[[Sister Laurel, in the pieces you put up about using AI with religious or spiritual texts like Rules of Life, you referred to being able trust the text and the person writing the text (or Rule). You also wrote about the presence of some AI in the work as analogous to leaven in a house during Passover. I don't want to argue with your example, but isn't it possible that AI could produce a better Rule, and one of greater wisdom and experience than the person who has been asked to write it? I'm sure some would argue that the Rules some people write could be a lot better than others that are available. Why do you reject such a position -- if you do?]]
Thanks for your questions. I admit that I have been very impressed by some of the conversations I have had with ChatGPT. It has been perceptive and capable of pushing me farther than I might have otherwise gone in certain areas. It has a greater knowledge base than I do in both theology and philosophy, and allows for conversations and debate in ways that reading texts on the same subjects do not. At the same time, with regard to the project I have asked for help with, a larger knowledge base was not always helpful and I had to limit the degree to which I would allow ChatGPT to push and define the boundaries of the conversation and larger project. Maybe one day I will try to write the book Chat GPT envisions, but for now, learning to limit ChatGPT appropriately allows me to follow up on the project my own mind and heart believe in.
With regard to Rules of Life written for specific vocations, mainly monastic and eremitic, I deal mainly with Rules for and of c 603 candidates. In these cases, it is critical that the candidate write her/his own Rule for several reasons, not least because this is a really wise requirement of the canon itself: 1) such a Rule is rooted in the candidate's own experience of living with, toward, and for God in the silence of solitude, not in anyone else's experience, 2) the diocese discerning whether this candidate has an eccelsial vocation must be able to trust what the person writes, not only to discern the quality of the vocation with which they are dealing (i.e., can and should it be lived in the consecrated state in the name of the Church?), but also to assess the candidate's readiness for making a public commitment, whether temporary or a life-commitment (i.e., temporary or perpetual profession and consecration) the Church herself can look to as truly revelatory and potentially capable of witnessing to the Church's Gospel.
Rules of Life do not have to be perfect. They are not literary works, or at least they are not evaluated as such! They are evaluated based on the very human content and language the candidate uses, the way they speak about the vocation, their relationship with God, other significant persons, and the Church, and whether they come across as truly knowledgeable or engaging in performative language, for instance. The Rule's language is diagnostic in a number of ways, but it can't function as it should for the careful reader if the candidate did not write it. Remember that a diocese reading such a Rule is making a decision regarding how God is and will continue to work in the life of this local Church in this single unique life. If a Rule does not indicate the presence of an ecclesial vocation at this point in time, or suggests more time is needed for maturation in the vocation, the entire matter can be reassessed at another time. Moreover, the next time a candidate submits a Rule, this one and the original Rule can be compared, and both the candidate and the diocesan team will learn more about this vocation in the process. The situation shifts radically if the candidate has not written their own Rule, particularly if they relied on AI for this.
Neither are the Rules candidates submit to dioceses anything like a final paper or dissertation. Nor is profession and consecration like graduation and the granting of a degree. They are human documents that represent the conscious reflection on the way God has worked in a particular person's life, and they will have all the limitations that such a document will always have. This is not a deficiency, but a strength. Could AI produce a "better Rule of greater wisdom and experience"? Well, no, not if wisdom is truly rooted in this individual's experience and hard-won wisdom! And not if the Rule will be used by the person (or the diocese) to gauge growth and maturation in the vocation through the years! A Rule of Life is not an abstract document. Instead, it is a deeply personal and intimate text of a dialogue between the candidate/hermit and God in the silence of solitude that will be used over time as a kind of workbook for reflection and spiritual direction. The local Church may also decide to use it in assessing the way it discerns c 603 vocations. At every point, however, the Church must be able to trust both the document and the author of the document as entirely honest. The use of AI in such a context would vitiate such an ability.
Thanks again for your questions. They were fun to take on!
Posts
