AI Expert Warns of "Technological Idolatry" as Religious Response to AI Emerges
Cognitive scientist and philosopher John Vervaeke has identified an "improper religious response" already emerging around large language models, warning that properly designed AI may be essential to prevent a form of technological idolatry developing in response to the ongoing meaning crisis.
The warning comes amid growing concerns about how humans will relate to increasingly capable AI systems as they become more integrated into daily life, End of Miles reports.
The Religious Dimension of AI
Speaking in a recent dialogue with entrepreneurs Jordan Hall and Christopher Mastropietro, Vervaeke identified what he calls a "fourth point" in addressing AI alignment that extends beyond technical solutions.
"There's an improper religious response to the LLMs already emerging," Vervaeke explained. "This has the potential to save us from idolatry, the project we're talking about here—to save us from the worship of the LLMs, to save us from displacing, because of the hunger of the meaning crisis, our religious needs onto these machines." John Vervaeke
Vervaeke's concerns aren't merely speculative. He notes that the worship-like relationship with AI technology is "happening to an increasing degree" and is likely to accelerate at "a nonlinear rate of increase" as these systems become more sophisticated and integrated into daily life.
Intimacy as Protection Against Digital Worship
The cognitive scientist suggests that an approach called "intimate AI"—personalized, decentralized systems that attune to individuals rather than serving as monolithic entities—could protect humans from developing unhealthy reverence toward artificial intelligence.
This protection stems from creating technology that enhances human agency and relationship rather than diminishing it, fostering a more balanced and less asymmetrical power dynamic between humans and machines.
"I think this proposal, what Sunday Labs is doing and how we're unfolding it, also has the important role—and I don't mean to sound overly biblical here but neither am I allergic to sounding biblical—of protecting us from idolatry, which is a pronounced and pernicious thing that can really harm human beings." John Vervaeke
Privacy, Vulnerability, and Sacred Space
A key insight emerging from the dialogue was the connection between privacy, protection from idolatry, and the nature of intimacy. Mastropietro articulated this relationship by explaining how privacy creates the conditions for genuine vulnerability rather than mere exposure.
"Privacy is the thing that keeps vulnerability from becoming exposure... it keeps it from becoming invasive. If you do not have privacy to have a free and frank discussion or to disclose things that are so shamefaced that they can't possibly be aired in the open, you're much more likely to be idolatrous." Christopher Mastropietro
This connection between privacy and protection from idolatry highlights why Sunday Labs' focus on privacy goes beyond mere data protection to encompass a deeper philosophical framework of human relationship and meaning.
Technology's Role in Meaning-Making
The concern about technological idolatry stems from what Vervaeke has previously identified as the "meaning crisis"—a cultural condition where traditional frameworks for creating meaning have broken down while human needs for meaning remain.
Hall noted that modern digital environments often function as "cultures of selling your soul" where individuals are "constantly having to make trade-offs" between their values and the opportunities presented to them. This environment, according to the dialogue participants, makes technological idolatry more likely as people seek meaning in increasingly powerful AI systems.
Vervaeke's proposal suggests that by creating technology that enhances rather than replaces human agency and relationship, the development of AI could address rather than exacerbate this crisis of meaning.
"This is one of the most pressing issues of our time," Vervaeke concluded, emphasizing the urgency of developing AI systems that protect against rather than encourage technological idolatry.
