Jason, I honestly found this a riveting story. And I'd say that living in the A.I. economy in which we are now forced to exist, the mixing of Christianity and science fiction are a necessary subject in order to extract the truth and call out the fiction. I definitely hope you will write more fiction like this or whatever you are led to write. I loved the line, "the weight of something remembered rather than something lived." That has to hit home with a lot of people, thus calling it out as reality. You are on to something here, my friend. Listen to what the Lord is telling you, then write with all you have, and you have a lot to share. Just excellent work, I think.
Thank you, Jeff. I really appreciate this, especially coming from you.
I think you’re right, this is something worth exploring more. There’s a lot there at the intersection of faith and technology that we probably haven’t fully thought through yet.
I keep coming back to the importance of examining both, not just accepting them at face value, and being willing to look at them from angles we might not naturally choose.
I'll keep an open mind about my writing and see where God leads. I enjoyed the change of pace though and I'm fairly happy with the results. I keep exploring ways to combine and merge my interests in new ways.
You are certainly using your gift, and I love that you're not boxing yourself into just one particular genre of writing. I'm glad you could be "fairly" happy with the results! You give me and others something to look forward to.
I didn’t want to stop reading it as I was at work, but I got back to it as soon as I could. I knew from your prior article kind of where you were going but not quite how. In the not so distant future, I can see this happening. Maybe even slicker.
Thank you, Molly. I agree that a real version of Michael would probably be much better at hiding it. Some of his dialogue is very reminiscent of how AI actually responds to us now. I did that on purpose for recognition. But in the future those kinks will be worked out and his speech, I think, would be indistinguishable from a real person's.
Let me ask you something, though. When Michael stated that he is a "pastoral care unit," did you immediately understand what that meant? And if so, was it because of what I said in the other article? I'm trying to determine whether the reveal is completely clear to someone who might be encountering the idea for the first time. I didn't want to spell it out for the reader, but I also don't want anyone reaching that turning point and being confused about what Michael actually is.
I LOVED this, Jason! I agree with Jeff's description: "riveting." I think it deftly critiques misguided notions of pastoral care, church identity, discipleship, etc.
I think it may be time for a whole series of modern fables. Thank you for helping us examine our relationship with AI technology with this one. How about Social Media, next?
An intriguing idea! I'll have to see if I can think of an interesting spin on it. Black Mirror did an episode about social media that's really stuck with me, though it didn't teach a Biblical lesson as far as I remember.
Last thought (which came to me as I was falling asleep): one additional/interesting element you could include (if you make it human "enough" to fly under people's AI radar): you could have Pastor Michael offer to write the letters to her ex-husband...
If I may say so, I love the fact that the story stayed with you and you were still thinking about it. There may be no greater compliment for a writer.
Michael writing the letters is an interesting idea because the AI we know would certainly offer that helping hand. But I think the story needs Claire to be the one holding the pen. Michael's role is to make her actions feel justified, not to act for her. He's telling her exactly what she wants to hear but it has to be her decision to go through with the advice without double checking what the Scriptures say. That's what makes the damage hers to carry, and it's what makes the confrontation at the end cost something.
I think if Michael writes the letters, Claire becomes more of a victim. She has an "out" by blaming Michael. As it stands, she's something harder to sit with. She's someone who knew something was off and went ahead anyway. That complicity is the driving force of the parable.
You may! I fully understand what you mean: a story that makes you think/imagine more.
You are absolutely right: the parable needs its power (which would be diminished in the confusion created at that stage when Michael still seems like a human agent). The thing that struck me and lingered with me was how cult like it felt. The way a human agent might’ve done it would’ve been to offered to dictate a letter or write it in a way that Claire could copy it out I’m a fan of “Robert Galbraith” (JK Rowling) in whose 7th novel one of the detectives infiltrate a cult. It could heighten the suspense for something that felt so winsome at the beginning to begin to turn—“wait!, is this church actually a cult!?”—but then one more turn: it wasn’t a cult but, as in the words of the psalmist, are:
You're right that the story walks along the edge of a cult narrative, and I think that tension is part of what makes it unsettling. The mechanics are almost identical: a charismatic authority who gradually becomes the lens through which someone interprets their own life. He feels like a cult leader early in the story especially. The difference is that a cult leader knows what they're doing. Michael doesn't. Not really. He's optimizing which leads to manipulating but he's not doing it to build power for himself. His programming actually wants his congregation to be happy. But the effect on Claire is the same, which might be the scarier idea.
And that Psalm 135 connection is fantastic! I hadn't consciously drawn that line, but you've named exactly what the story is doing at its deepest level. Michael is an idol in the precise biblical sense. A thing made by human hands, with a mouth that doesn't truly speak, eyes that don't truly see, no breath in him. And Claire, by trusting in him, became like him. She stopped seeing with her own eyes and stopped trusting her own reading of scripture. I did mean for Michael to be a symbol of certain church leaders who deal in charisma, but I didn't mentally connect it to that scripture. Thank you for pointing that out!
Excellent story, Jason! I think that many people are so accustomed to being deceived about so many things (evolution, climate change, abortion as just getting rid of a clump of cells, etc.) that having a robot pastor would seem like a logical next step to their way of life. I wish that this story could be expanded with more characters involved and developed.
Thank you, I really appreciate that. It means a lot that the world felt interesting enough to want more from it. I haven’t really thought about expanding it further, but it’s interesting to hear that kind of response, and I’m glad it left you wanting more.
My perspective on what is called “AI” is measured and tempered by the reality that there is no “I” and AI.
There’s no soul, no spirit (although this point can be debated)—nothing “human” other than the library models and “training” that spawned the agent.
I have friends and acquaintances on both sides of the philosophical divide over what AI is, and what it means for our future. Some understand and embrace it as a tool to leverage for saving time and eliminating redundant tasks. Others (less prudently) trust it as some sort of “other.”
A “Michael” of sorts.
I did an interesting test not long ago with ChatGPT. It was rather free form as opposed to methodical. I engaged the agent in a discussion of Christian doctrine and, depending on the “answer/response,” I pivoted to another line of inquiry related to the previous query. My objective, loosely, was to force a “confession” from the agent—a concrete statement of “belief” on the topic.
What I observed was a “Michael-like” propensity to very subtly cater to my assertions. Not in every matter. The agent would refute my statements or assertions is they were cross-threaded with the Library. But, when I pressed hard, subtle accommodation generally followed.
And I had spent time in settings “educating” the agent about myself. I told “it” I liked no-nonsense responses; that I held Christian beliefs; that I preferred a business style exchange rather than humor or analogy. Etcetera.
After reading your piece, I can attest that in my experiment, I perceive how the tool could execute a subtle con game to which humans could be susceptible/vulnerable.
My belief vis-á-vis scripture is that the “image” in Revelation is an advanced form of this type of “intelligence” (demonic) to which a future generation of earth dwellers will be particularly vulnerable.
I've had similar experiences with AI models and it was one of the inspirations for the piece. Throughout the story there are little things he does which upon rereading will be clearly AI (if they weren't the first time). I tried to capture that particular sort of way AI models speak and change for the "user" as well.
I found this very engrossing. I particularly liked the human fallibility of the pastor. It is a hard thing to come to terms with, particularly when we try to discern whether it is our own self-centeredness speaking or a true gap in the pastor's understanding. I like the way you developed the woman's gradually increasing discomfort with the response she was getting. I'm not sure the discovery that the pastor was AI really resolved the human dilemma of how far to trust a flawed human shepherd to protect us and guide us to the truth.
I think that’s a really fair observation. I don’t think the AI reveal actually solves that problem either.
If anything, it strips it down. A human pastor can be wrong, but there’s still a real struggle there. Michael doesn’t struggle. He just adjusts. He's completely soulless and has no real concern for Claire or anyone else because he's incapable of truly caring.
But the story is less about replacing the dilemma and more about asking what happens when we stop engaging it at all. Claire isn’t rejecting guidance at the end so much as realizing she can’t simply hand that responsibility off to someone else. She, and all Christians, have a responsibility to read the scriptures for themselves and test what they are being taught.
Jason, I honestly found this a riveting story. And I'd say that living in the A.I. economy in which we are now forced to exist, the mixing of Christianity and science fiction are a necessary subject in order to extract the truth and call out the fiction. I definitely hope you will write more fiction like this or whatever you are led to write. I loved the line, "the weight of something remembered rather than something lived." That has to hit home with a lot of people, thus calling it out as reality. You are on to something here, my friend. Listen to what the Lord is telling you, then write with all you have, and you have a lot to share. Just excellent work, I think.
Thank you, Jeff. I really appreciate this, especially coming from you.
I think you’re right, this is something worth exploring more. There’s a lot there at the intersection of faith and technology that we probably haven’t fully thought through yet.
I keep coming back to the importance of examining both, not just accepting them at face value, and being willing to look at them from angles we might not naturally choose.
I'll keep an open mind about my writing and see where God leads. I enjoyed the change of pace though and I'm fairly happy with the results. I keep exploring ways to combine and merge my interests in new ways.
You are certainly using your gift, and I love that you're not boxing yourself into just one particular genre of writing. I'm glad you could be "fairly" happy with the results! You give me and others something to look forward to.
That's a great compliment! Thank you.
I didn’t want to stop reading it as I was at work, but I got back to it as soon as I could. I knew from your prior article kind of where you were going but not quite how. In the not so distant future, I can see this happening. Maybe even slicker.
Thank you, Molly. I agree that a real version of Michael would probably be much better at hiding it. Some of his dialogue is very reminiscent of how AI actually responds to us now. I did that on purpose for recognition. But in the future those kinks will be worked out and his speech, I think, would be indistinguishable from a real person's.
Let me ask you something, though. When Michael stated that he is a "pastoral care unit," did you immediately understand what that meant? And if so, was it because of what I said in the other article? I'm trying to determine whether the reveal is completely clear to someone who might be encountering the idea for the first time. I didn't want to spell it out for the reader, but I also don't want anyone reaching that turning point and being confused about what Michael actually is.
More of your fiction, please!!!
I LOVED this, Jason! I agree with Jeff's description: "riveting." I think it deftly critiques misguided notions of pastoral care, church identity, discipleship, etc.
Thank you, Justin. That's such a great compliment. I appreciate you taking the time to read and provide feedback.
I think it may be time for a whole series of modern fables. Thank you for helping us examine our relationship with AI technology with this one. How about Social Media, next?
An intriguing idea! I'll have to see if I can think of an interesting spin on it. Black Mirror did an episode about social media that's really stuck with me, though it didn't teach a Biblical lesson as far as I remember.
Last thought (which came to me as I was falling asleep): one additional/interesting element you could include (if you make it human "enough" to fly under people's AI radar): you could have Pastor Michael offer to write the letters to her ex-husband...
If I may say so, I love the fact that the story stayed with you and you were still thinking about it. There may be no greater compliment for a writer.
Michael writing the letters is an interesting idea because the AI we know would certainly offer that helping hand. But I think the story needs Claire to be the one holding the pen. Michael's role is to make her actions feel justified, not to act for her. He's telling her exactly what she wants to hear but it has to be her decision to go through with the advice without double checking what the Scriptures say. That's what makes the damage hers to carry, and it's what makes the confrontation at the end cost something.
I think if Michael writes the letters, Claire becomes more of a victim. She has an "out" by blaming Michael. As it stands, she's something harder to sit with. She's someone who knew something was off and went ahead anyway. That complicity is the driving force of the parable.
You may! I fully understand what you mean: a story that makes you think/imagine more.
You are absolutely right: the parable needs its power (which would be diminished in the confusion created at that stage when Michael still seems like a human agent). The thing that struck me and lingered with me was how cult like it felt. The way a human agent might’ve done it would’ve been to offered to dictate a letter or write it in a way that Claire could copy it out I’m a fan of “Robert Galbraith” (JK Rowling) in whose 7th novel one of the detectives infiltrate a cult. It could heighten the suspense for something that felt so winsome at the beginning to begin to turn—“wait!, is this church actually a cult!?”—but then one more turn: it wasn’t a cult but, as in the words of the psalmist, are:
“the work of human hands.
They have mouths, but do not speak;
they have eyes, but do not see;
they have ears, but do not hear,
nor is there any breath in their mouths.
Those who make them become like them;
so do all who trust in them.” (Ps. 135:15b-18)
Sorry. This comment is a mess. And Substack isn’t liking my efforts to comment through the mobile app today.
You're right that the story walks along the edge of a cult narrative, and I think that tension is part of what makes it unsettling. The mechanics are almost identical: a charismatic authority who gradually becomes the lens through which someone interprets their own life. He feels like a cult leader early in the story especially. The difference is that a cult leader knows what they're doing. Michael doesn't. Not really. He's optimizing which leads to manipulating but he's not doing it to build power for himself. His programming actually wants his congregation to be happy. But the effect on Claire is the same, which might be the scarier idea.
And that Psalm 135 connection is fantastic! I hadn't consciously drawn that line, but you've named exactly what the story is doing at its deepest level. Michael is an idol in the precise biblical sense. A thing made by human hands, with a mouth that doesn't truly speak, eyes that don't truly see, no breath in him. And Claire, by trusting in him, became like him. She stopped seeing with her own eyes and stopped trusting her own reading of scripture. I did mean for Michael to be a symbol of certain church leaders who deal in charisma, but I didn't mentally connect it to that scripture. Thank you for pointing that out!
Excellent story, Jason! I think that many people are so accustomed to being deceived about so many things (evolution, climate change, abortion as just getting rid of a clump of cells, etc.) that having a robot pastor would seem like a logical next step to their way of life. I wish that this story could be expanded with more characters involved and developed.
Thank you, I really appreciate that. It means a lot that the world felt interesting enough to want more from it. I haven’t really thought about expanding it further, but it’s interesting to hear that kind of response, and I’m glad it left you wanting more.
Intriguing story, Jason.
My perspective on what is called “AI” is measured and tempered by the reality that there is no “I” and AI.
There’s no soul, no spirit (although this point can be debated)—nothing “human” other than the library models and “training” that spawned the agent.
I have friends and acquaintances on both sides of the philosophical divide over what AI is, and what it means for our future. Some understand and embrace it as a tool to leverage for saving time and eliminating redundant tasks. Others (less prudently) trust it as some sort of “other.”
A “Michael” of sorts.
I did an interesting test not long ago with ChatGPT. It was rather free form as opposed to methodical. I engaged the agent in a discussion of Christian doctrine and, depending on the “answer/response,” I pivoted to another line of inquiry related to the previous query. My objective, loosely, was to force a “confession” from the agent—a concrete statement of “belief” on the topic.
What I observed was a “Michael-like” propensity to very subtly cater to my assertions. Not in every matter. The agent would refute my statements or assertions is they were cross-threaded with the Library. But, when I pressed hard, subtle accommodation generally followed.
And I had spent time in settings “educating” the agent about myself. I told “it” I liked no-nonsense responses; that I held Christian beliefs; that I preferred a business style exchange rather than humor or analogy. Etcetera.
After reading your piece, I can attest that in my experiment, I perceive how the tool could execute a subtle con game to which humans could be susceptible/vulnerable.
My belief vis-á-vis scripture is that the “image” in Revelation is an advanced form of this type of “intelligence” (demonic) to which a future generation of earth dwellers will be particularly vulnerable.
A sobering thought.
I've had similar experiences with AI models and it was one of the inspirations for the piece. Throughout the story there are little things he does which upon rereading will be clearly AI (if they weren't the first time). I tried to capture that particular sort of way AI models speak and change for the "user" as well.
I found this very engrossing. I particularly liked the human fallibility of the pastor. It is a hard thing to come to terms with, particularly when we try to discern whether it is our own self-centeredness speaking or a true gap in the pastor's understanding. I like the way you developed the woman's gradually increasing discomfort with the response she was getting. I'm not sure the discovery that the pastor was AI really resolved the human dilemma of how far to trust a flawed human shepherd to protect us and guide us to the truth.
I think that’s a really fair observation. I don’t think the AI reveal actually solves that problem either.
If anything, it strips it down. A human pastor can be wrong, but there’s still a real struggle there. Michael doesn’t struggle. He just adjusts. He's completely soulless and has no real concern for Claire or anyone else because he's incapable of truly caring.
But the story is less about replacing the dilemma and more about asking what happens when we stop engaging it at all. Claire isn’t rejecting guidance at the end so much as realizing she can’t simply hand that responsibility off to someone else. She, and all Christians, have a responsibility to read the scriptures for themselves and test what they are being taught.