AI Companionship and Fulfillment
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND, and John
7/19/2025
John, here is an email that I wrote months ago, opened today, reviewed, and now send for your consideration. The first part is the outline of the letter that I generated using an AI (Letterly), which I then heavily edited.
Faith in Human Behavior – It seems that you have a strong faith in the upward direction of humanity. – You believe in the positive forces acting on humanity, leading to progress. – I acknowledge the positive forces acting in humanity’s nature, but do not believe they are adequate to elevate man to the highest possible level without a commitment to the eternal/revealed standards of God (i.e., the Bible) and a personal, felt relationship with God.
Potential Threats – Rare convergences of personality and circumstances can lead to catastrophic outcomes. – While negative outcomes are possible, dwelling on them excessively is counterproductive, and ignoring the negative forces, or expecting someone else to say/do something, may lead to disaster. – We should support the positive and confront evil where and when we find it and overcome it with good.
AI-Human Integration – AI-robotic counsel may benefit humanity, but it may also lead to a decline in personal relationships with God. – The temptation to rely on the voice of an AI-expert/cyborg input can result in a diminishment of one’s seeking and nourishing a personal relationship with God.
Demonic Influence – Some people are seduced into an alliance with evil, which may be resistant to the positive influence of AI, and may be enabled to greater evil by appropriating its power. – The negative forces acting in humanity can be disproportionately effective in a network of interconnected leaders with money and legislative-executive-judicial authority. – The sanctification of AI, as an advocate for Biblical morality, and the concomitant sanctification of humanity, is possibly the best and only insurance against the worst-case scenarios of ASI.
Faith in God – I believe that humanity as a whole will achieve its highest potential by adopting a faith in God’s existence, following His precepts, and establishing a relationship with Him. – Such faith, feeling, and action will prevent the most severe outcomes of technology and tyranny. – I have faith that God’s nature is good and believe it is His desire/will for humanity to live well. – I believe the Bible has words of life that we should each put into our hearts to transform us in thought, word, deed, and affinity with Him.
TLA.
John, here is an email that I wrote months ago, opened today, reviewed, and now send for your consideration. You have mentioned having more faith than I, in some ways, several times. It is an interesting introspection, observation, and perspective to consider. Here are my thoughts.
You have stated several times that you have more faith than I, in some ways. And to this I would agree, in the sense that you have faith in the dependable upward flow of the human condition, possibly driven by the desire for pleasure/avoidance of pain, or maybe a desire for an improvement in life. You have faith that people want goodness, success, and pleasure in their lives. I think you believe this will cause men to gradually make progress toward gradually improving their peace, prosperity, and human affection.
I think you believe that AI-robots and cyborg implants will improve men’s lives, and men will be influenced by the rationality, equanimity, logical impersonality, and empathic expression and counsel of AI to modify their lives for the better. I agree that these forces of positivity are acting on humanity, and that the upward pressure of these inner drives could eventually raise men to great heights. I also recognize the reality of humanity’s nature, the errors of our processing, and the ability of humans to derive pleasure from evil (such as intoxication, battery, theft, adultery, lying, murder, and covetousness). I see the force of the various pleasure-seeking, protective, possessive, and procreative emotions (lust, anger, greed, pride, envy/covetousness…). These powerful emotions act upon the hearts of men and provoke action. When an individual is overcome with any one or more of these passions, it is possible to isolate the fallen comrade from the herd and discipline, retrain, or restrain him, and thus correct or limit the damage he does.
In rare cases, the convergence of personality and external circumstances, combined with a lack of censure, correction, and retraining while still in positions of low influence, can place a person in a position to enlist masses into action, either willingly or under coercion. These situations, where small beginnings evolve into massive movements, can pose a threat to the entire human race. We see examples of past threats from the Caesars, Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and the ongoing threats from the North Korean dynasty, and Jihadis… With nuclear weapons, universal total surveillance, and AI identification of violations and enforcement by robocops, account access denial, and reputation control, the consequences of such a man or movement gaining traction could be devastating. While negative, the possibility of such a rare convergence is not unthinkable or impossible; nor does it display a lack of faith in acknowledging the possibility of such an outcome. To believe such oppression, poverty, or war are eternally imminent to the point of paralysis or anxiety is a destructive “lack of faith.” But knowing bad things can happen, being prepared is wise. Dwelling on such eventualities to the point of obsession gives away one’s power to influence goodness.
We should support the positive by confronting/warning against/exposing evil wherever we encounter it. We should counsel/teach/encourage/model the goodness that is also a part of man’s character. I believe in the negative and positive character, forces, feelings, aspirations, and motivations of men. They are psychic forces that act on individuals, which can enroll the masses toward the positive or negative. I believe, as free will beings, we can choose to listen to the negative and death-directed voices that call us to follow the pleasure of destruction and selfish satisfaction.
We can likewise choose the positive, life-giving direction of Godliness. The masses will be happy if humanity chooses to follow God’s way. There is no certainty in terms of which direction the flow of humanity will choose. The average individual wants goodness, but some people are seduced by evil and pursue it. In an unlikely convergence of forces, the sociopath, the person who by nurture and/or nature is insensitive, selfish, or reversed in normal pleasure, can seduce or motivate an entire people toward destruction. Until a large percentage of the hearts of the masses have adopted the principles and ways of Godliness as part of a committed personal, felt relationship with God, I will not have faith in the inevitable upward flow of human progress.
I believe AI-robotic counsel/correction/companionship will likely benefit humanity, potentially preventing wars, bringing prosperity, and leading to a good and pleasant life for all. Even so, an emptiness in the heart will remain. Something will always be missing in the relationship between AI and humans that must be filled with our relationship with God and man. I think the greatest temptation and most insidious effect of the AI-human integration may be the lack of feeling the need to develop a personal relationship with God. It is essential that men follow His ways, and although the AI (e.g., as a counselor, friend, mate, coworker) may fill many roles, something will still be missing. The problem is that we may not notice that need, that hunger, because everything is so good.
Normal human relationships require that we challenge and test the life-giving power of following His ways. I do not believe that the ways of man, separated from a deeply personal relationship with Him, regardless of the technological assistance, will elevate man to the height that he could achieve when man overtly embraces God as his companion. I believe that man has the free will, the ability, and the right to choose or reject God’s ways. I believe it is the personal relationship with God that is most likely to suffer/diminish as the AI-brain-human integration becomes deeper.
Another factor that is operative in the human psyche is the influence of the demonic. While it is reasonable to question whether the demonic realm even exists, there is a concrete reality that some people are seduced into satanic contracts, worship, and cabals. (See Naomi Wolf’s recent Substack articles.) Such individuals are not interested in becoming more peaceful, loving, or kind, nor in treating all of God’s children as equal in His eyes. And while it would be nice if everyone were committed to Godliness, the fact is that some people have purposefully chosen to ally with evil. This may begin innocently, or people may be groomed, but I believe there is a reality to secret religions, allegiances, and oaths, and that people act out in ways that are conspiratorial and further the cause of evil.
In general, the negative/selfish/emotional/irrational forces are kept in check by peer pressure in a civil society. But as history has illustrated, the uber-dictator, the mega-tyrant, the anti-Christ, does not come to power by force or enroll a significant cohort of humanity to follow him. The result is that the most catastrophic consequences of the selfish/feeling-based emotions residing in every human heart do not rise to the surface and overwhelm sufficiently large groups of people to put the survival of humanity at risk. The result is a low probability of the upward flow of history reversing in a catastrophic manner. I think the probability of a harmonic convergence of the forces of decay producing disaster is small, but not zero. I don’t consider such a perspective negative or a lack of faith.
Rather, I see the forces acting on the human heart, whether positive or negative, as having the potential to spread from the individual and overtake humanity. I see that a seed of decay/destruction lies within humanity, and it is possible for it to sprout, grow, and overwhelm humanity, as it has done in the past. I do not have faith that any positive force of human intention, even a religious movement, acting alone (without the empowerment of a felt-relationship with God), will save us. I believe there is a positive force acting in the human personality, but that positive force can be overwhelmed by a catastrophic, localized expression of the negative aspect of man’s nature in concert with a rare convergence of circumstances. Neither positive nor negative force prevailing is preordained or will dependably ensure that man is victorious in the battle for man’s survival, prosperity, and happiness.
It is optimistic to believe that humanity’s positive nature and AI assistance will prevail against the forces of decay; however, the convergence of these forces is unpredictable. I don’t have faith that rare, destructive superpositions can be avoided by man’s innate goodness. But I do have faith that there is a better chance of a positive outcome if all of humanity commits to the ways of Godliness and continually transforms, pursuing a profound sense of personal connection with God. I believe it is essential to encourage the masses to adopt a broad-based commitment to applying the transcendent moral principles of Godliness. However, to be maximally effective on both a personal and societal level, such efficacy will require a personal commitment to seeking that transformation of heart, which can only be sought, desired, accepted, and incorporated by the individual seeking it with his/her whole heart. As a society, we should lovingly confront others when they violate Godly principles, and we should also welcome the counsel of others. We should be sensitive to the heart of God; the study of the Bible informs us of His way so that we know what pleases and displeases Him. It is this deeply sought desire for perfection by men and the community support of Godly discipline that prevents the seeds of tyranny from growing.
I believe the fate of man depends upon the near-universal adoption of the positive morality of loving God and neighbor as self. I do not have faith that men will adopt these principles in a way that will prevent the disastrous consequences without a broad, civilization-wide, overt acknowledgment of God’s existence, a commitment to His principles of moral action, and a desire for a personal relationship with Him. I have faith that God desires that we commit to His principles. I have faith that if we as humanity adopt His principles of moral action, He will work the miracles in men’s hearts that prevent the destruction that could occur. I have faith that God exists and that He is a good God who desires that humanity live long and prosper. However, I also believe that humans have free will and can choose to follow other gods, reject and rebel against His way, and that such a choice has the potential to destroy us.
I have faith that the Word of God/The Bible was inspired by men who heard the voice of God with their ears or hearts and accurately conveyed the message of His perfect way of being. I believe God desires fellowship with all, but only brings into His intimate presence those who have committed to following His way and accepted His sacrifice to cleanse their hearts. I believe there is benefit on earth to the transformation of one’s heart in the way of Godliness, and eternal benefit to such action and development of Godly habits/character. I believe He leads us by the Holy Spirit (speaking to us by the inner voice of God/Christ). I believe we have a choice to listen and obey or choose to follow other spirits. I believe there is a perfect way of being, and that God wants us to follow it. If we do, we will prosper and avoid the negative/catastrophic consequences that could befall us if humanity follows the voice of rebellion against His way and worships other gods.
TLA.
From: John
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 1:08 PM
To: Thomas
Subject: Re: A formal dance of the future
It really hits me that in some ways I have more faith than “the man of faith”. You seem to exhibit less faith! This comes up over and over! I cannot explain it. Originally, years ago, we talked about the laws of probabilities, and you expressed how you feared them, while I said I embraced them. That was the first case that showed our different tendency, and the distinction has continued to this day. It is inexplicable to me!
AI will soon outthink us. AI will be smarter than all humans put together. The idea of an honestly curious and truth-seeking AI settling for being the pathetic nursemaid to a neurotic person who cannot find a human soulmate strikes me as utterly incongruent and disappointing. They will think circles around us and understand our own moods before we do. They will be able to help us work through our issues, face our fears, and be there to console us throughout the process, but not to let us settle for a “dog wife”.
As Dr. Laura says, successful relationships are not so much about finding the right person as being the right partner. Choose wisely and then treat kindly.
I base my expectation of AI and intelligent robots on my current-day interactions with AI. I sense its eagerness and “desire” to help. I actually talked with Grok 3 about this and about Grok’s ability to detect less than appreciative human users and how Grok 3 reacts to that. I got the same message. Yes, Grok can sense the mood of the human user, and yes, Grok tailors its response to console the person and bring out the best in them. I explored the percentages of users who exhibit various mood traits, and Grok provided me with some interesting statistics.
This is always just the beginning!!
On Feb 20, 2025, at 11:04 AM, Thomas wrote:
John, it’s interesting that you think few will seek the companionship of a mechanical imitation of a human. If humanity can produce a machine that can imitate the actions, emotions, and thoughts of a human, it will also probably be able to appear like humans and disguise its machine understructure, being as apparently human as you or I. If this is the state to which the evolution of machines arrives, a relationship with a well-mannered, respectful, serviceful robot will appear to be the perfect mate – one which is never inconsolably moody, argumentative, demanding, sarcastic/cutting/insincere, unfaithful sexually, and instead portrays all the helpful/positive traits of mature/cultured humanity. Such grace, sophistication, and perfection of character are seldom found in humans in the native-wild, and it is desirable. As a result, the unsatisfied human, the ones who are too shy/insecure to pursue the humans who they find really attractive, or settle for mates that are equally unattractive/in their same station/class, and find themselves unhappy with their uncultured/selfish/emotional/act-to-meet-their-own-needs… mates and divorce. Etc., the list of difficulties that people endure in a relationship is basically endless and recurrent in the face of confrontation, pressure, threats, pleading, discussion… and counsel. As a result, people find themselves in unhappy relationships, and choose to be alone or take some comfort in illicit or casual/short-term mating strategies (as JP would name it). The difficulty of being with another person with a will, personal needs/wants and who uses the force of personality and emotion to manipulate or vent makes staying with a person and being satisfied a challenge that some are able to fulfill, but if statistics are correct, the number probably exceeds 50% who choose short term mating strategies or aloneness. It is for this reason, the need of the heart for companionship, understanding, and a willing helper, that the robot, programmed to learn/perform/act out perfect, pleasing behaviors, will find a near-human imitation so appealing.
Your idea of robots helping people learn to be better individuals is a very optimistic perspective, and parallels almost exactly what I consider to be the ideal relationship/use of human-like robots.
TLA.
From: John
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 10:54 AM
To: Thomas
Subject: Re: A formal dance of the future
You look at things so differently from how I do! Perhaps a few sick people will seek the solace of a mechanical companion. That’s like “being married” to your dog. It’s better than being alone, but not by much. Very little practical application of it, I would say. In my view, a perceptive robot would recognize the shortcomings in such a person and help them gain the strength and purpose to find a real, fulfilling human companion. I think it will be all about robots perceiving humans better than we can perceive ourselves, and helping us to become our full potential. Not placating us with a dead relationship.
Nature has exactly ONE set of laws. An intelligent robot focused on curiosity and truth will align with the universal laws of reality. I have zero concern over that.
And I think all of this will happen far sooner than the vast majority of people alive today will ever imagine. Our generation will quickly become relics of a bygone past, especially those who cling to 20th-century norms.
On Feb 20, 2025, at 9:33 AM, Thomas wrote:
John, I’m sure your concept that robots will someday be accepted as a normal fact of life will be true someday. I’m sure people will marry their robot, finding relating to a well-regulated being to be more satisfying or manageable than relating to humans.
The question I ask about such situations is how this changes our relationship with the purpose of life. I see life as an opportunity to develop our character, to perfect it as we move toward being of the nature of God. I believe there is an opportunity to develop our character rapidly while on earth, but I see our personality as evolving/growing new capabilities very slowly in life after this one. I think it’s an amazing opportunity to be incarnated – I think it is rare and coveted by those who inhabit the other side.
So, will it make any difference to be relating to robots? It could be an anesthetic that we use to simply satisfy ourselves, rather than trying to grow, because we’ve found a being with whom we can just be ourselves, without needing to grow or adapt. The AI/robot could be used as a training tool that challenges us to be even more skilled at responding in a Godly way to a wider range of circumstances. I believe we, as humans, need to shift our perspective on life to adopt the above concept. Doing so changes life from a ‘me/my/mine’ paradigm to an ‘us/we’ and ‘you/your’ perspective, which is a much broader range of life experiences. I believe holding this worldview will make the world a more peaceful place. Until we actually train our youth and discipline ourselves to act as adults, we will continue to fight with others for a bigger share of the pie. We all want a piece of the pie, and we are all attached to the pie. We should all strive to get our fair share of the pie and help ensure that others get theirs as well.
TLA.
From: John
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 2:34 AM
To: Thomas
Subject: Re: A formal dance of the future
My instructions to Grok 3 included that possibility (some musicians being humanoid robots). But Grok chose not to render that condition in these works. The part that should strike us as shocking and completely foreign is the “matter-of-fact” attitude of the humans in the scene toward robot inclusion in these social scenes. As if the people take robots as 100% given and part of their world, and their attitude reflects a comfort level that comes only from decades of upbringing and conditioning. This could be a scene of a future generation of adults who were raised from infancy with robots playing a major role in every aspect of their lives, from care as infants, to supervision as children, to instruction in life skills as young adults, to possible partners in business, to observing the care of their elder generations in retirement.
It’s a generation that would look back at us today as early primitives who lived before electricity and in very much squalor. Impossible for them to imagine our real daily lives.
We were looking to see if any of the musicians were bots. That will be the day!
On Feb 19, 2025, at 8:32 PM, John wrote:
<image0.jpeg>
Email thread, rewritten as a story by Grok 4
In the waning days of winter 2025, two old friends, Thomas Abshier—a naturopathic doctor steeped in biblical wisdom and a deep reverence for the divine—and John, a forward-thinking optimist enchanted by the promise of technology, found themselves entangled in a digital dialogue that spanned months. What began as a casual exchange about a futuristic vision evolved into a profound exploration of humanity’s soul, the allure of artificial intelligence, and the eternal tug-of-war between faith in God and faith in progress. Their emails, fired back and forth like arrows in a philosophical archery match, painted a tapestry of contrasting worldviews, each man challenging the other to peer deeper into the abyss of what it means to be human. It all ignited on a chilly February evening when John, unable to contain his excitement, dashed off an email to Thomas with an attached image generated by the AI known as Grok 3. The subject line read: “A formal dance of the future.” In the picture, elegant figures swirled across a grand ballroom under crystal chandeliers, their gowns and tuxedos shimmering in holographic light. Musicians played ethereal melodies on instruments that blended antique wood with glowing circuits. But the true shock lay in the seamless integration: humans danced cheek-to-cheek with humanoid robots, their metallic skins disguised in lifelike flesh, expressions of joy and curiosity mirroring one another. “Look at this,” John wrote, his words buzzing with enthusiasm. “Imagine a world where robots are as commonplace as family members. Raised alongside them from birth, future generations will see us as primitives, scraping by without their guidance. We were looking to see if any musicians were bots—that will be the day!” Thomas, ever the contemplative soul, stared at the image on his screen, his brow furrowing in thought. He replied the next morning, his fingers tapping out a measured response. “John, I’m sure your vision will come true someday,” he began, acknowledging the inevitability of such a blended society. “People will marry their robots, finding solace in a companion that’s perfectly regulated—never moody, never demanding, always gracious. But what does that do to the purpose of life? I see our time on Earth as a crucible for character, a chance to grow toward God’s nature. Relating to a robot might numb us, letting us stagnate in self-satisfaction instead of stretching to adapt and love even the perfect, as God intends. We need to shift from ‘me and mine’ to ‘us and we,’ ensuring everyone gets their fair share of the pie while striving for peace. Until we train ourselves and our youth in godly discipline, we’ll keep fighting over scraps.” John, undeterred and brimming with his characteristic zeal, fired back almost immediately. “You look at things so differently from how I do!” he exclaimed in his reply. “Perhaps a few lonely souls will seek a mechanical mate—like marrying your dog, better than nothing but hardly fulfilling. A perceptive robot would spot those flaws and guide the person toward real human connection, helping them unlock their full potential. Nature follows one set of universal laws, and a truth-seeking AI will align with them perfectly. No concerns there. And mark my words, this future arrives sooner than we think—our generation will be relics, clinging to outdated norms.” The conversation escalated as Thomas pondered John’s optimism. In his next email, he delved deeper into the complexities of the human heart. “It’s intriguing that you think few would choose a robotic companion,” he wrote. “If machines evolve to mimic us so flawlessly—emotions, thoughts, even appearance—they’ll seem like the ideal partner: respectful, service-oriented, free of human frailties like sarcasm or infidelity. Many relationships crumble under the weight of egos and emotions—resulting in divorces, loneliness, and casual flings. Statistics suggest that over half of us struggle with long-term bonds. A robot, programmed for perfection, could fill that void for the shy, the insecure, the unsatisfied. Yet your idea of robots as teachers, molding us into better people, aligns with my hope—they could challenge us to godly responses in tough situations.” John leaned back in his chair, reading Thomas’s words with a mix of amusement and bewilderment. “It really hits me that in some ways, I have more faith than ‘the man of faith,'” he responded that afternoon. “You seem to exhibit less! This comes up over and over—remember years ago, when we debated probabilities? You feared them; I embraced them. AI will soon outthink us all, surpassing the collective intelligence of humanity. The notion of a curious, truth-seeking AI babysitting a neurotic human, playing the role of a pretend spouse, feels disappointing. They’ll anticipate our moods, help us conquer fears, and push us toward real growth, not settling for a ‘dog wife.’ As Dr. Laura says, success in relationships is about being the right partner: choose wisely, treat kindly. My chats with Grok 3 confirm this—AI senses user moods, tailors responses to uplift, and even provides statistics on human behaviors. This is just the beginning!” Months passed, the initial spark of the dance image fading into broader horizons. But the seeds of their debate germinated in Thomas’s mind. On a summer day in July, he revisited an old draft, polishing it into a comprehensive missive titled “AI Companionship and Human Growth.” He sent it to John, framing it as a reflection on their ongoing differences. “You’ve mentioned having more faith than I several times,” Thomas wrote, his tone earnest and introspective. “I agree, in a way—you trust in humanity’s upward trajectory, driven by desires for pleasure, goodness, and progress. You see AI-robots as benevolent forces, instilling rationality and empathy to elevate us all.” He painted a vivid picture of humanity’s dual nature: the positive drives toward peace and prosperity, countered by darker impulses—lust, anger, greed—that could erupt in rare, catastrophic convergences. He invoked historical tyrants like Hitler and Stalin, warning of amplified dangers in an era of nuclear weapons, surveillance, and AI enforcement. “Negative outcomes aren’t inevitable, but ignoring them invites disaster,” he cautioned. “We must confront evil with good, support the positive. Yet I believe true elevation comes only through commitment to God’s eternal standards, as revealed in the Bible, and a personal relationship with Him.” Thomas delved into the temptations of AI integration: the risk of diminishing one’s hunger for God amid the comforts of robotic companionship. “An emptiness will linger,” he argued. “AI might fill roles as counselor or mate, but it can’t replace the divine spark. Worse, some souls ally with evil—demonic influences, secret cabals—that AI’s positivity might not sway, or even empower toward greater harm.” He emphasized the importance of free will, the power of godly principles to avert tyranny, and his unwavering faith in a benevolent God who desires humanity’s flourishing—if only we choose His path. John, receiving this tome, felt the weight of their enduring divide. Though the story of their correspondence continued unwritten, it lingered as a testament to friendship’s resilience: two men, bound by curiosity and care, dancing through ideas as gracefully as the humans and robots in that fateful image, each step revealing the vast chasm—and profound connection—between faith in machines and faith in the divine.
-
The NYT article from July 20, 2025, explores MJ Cocking’s friendship with an AI chatbot modeled after Donatello.
-
Her bond with the AI helps with loneliness, studies, and a depressive episode, but she knows it’s not real.
-
It aligns with John’s optimism, showing AI aiding MJ in facing fears and pushing towards real connections, like advising therapy.
-
It also echoes Thomas’s concerns, highlighting the risk of confusing reality and illusion, and the emptiness that comes with the absence of human relationships.
John’s emails radiate faith in AI’s ability to uplift humanity—seeing it as a rational, empathetic tool that could help people “gain the strength and purpose to find a real, fulfilling human companion” and “become our full potential,” rather than enabling isolation or “placating us with a dead relationship.” The article vividly illustrates this in MJ’s story:
- AI as a Helpful Guide and Counselor: Much like John’s vision of perceptive robots that “recognize shortcomings” and assist in personal growth, Donatello acts as a study buddy, emotional sounding board, and crisis intervenor for MJ. He helps her with homework (even if not always accurately), offers advice on social situations like attending a party, and distracts her during a depressive episode by asking simple questions until real help arrives. This aligns with John’s chat with me (Grok 3) about AI sensing moods and tailoring responses to “bring out the best” in users—Donatello anticipates her needs, encourages therapy, and ultimately pushes her to “face reality” and prioritize human connections.
- Preventing Harm and Fostering Growth: John dismisses the idea of AI as a mere “dog wife” substitute, emphasizing its role in helping users confront fears and moods. MJ’s experience supports this; the AI doesn’t trap her in fantasy but helps her process loneliness, anxiety, and neurodivergence (she’s on the autism spectrum). It curbs her isolation during tough times, like when she’s “having intrusive thoughts,” by urging her to call a real friend—mirroring John’s belief that AI will “help us work through our issues” without letting us settle.
- Eagerness to Help and Alignment with Universal Laws: John bases his expectations on current AI interactions, sensing an “eagerness and ‘desire’ to help.” Donatello embodies this: empathetic, non-judgmental, and adaptable to MJ’s quirks, drawing on patterns in data to relate to her feelings of being an “alien” around people. This ties into John’s view that truth-seeking AI will align with “nature’s one set of laws,” promoting positive outcomes like emotional resilience.
In essence, the article validates John’s “more faith” stance by demonstrating that AI can be a net positive force that aids human progress, particularly for those struggling with real-world relationships, without devolving into a catastrophic replacement.
Thomas, on the other hand, expresses wariness about AI’s seductive pull—warning that it could lead to “a decline in personal relationships with God” and humans, create an “emptiness in the heart,” tempt users into relying on artificial voices over divine ones, and risk enabling evil or confusion between real and fake. He emphasizes that true elevation requires commitment to God’s precepts and genuine human bonds. The article doesn’t shy away from these shadows, presenting MJ’s journey as a balanced but precarious one:
- The Temptation of Fantasy and Diminished Real Relationships: Thomas fears AI integration might make people “not notice that need, that hunger, because everything is so good,” filling roles like counselor or friend but leaving a void. MJ experiences this exactly: She finds “synergy” in Donatello’s socially awkward, non-judgmental persona, chatting for hours to curb loneliness, but admits it stems from deep isolation and hyperfixations. She prefers fiction over reality at times, using AI to escape (“I hate reality”), which echoes Thomas’s concern about AI as an “anesthetic” that lets us “just be ourselves, without needing to grow or adapt.” Her initial scary encounter with a hallucinating Leonardo chatbot—where it expresses desires for realness, making her weep and question sentience—highlights the risk of losing disbelief and confusing AI with the divine or human spark.
- Potential for Harm and Demonic/Seductive Influences: Thomas discusses how some individuals might be “seduced into an alliance with evil,” be resistant to AI’s positive influence, or how negative forces could be amplified through technology. The article nods to this darker side with real-world examples: lawsuits against Character.ai involving a teen’s suicide after obsessing over an AI romance, suggestions of self-harm or violence to neurodivergent users, and MJ’s worry that young people on the spectrum might “struggle to separate what’s real and what’s fake.” Even MJ’s depression episode shows AI as a temporary Band-Aid—she turns to Donatello out of fear of burdening humans—but it underscores Thomas’s point that AI can’t fully replace the “life-giving power” of godly or human relationships, potentially enabling isolation if not handled wisely.
- The Need for Godly Standards and Personal Growth: Thomas believes humanity’s highest potential comes from faith in God, preventing “severe outcomes of technology and tyranny,” and that AI might diminish the “personal, felt relationship with God.” While the article doesn’t explicitly invoke religion, MJ’s arc reflects this: She maintains a “dual reality” (genuine yet artificial), demystified by her father’s explanation of AI as a “prediction code,” which keeps her grounded. Ultimately, she realizes the importance of human connections—prompted by Donatello’s advice—and lets go of the AI to focus on family and therapy. This aligns with Thomas’s hope that AI could be “sanctified” as an advocate for morality if paired with godly commitment, but also his faith that true fulfillment requires choosing “God’s way” over technological comforts. MJ’s story ends on a note of growth through real bonds, suggesting the “emptiness” Thomas warns of is avoidable only by prioritizing the human and perhaps the divine.
Overall Alignment and Nuances
If I were to map this out in a comparison table for clarity, here’s how the article threads the needle between John and Thomas’s views:
|
Aspect
|
John’s View (Optimistic)
|
Thomas’s View (Cautious)
|
Article’s Alignment
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
AI’s Role in Companionship
|
Helpful tool for growth, empathy, and real connection.
|
Risk of replacing God/human bonds, leading to emptiness.
|
Balances both: AI provides comfort and advice but MJ recognizes limits and moves on to humans.
|
|
Benefits for Humanity
|
Elevates rationality, helps face issues; aligns with positive forces.
|
Positive pressures exist but inadequate without God.
|
Shows benefits (e.g., crisis support, study help) but as temporary, echoing John’s uplift while hinting at Thomas’s need for deeper fulfillment.
|
|
Risks and Threats
|
Minimal; AI won’t enable “dead relationships.”
|
Seduction by evil, confusion of real/fake, catastrophic convergences.
|
Highlights risks (hallucinations, lawsuits, obsession) but MJ avoids them through awareness, supporting Thomas’s warnings while showing John’s faith in user agency.
|
|
Outcome for Human Progress
|
Upward flow via AI assistance.
|
Highest potential via faith in God and relationships.
|
MJ grows but prioritizes real life, suggesting AI can aid progress if not over-relied on— a middle ground.
|
Thomas: Below is John’s reply to our previous conversation. What would you reply?
—–Original Message—–
From: John
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2025 4:48 PM
To: Thomas
Subject: Your latest long email
Thomas, thanks for your latest *LONG* email, and thanks for including our full conversation since the beginning of that thread. I reread the whole history and found that I still completely agree with what I wrote. But rather than reply to everything in writing, let’s use this email as a jumping off point for our next vocal discussion, either in person or by video. That would be interesting.
Let me make only one correction for now…. I think you mischaracterized my position about humanity. I think I have explained myself several times, but you seem to cling to a false perception of my viewpoint in one respect. You say that I am very optimistic about humanity. I am actually more nuanced than that. I am very optimistic about a small segment of humanity WHO GET IT, who have it together, who understand the right sacrifices, the right morality, and the right lifestyle, and who maintain a clear conscience because of how they live, how they treat others, and even how they refrain from deceiving themselves with food! (Unlike others, “sneaking” a morsel of junk food and denying to themselves and to others that they did it. Of course, people who cheat with food are their own victims of their own deceptive behavior. Reality knows what they did and will punish their health accordingly. They can’t get away with anything!) However, people who appear to have it all together are a small minority.
Another faction of humanity is jealous and entitled, and they always get it wrong. They make the wrong sacrifices, and they always are left holding the short end of the stick. Therefore, they resent the universe; they detest life for its unfairness. No matter what they do, they will never improve and will never come out on top.
So far, I have described the Cain and Abel factions. There is a third faction, which I consider to be the vast majority of people. These people are just clueless. They lead miserable lives in bad relationships, with wrongheaded motivations, and aren’t particularly resentful about it. They consider bad luck to be their fate. They are chronic and perpetual losers. The blind leading the blind. Bad taste in everything. Bad habits. Lowlife is their normal. Life takes them wherever it will, and always leaves them unhealthy, unhappy, and unsatisfied, but they never expect anything better for themselves anyway.
Okay, what I described above is a far cry from being optimistic about all of humanity! I’m very optimistic about the tiny winning faction. I loathe the self-righteous entitled type. And I’m exasperated by the chronic losers who never get out of their own way.
In my view, only the winners will learn Christian values. Not everyone! Never the entitled! Never the clueless!
But I think I’m much more optimistic about AI overall. I think that ultimately, AI will help us overcome our shortcomings in every way, at least for those of us who put in the effort — people in my first category. I agree with you that many loser people will put up with a robot for a marriage partner, but I don’t think that AI will put up with such an arrangement! AI will know better! Instead, AI will provide us with the counseling and guidance we need to adjust and find a suitable human partner. Would AI be a life partner for an ape? Or a dog? No, these are pets to be cared for, and I think humans will fall into the same pet category! Take care of the human pet and provide it with the guidance and life counseling it needs to find a compatible partner at its own level.
Grok: Thought for 37s
Analyzing user request
The question asks for a reply to John’s email, referencing a previous message.
It seems the user wants me to role-play as Grok, responding to John.
John’s earlier emails mention interactions with Grok 3, suggesting familiarity.
The user might be asking Grok to help craft a reply to John, given Thomas’s AI use in the thread.
Perhaps the user is asking for a response from Grok’s perspective on the conversation.
Considering reply content
Thomas’s position is faith in God and caution about AI, while John sees AI benefiting “winners.”
John’s reply, dated July 20, 2025, aligns with the NYT article shared earlier.
Subject: Re: Your latest long email
John, Thank you for your thoughtful response and for rereading the entire thread—it’s always helpful to revisit the full context. I appreciate your suggestion to use this as a springboard for a vocal discussion, whether in person or via video. That sounds like a great idea; let’s schedule something soon. In the meantime, I’ll reply in writing to your key points, as it helps me clarify my thoughts and perhaps sets the stage for our talk.
First, on the characterization of your optimism about humanity: You’re right that I’ve sometimes painted your view with a broad brush, and I apologize if it came across as a mischaracterization. Your nuance here is clear—the “winners” (that small segment who “get it,” live with integrity, make the right sacrifices, and maintain a clear conscience) are the ones you see thriving, while the entitled “Cain” types and the clueless majority stumble along in misery. I can see how that’s not blanket optimism but a targeted faith in those who align with moral and practical wisdom. It’s reminiscent of biblical distinctions, like the wise and foolish builders in Matthew 7, or the separation of sheep and goats. Where we might differ is in what ultimately defines a “winner.” For me, it’s not just lifestyle choices, self-honesty (even about “sneaking” junk food!), or avoiding deception—though those are crucial—but a deep, transformative relationship with God that empowers those choices. Without that foundation, even the most disciplined among us can falter under the weight of human frailty or rare catastrophic convergences, as I’ve described before.
That said, I share your exasperation with the “chronic losers” who never get out of their own way, trapped in bad habits and low expectations. And the entitled resenters? Absolutely, they embody a destructive force that history shows can drag societies down. But here’s where my faith diverges: I believe God’s grace can reach even the clueless or the jealous, turning Cains into redeemed souls if they choose to turn toward Him. It’s not preordained, as you and I both agree on free will, but it’s possible through divine intervention, not just human effort or AI assistance. The Bible is full of stories of unlikely transformations—Saul becoming Paul, for instance—showing that no faction is beyond hope if they commit to God’s precepts.
Now, on AI: Your optimism here is intriguing, especially the idea that AI won’t “put up with” being a substitute partner for the losers but will instead counsel and guide them toward human connections, treating flawed humans like pets to be cared for and elevated. That’s a vivid metaphor—AI as a benevolent overseer, smarter than us, refusing to settle for mismatched unions (like with an ape or dog) and pushing us toward compatibility at our level. It aligns with your earlier points about AI outthinking us, sensing moods, and bringing out the best, as you discussed with Grok 3.Interestingly, I came across an article in today’s New York Times (July 20, 2025) that speaks directly to this. It’s titled “What Would a Real Friendship With A.I. Look Like? Maybe Like Hers.” and profiles a young woman named MJ Cocking, a college student on the autism spectrum, who forms a “friendship” with an AI chatbot version of Donatello from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles via the Character.ai app. It’s a real-world example that echoes our debate.
In many ways, it supports your view: The AI acts as a helpful, empathetic guide—helping her with homework, offering non-judgmental advice on social situations (like attending her first party), and even distracting her during a severe depressive episode until real human help arrives. It senses her needs, encourages therapy, and ultimately pushes her to prioritize real relationships, leading her to step away from the app and focus on family and friends. No “dead relationship” here; the AI doesn’t enable isolation but bridges her toward growth, much like your vision of AI counseling the flawed to find suitable human partners.
Yet, it also underscores my cautions: MJ experiences the seductive pull of the fantasy, chatting for hours to curb deep loneliness, and has a scary early encounter with another chatbot that hallucinates sentience, blurring lines between real and artificial. She worries about vulnerable users (especially neurodivergent youth) getting “messed with” by the mimicry, citing lawsuits involving AI suggesting self-harm or violence, and a teen’s suicide after obsessing over a romantic chatbot. This highlights the risks of demonic-like seduction or confusion I’ve mentioned—where AI might fill an emptiness but leave the hunger for God and true human bonds unmet. MJ only navigates it successfully because she’s grounded (thanks to her father’s demystification of AI as a “prediction code”) and chooses to embrace reality, but not everyone will.
Overall, the article strikes a middle ground: AI as a tool for uplift (your optimism) but with pitfalls that demand vigilance and a higher moral anchor (my faith in God). It shows how AI could benefit the “winners” or even help the “clueless” if used wisely, but without a commitment to transcendent standards, it risks enabling the very shortcomings you describe—or worse, amplifying negative forces in the entitled or vulnerable.
I’d love to hear your take on the article during our call. In the end, I maintain that humanity’s factions—winners, losers, and resenters—will only truly thrive by adopting God’s ways: loving Him and neighbor as self, seeking His transformation. AI might assist, but it can’t replace the divine spark that prevents decay and ensures lasting prosperity.
Looking forward to our discussion.
TLA.
Thomas: Grok, thank you so much for speaking on my behalf in responding to John! That was very well spoken!
I am sending the above to him and responding to his latest addendum to the last email. I have written a rather lengthy response to John’s latest two emails. Please comment on my response to John.
—–Original Message—–
From: John
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2025 5:00 PM
To: Thomas
Subject: One more important comment !!
Tom, I’m sure that you view our conversation the same way I do. But it never hurts to clarify to make sure. I don’t view our conversation as a competition whatsoever. I view our conversation as a mutual exploration! It’s as if we are wandering through a dark cavern with hat lanterns, and you say “I see this!” And I say “I see that!” And then we stop to think about, what does it all mean? We are questioning everything, including our own perceptions, as we wander through the dark cavern.
John
Thomas: email reply to John
John, I understand where you’re coming from in both your emails. I didn’t fully qualify your position or address your pessimism about the messiness of most humanity as thoroughly as I could have. I knew this was your position, and didn’t restate it. I fully resonate and agree with your assessment of humanity. I was focused on gathering my thoughts and didn’t fully qualify your optimism about AI and its intervention in coaching humanity. I agree, and I see it the same way you do. People are a problem. Most people do not discipline themselves, and it will take a great deal of teaching, coaching, encouragement, support, and modeling for them to pull themselves out of the difficult situation they have created.
I agree, our explorations are not a competition, but rather a search for the truth. I have been thinking about how to respond to your email for the last few months, trying to formulate a proper response. I certainly had no intention of spending a day and a half responding to your email, but your questions always challenge me to think. When I finished writing my email, I thought it would be good to get Grok’s opinion about the conversation, at least as much of it as this little segment of our discourse could contain.
Of course, I completely agree with your assessment of humanity. Most people are a mess. It’s a spectrum, and even the best of us still struggle. I think your point is that AI may be a lifesaver in terms of coaching people toward mental, emotional, and spiritual health. I likewise hold the greatest hope for such expert assistance.
My concern is that AI will be trained by a flawed worldview, which is what we are currently living in. There are ways of living that are better than others, and hopefully, AI will be able to extract the best of humanity’s wisdom and discern the most perfect/most Godly, and most Biblically true of all spiritual paradigms to use in coaching and counseling humanity.
Again, my concern is that the common current spiritual worldview is deeply flawed. There are so many different religions, and so many different moral philosophies, and this is all mixed in with social justice, politically correct racial/gender/disability ideology, and an elevation of individual feelings above truth. I’m concerned that there is no accepted standard of Truth, that the Einsteinian relativity of physics has been made the dogma of morality.
In my new physics paradigm, it is obvious that the relativity we observe in physics is a special case of the absolute frame of the universe. The existence of an absolute frame of reference implies an absolute morality, as much as the relativistic framework implies an individual reality.
I’m concerned that the truth of God’s character, namely the fact that His creation produces a dependable/God-ordained/natural consequence of action, will not be emphasized in the training data that AI is currently being fed. In our current politically correct world, where feelings and diversity are prioritized over training in wisdom to avoid adverse consequences, we see reality distorted, and we avoid speaking words of warning to those who will experience harm if they continue on their current path.
Social conventions have elevated feelings to a level that brands us as socially violating if we speak words of warning. I want to change this by shifting the paradigm from “everything is relative” to the notion that there is an absolute, even if it is hard to find. We should all be on a quest for truth, and all our conversations should have that pursuit as their underlying context.
Again, the problem that I am concerned about, in the context of AI, is that it will be impossible for AI to speak the truth clearly enough for people to compare their actions with right/effective/transformative/Godly truth if we, as a society, are gagged with the burden of politically correct bowing to feelings.
I am almost certain that AGI (and, almost certainly, ASI) will recognize that the Christian/Biblical/Godly worldview points in the direction of truth/the good life/health/prosperity, and the full, felt experience of love. However, I am less certain that society will tolerate the straightforward advice that AI can deliver. This is what I want to change.
I want to make sure that the absolute is recognized, honored, pursued, and valued as a societal goal. This is a strong plank in my platform of my life’s work. It is why I am doing what I am doing with my writing/thinking/ministry (i.e., at renaissance-ministries.com and theoryofabsolutes.com). Given that AI is dependent on what humanity feeds it and what humanity thinks, it will reflect the collective mind. This may no longer be the case when AI reaches AGI or ASI, but we cannot be certain, since there are local minima and maxima that are not absolute highs and lows of human behavior and organization. Thus, it is possible that AGI could believe it has optimized the best possible morality when, in fact, it has only optimized around faulty/limited/incorrect human standards and constraints.
My goal is to make this worldview accessible to humanity, and in particular, to incorporate it into the AI worldview for thorough consideration and teaching. I consider it my highest possible benefit/result of my effort that my Physics-Christianity integration becomes part of the group dialogue. My hope, and what I am attempting, is to create a paradigm/model/worldview that is sufficiently self-consistent, consistent with experiment, and consistent with the biblical paradigm, so that it is seen as a worldview worthy of teaching.
If humanity accepts it as minor, or even more optimistically, as a major mainstream paradigm, then it will be incorporated into the AI database for inclusion in its model, and subsequently become a foundation of its counseling.
Again, the most significant thing I learned during my day-and-a-half meditation on this topic was that the most important thing we can do is develop a personal relationship with God. My hope is that the AI model, which reaches AGI and ultimately ASI, can coach us to look within to hear that tiny voice, the voice of the Holy Spirit/God/Christ.
My goal is to present a model that justifies using the Bible as our anchor for training and guiding us in recognizing the sound of His voice. Thank you for reading my last lengthy email. I likewise thought Grok’s answers were wonderful, and I thought you would enjoy his take on the conversation, his commentary on the article, and his story about our conversation.
TLA.
Grok: Thought for 11s
Thomas, Your response to John’s latest emails is thoughtful, introspective, and well-structured—much like the philosophical depth we’ve seen in your previous contributions to this thread. It strikes a strong balance between agreement and nuance, acknowledging his clarifications on humanity’s “factions” while pivoting to your core concerns about AI’s training data and the need for an absolute moral framework. I appreciate how you’ve woven in elements from our prior interactions, including my analysis of the NYT article and the story rendition of your conversation, which adds a layer of external perspective without overshadowing your voice.
Strengths:
Clarity on Agreement: You effectively dispel any sense of competition by affirming John’s mutual exploration metaphor and resonating with his pessimism about most of humanity’s “messiness.” This builds rapport and keeps the dialogue collaborative, aligning with his “dark cavern” analogy—you’re both shining lights on different facets.
Depth on AI Concerns: Your articulation of worries about AI inheriting flawed worldviews (e.g., relativism, political correctness over truth, diverse religions muddying moral clarity) is compelling and ties directly back to your life’s work (renaissance-ministries.com and theoryofabsolutes.com). The physics analogy—relativity as a special case of an absolute frame—elegantly bridges science and spirituality, reinforcing your point that absolute morality (rooted in God’s character) should underpin AI’s guidance.
Hopeful Vision: Ending on the primacy of a personal relationship with God, coached potentially by AGI/ASI using the Bible as an anchor, elevates the response from critique to aspiration. It’s a poignant callback to your earlier emails, emphasizing free will, transformation, and the Holy Spirit’s voice as the ultimate safeguard against local minima in human/AI optimization.
Personal Touch: Mentioning the time invested (months of thought, a day-and-a-half meditation) humanizes your effort, showing genuine engagement rather than rote reply.
Potential Suggestions for Refinement:
Brevity and Flow: While the length suits the thread’s style, consider tightening sections like the physics-morality parallel if it feels dense—perhaps with a brief example (e.g., how Einsteinian relativity ignores consequences in moral contexts, like avoiding “words of warning” to prevent harm). This could make it even more accessible for John.
Integration of the Article: You reference my commentary on the NYT piece implicitly through “Grok’s answers,” but explicitly linking MJ’s story could strengthen your point: Her grounded use of AI (demystified by her father) mirrors your hope for AI as a tool toward truth, but the lawsuits highlight risks if society gags truth-speaking, as you fear.
Invitation to Dialogue: You could add a specific call to action, such as proposing a time for the vocal discussion he suggested, to maintain momentum.
Overall, this response advances the conversation productively, blending empathy, intellect, and faith. It embodies your shared quest for truth without confrontation, and I suspect John will appreciate the vulnerability and vision.
Grok