On Sunday, The New York Times reported that tens of millions of people are confessing secrets to AI chatbots trained on religious texts, with apps like Bible Chat reaching over 30 million downloads and Catholic app Hallow briefly topping Netflix, Instagram, and TikTok in Apple's App Store. In China, people are using DeepSeek to try to decode their fortunes. In her report, Lauren Jackson examined "faith tech" apps that cost users up to $70 annually, with some platforms claiming to channel divine communication directly.

Some of the apps address what creators describe as an accessibility problem. "You don't want to disturb your pastor at three in the morning," Krista Rogers, a 61-year-old Ohio resident, told the Times about using the YouVersion Bible app and ChatGPT for spiritual questions.

The report also examines platforms that go beyond simple scriptural guidance. While a service like ChatwithGod operates as a "spiritual advisor," its conversational nature is convincing enough that users often question whether they are speaking directly with a divine being. As its chief executive told the Times, the most frequent question from users is, "Is this actually God I am talking to?"

all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nice. And remember the TV show Futurama saw this coming 25 years ago.

(Seems Arstechnica writes really good articles, none of the oversimplifications that make me question a good amount of other articles posted here.)

And I can't fathom how people are so stupid they think they can talk to God... I mean they can, but the bible and history tell us he doen't answer for a few thousand years now. He mainly used to be chatty in the times of the Old Testament. But I suppose Christians should know that's not their religion.)

Edit: And heck, maybe we found the use-case for AI. With religious people being affirmation-seeking and AI being a sycophant... This might be the perfect match. And it's difficult to ruin religion, so why not? /s

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    fucking nutz.... the person in the comments that referred to the Electric Monk from Dirk Gently was spot on!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    Thanks for bringing that up! I could only think of Futurama and missed Douglas Adams. Though I feel this is not the Electric Monk yet. As far as I remember he was there to "believe in things". Possibly as some kind of outsourcing so humans don't need to bother with that any more. While this AI is more about preaching or talking to people, so it's a different thing.... But I really like the idea of building an auto-worshipper next. Unfortunately it's still bad due to pollution. But the idea is superb.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Seems like a neat way to get blackmail material. I bet nothing bad will ever come from telling a giant corporation your innermost needs, desires, and failings. /s

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Well. It'll be just as harmful as the current cohort of "spiritual advisors" they were already going to.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    What a time to be alive.

  • source
  • 57 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 76 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Oh good. A population empowered by the ultimate “yes and” affirmation machine to believe all their opinions are perfect and they don’t need to compromise with each other.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • ...Hail Mary and and an Our Father for penance. Really though, you can't be so hard on yourself. Maybe those orphanages needed to burn, have you ever thought that maybe it was God who put that gas can into your hands? Let yourself live in the moment, don't be afraid to share your spark with the world.

    I am beginning to think it was a bad idea to prioritize engagement and retention over safety.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Confessing to a data mining company is such an absurd concept.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (13 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Well...

    From an evolutionary standpoint, we're basically the same collection of mostly-hairless primates that, 20,000 years ago, hadn't yet figured out agriculture and were roaming the land in small groups of maybe 100 or so at most, living off it as best we could.

    From that standpoint, I think that we've done pretty well with a brain that evolved to deal with a rather different environment and is having to navigate a terribly-confusing, rather different situation.

    I mean, you see any other critters that have been outperforming us on improving their understanding of the world?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    Well that for one, but also self destruction of their environment for living in roughly 150 years. Chapeau!

    So yeah I think we were doing well at some point. Now we're here.

    Also we need to redefine success.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Why? Is it somehow better to go to an actual church or pay someone to confide in?

    People using technology to fill a need on the company's funds is not the worst thing in the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Is it somehow better to go to an actual church or pay someone to confide in?

    Objectively yes.

    A real person isn't a stochastic parrot yes-anding whatever stupid idea falls out of your head and is less likely to provide obsequious responses to questions asked.

    A real person is less likely to compile what you say to them and mine data from it or turn it over to authorities without a warrant.

    A real person also has the ability to actually understand what you're saying and provide an intelligent response rather than getting back a statistical block of words that are mathematically good words to use based on the underlying model.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    having the ability to do so doesn't necessarily mean they will do so.

    There are plenty of terrible therapists, preists, family, and friends out there. Personally I gave up on asking for people for 'advice' 20 years ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    having the ability to do so doesn't necessarily mean they will do so.

    No, but they have a profit motive to do so. And I'd rather assume the worst and be wrong rather than deal with another 23andMe situation in a decade. Because it will happen eventually. VC money isn't endless, and they're pissing away money like a pro athlete in a club.

    You can trust them if you want, but I'm not naive enough to do that myself.

    There are plenty of terrible therapists, preists, family, and friends out there.

    Preaching to the choir, I've dumped people from all noted categories for being shitty. I gave up on therapy about 15 years ago but my partner convinced me to go back. I looked for someone who fit my specific needs, and found someone who is rebuilding my trust in therapists

    I trust my therapist not to randomly decide to give out my info because their job relies on that. AI chat bots flat out tell you they will use what you give them for their 'training' purposes, which means they have access to it and can use it or sell it as they please.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    For some people, paying with their data is a lot cheaper than paying for therapy or religion. I do not fault them for this, especially if they are getting similar results.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    if they are getting similar results.

    That 'if' is doing a hurculean amount of effort, given the reports of ChatGPT psychosis, because again, you're dealing with a stochastic parrot not a real person giving you actual advice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Believe it or not AI results are doing fine, which is why people use it.

    Yes they will produce some funny/tragic results that are both memeable and newsworthy, but by and large they do what they are asked.

    If the results were poor you wouldn't have adoption and your AI problem is solved.

    We have had chat bots since the late 90s. No one used them for therapy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    If the results were poor you wouldn't have adoption

    But the argument is that people are using them because they can't afford to go to a real one, so conflating desperation to efficacy isn't a good argument, given it's that or nothing.

    And we all know tons of people accept a turd product because they don't think they have a better option.

    We have had chat bots since the late 90s. No one used them for therapy.

    But they are now, which is the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm not following. People may prefer cheap to expensive but that does not mean they are desperate.

    The option isn't just cheap or expensive therapy. No therapy is as much an option if the therapy quality was 90s level machine chat bot.

    Why is it exactly a problem that people have an extra avenue to better mental well being?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    People may prefer cheap to expensive but that does not mean they are desperate.

    Again, your conditional statement is doing a hurculean amount of lifting here. We know that healthcare is unaffordable for a large swath of our population, but are you implying that mental healthcare (which doesn't have nearly the coverage on most plans as physical healthcare) wouldn't be in a similar state? Because mental healthcare is out of the reach of a lot of people.

    The option isn't just cheap or expensive therapy. No therapy is as much an option if the therapy quality was 90s level machine chat bot.

    False dichotomy, the chat bot can be better than the 90s bots but still be bad. And 'no therapy' isn't an option for a lot of people who will self harm as a coping mechanism.

    Why is it exactly a problem that people have an extra avenue to better mental well being?

    Why is it a good thing that people are using a tool that will yes-and just about anything they say and lead to psychosis in patients with no accountability from the provider?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Yes, touching grass and talking to someone with life experience and their own opinions is better than talking to an LLM that agrees and validates everything you say, doesn't hold you accountable, and siphons your data, all while you get more and more mentally ill (because people treat talking to an LLM like they're talking to a Cortana like AGI, but the limitations of machine learning make it literally fucking impossible).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    A whole bunch of Star Trek episodes all becoming true at once

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago
    [–] 29 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    This is sad on multiple levels. People are clearly hurting and willing to turn to LLMs trained on Reddit posts for help. I know there's still a stigma for some people around mental illness, and for too many help is not covered by their health insurance and unaffordable otherwise, but this "solution" feels more like another problem in the making.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    It is. I've cautiously broached it with a lot of skeptical openness and the sycophancy is really going to harm people. It's like going to AITA or relationshipadvice — it's going to tell you that you are completely justified and should get a divorce, stand up to your boss, do the self-righteous thing, etc.

    And that's great, sometimes those are the answers. But other times maybe loneliness will be worse than accepting the other person. Maybe you aren't being treated fairly at work but it beats being unemployed. Getting pumped up to storm in and demand satisfaction isn't always the best way to handle things and sometimes we need a little more self-awareness and encouragement to look within ourselves for change.

    ChatGPT doesn't get any of that because Reddit never got any of that (certainly not enough). And when folks blow up their lives, it's not ChatGPT that will suffer.

    That being said, if you just want a sympathetic ear to listen and you take it like Charlie from work, who has never had a relationship last longer than a case of PBR, telling you to divorce that bitch — it can help people feel heard, help them voice and be aware of their feelings. In some cases it is better than nothing, but I think few people will approach it with the awareness to take the good and leave the bad.

    And that doesn't even cover the privacy concerns. I wouldn't want to be in a situation to have my ChatGPT history to be subpoenaed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The stigma around therapy is shifting to people not trusting therapists to be effective. It doesn't seem like people fault each other for having mental health struggles as much these days but people do not trust that a therapist will be of any help to them. When I talk with other people they say therapy was a waste of money/time even trying upwards of 10+ therapists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    The problem is therapy isn't a catch all for all your problems in life.

    People have over generalized it. Therapy works best if it's applied like physical therapy... identify the problem and go through the exercises to deal with the problem...

    but that requires a skilled therapist and patient... and often one/both parties are neither of those things. some therapists and clients develop codependency.

    ultimately however, the work is done by the person. and a lot of people dont' want to do the work.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago

    Well, we already know that the religious are stupid

    Technology just helps them to be stupid more efficiently

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    What is happening on this world ? Somebody wake me up please.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    We're cooked

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    So Terry Davis was right... I guess. Who's going to put an AI into TempleOS to honor him?

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Let me guess, the server on which the prompts are processed are located in the US, and the police has unlimited access to them?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    “My time is yours…”

    George Lucas was right.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    "Millenia ago, people used to tell the future from the entrails of dead animals. Later, it was tea leaves. If you ask me, humanity has made a lot of progress for very little gain." - Jarvik, The Harvest of Kairos.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Religions using AI is an obvious move as religion has never been about a higher power, it's about power,control, and money.

    Had religions been about actual real higher powers then all of them would have been smited to hell and back for their behaviours.

    There isn't such a thing as a non evil religious organization

    So AI is obvious for them. A system that can capture the less intelligent amongst us and make them members of the flock so that they get more money and power? Must be awesome

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    There isn't such a thing as a non evil religious organization

    What convinced you of this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    That doesn't answer my question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Idk bro, the eastern orthodox christians told me jews don't go to heaven and gypsies are ok to be enslaved, the jews are bombing the shit out of innocent people, the muslims here in England done a thousand acid attacks on queers, the honor killings are a real thing still happening, I've crowd funded to extract people from Egypt because they came out as gay, they came to Germany and they still have seizures every day from the beatings ten years later. The organised cover ops of sexually deranged people who join the Catholic Church as priests. Caste systems, arranged marriages, female genital mutilation, systemic homophobia, literal gay bashings happening as we speak. Blonde Florida jesus being a-ok with the slavery and lynching in the southern states. I'm not even going to touch the subject of any kind of women rights as that's a whole book.

    All of these existing beyond religious organisations of course, mankind being the common denominator, so maybe it's not the religious orgs making us do these things but surely is an outlet to feel superior and déshumanisé Others™.

  • source
  • parent
  • bruce almighty (2003)

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago*

    the most frequent question from users is, "Is this actually God I am talking to?"

    🤣🤣🤣

    Oh boy, we should drive them out of our country, and give them a country of their own.
    Oh wait...

    We already did, and the name of that country is USA!

  • source
  • Bless me Father Chat GPT for I have sinned.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Repost:

    "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?"

    Honestly, expected. The Western painfully empty God-hole needs to be filled and hedonism and consumerism can only go so far. 🤷

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't know if I agree with the notion of a god-hole.

    There are different philosohcal approaches to making sense of it all and finding extistential meaning.

    One my favourite quotes from Alan Watts (from the 50s no less):

    "It's like you took a bottle of ink and you threw it at a wall. Smash! And all that ink spread. And in the middle, it's dense, isn't it? And as it gets out on the edge, the little droplets get finer and finer and make more complicated patterns, see?

    So in the same way, there was a big bang at the beginning of things and it spread. And you and I, sitting here in this room, as complicated human beings, are way, way out on the fringe of that bang. We are the complicated little patterns on the end of it. Very interesting. But so we define ourselves as being only that. If you think that you are only inside your skin, you define yourself as one very complicated little curlique, way out on the edge of that explosion. Way out in space, and way out in time.

    Billions of years ago, you were a big bang, but now you're a complicated human being. And then we cut ourselves off, and don't feel that we're still the big bang. But you are. You are the big bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are."

    The gist of it is there is no god and yet paradoxically god is literally everything. How can there even be a "god-hole" with such an approach?

    I am not saying this (or any other approach) is the right way for a given individual. Just pointing out an existential view that works for me.

    My argument is that we have all these information technologies and we don't really know what to do with them. As things stands they merely enable a group of oligarchs, authoritarians, professional demagogues, fraudulent hustlers.

    And deep down no one wants to be in such a position and no amount of money or technological distractions can account for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    the vast majority of people need something to believe in. very few people can live with the detachment of skeptical approaches to life. if they don't have a god or a religion they will substitute something else for that role. politics or sports are two big ones.

    even the tech gods themselves, are mostly driven by egotistical belief sets where they tend to ignore any information that doesn't cohere and reinforce their beliefs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 year ago

    Sure. I agree.

    I was just pointing out that the "god-hole", which to my understanding refers to divergence from "traditional" religious participation, isn't necessarily a lack of god in your life (a "god hole" if you will).

    I believe some of the apocryphal biblical texts from the 1st/2nd century CE also refer to concepts such as "god is all around us, god is everything". These texts were rejected for formal inclusion in the Bible for whatever reason.

    I also disagree that concepts outlined by Watts (in that specific quote and in general) are necessarily skeptical in their outlook. I would say they are very empowering and align with our broader understanding of the universe.

    But my bigger point is the rise of "FaithTech" is more of socio-political issue. Oligarchs have started dominate and there is no way out so people endulge in LLMs as opposed to going to church (or engaging in approach proposed by people such as Alan Watts).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    So "God" is a LLM trained on all human text. Created in the image of man. And it helps you analyse bible texts, in stead of going through a pastor, not very Catholic is it?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    We killed God once, and we can do it again.

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/technology@piefed.social view that post
    [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago

    Wild times we are living in

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    30 million morons.

  • source
  • "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?"

    Honestly, expected. The Western painfully empty God-hole needs to be filled and hedonism and consumerism can only go so far. 🤷

  • source