziness or uncritical thinking. Nothing beats the joy and challenge of rolling up your sleeves and diving into the Word and the myriad of resources. It's good for the brain and the heart. AI can and never should replace that.

Steven MacDonald

The AI search has been useful to me in not only uncovering books I already own regarding a given subject but also showing unowned books as well that are not part of my library. I do not see this as a sales tactic and I have purchased as a result when warranted. It is simply efficient research and I am truly glad for it.

EastTN

I believe that serious caution is needed in the use cases chosen for AI, and in the way that it is implemented. I also believe that the hype around generative AI is premature, and that the technology is not yet mature enough for the uses people are putting it to. I am particularly concerned about any text generation. We have multiple concrete examples coming out of the legal field where professionals who should know better are being sanctioned for submitting court filings that include serious errors in AI generated text. As one judge recently put it, "At this point, to be blunt, any lawyer unaware that using generative AI platforms to do legal research is playing with fire is living in a cloud." I believe the same is true of biblical research.

Having said that, I would love to see AI improve automatic tagging of resources, smarter cross-referencing, automatic sentence diagramming, automatic parsing of original language texts, scaling and beautifying timelines so they could actually be used in teaching, etc. But for me, an untrustworthy research assistant is worse than not having an assistant at all.

Whyndell Grizzard

To be honest it's a "take it or leave it" for me- not that into it- I find I can think for myself.

DMM

I posted this in another thread, hoping to get see if anyone else had heard this before, but I think the search results show some of the problems with generative AI. You can ask the same question, worded slightly different, and get different answers.

So I was listing to the course PD201 - Spiritual Formation. The instructor made a claim that John of the Cross would eat his soup out of a skull to remind himself of his mortality. I found that odd (and a bit disturbing), but when I looked into it, I couldn't find a single other reference, either in Logos or on the internet for this.

Here's the quote from the course.

I think John of the Cross had a bit of the ascetic in him. He never wanted to forget Christ’s sacrificed for him or the fact that he was going to die one day. When you went into his place where he lived and where he prayed, it was a small place, but he would have crucifixes that he had drawn and he also had skulls all over. In fact, he even ate his soup out of a skull that had the holes plugged up because he wanted to remind himself, even when he’s eating, that’s where he would be. That’s sort of the seriousness with which an ascetic approaches their faith.
Thomas, Gary L. PD201 Introducing Spiritual Formation. Lexham Press, 2014.

But an AI search in Logos would result in different answers, depending on how you worded it.

Searching for "Did John of the Cross eat soup out of a skull?" Got a "there's no mention of it". It was also incorrect as it read the article and says that "an ascetic, in general, might eat soup from a skull with the holes plugged up as a reminder of mortality", when that is not at all what the resource it got it from said (it was referencing the paragraph quoted above).

Searching for "did "john of the cross" eat soup from a skull" got a "he did indeed eat soup from a skull", quoting the same paragraph above.

And a search for "Did John of the Cross drink soup out of a skull?" got "there's no information about John of the Cross drinking soup out of a skull". Well, yes there is - the one resource.

I think any one of us would consider all three queries to be asking the same question. But each one got a different answer, even when it bases its answer from the same resource.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1375393#Comment_1375393

Not disagreeing, but people who are cautious, are cautious. People who aren't, aren't. For the latter, convenience rules.

Certainly, the Christians at Faithlife wouldn't include something untrustworthy, right? No one says, 'oh, you must check those Faithlife tags … not guaranteed!'.

Lynden O. Williams

Good point DMM. What A.I. will do is tell you the resource where it got its information from so that you can read it for yourself. I have my settings saved that it always consults a particular academic website, and to show the sources where the information was derived.

I am thinking if the query is uploaded to the cloud (which it seems to do) and then it runs a search on your resources, you can get ChatGpt type answers and interaction. Presently the summary is good, but it is listing information that sometimes has little or nothing to do with my query.

After the first answer I may want to narrow the field further etc..

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1375413#Comment_1375413

Fair enough, but it does feel to me a bit like an "attractive nuisance." It's a shiny new toy that you know people are going to use - because it's so cool, and new, and you're heavily promoting it as the next big revolutionary thing - and you also know that generative AI is likely to throw out spurious results from time to time. That combination bothers me.

Lynden O. Williams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1375419#Comment_1375419

Make it available for those who desire it. If you do not like it, leave it alone. Presently that is the case with Smart Search.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1375421#Comment_1375421

I leave it alone. I've used AI for literally decades. But I see the books Logos AI draws from, and say, no thank you. No need for pablum. And no offence intended.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1375421#Comment_1375421

I do leave it alone. The question was what our attitude is towards AI, and among other things, whether we "think the risks outweigh the gains." When it comes to writing text using generative AI, I do very strongly believe the risks outweigh the gains at this point. We see this from the very public problems caused by the use of this technology in legal research.

I completely respect your desire to use it, and that's your prerogative. But the issues around incorrect results and hallucinations go beyond a question of whether someone personally "likes" a feature.