An Ethical Framework for AI
And a critique
A Professional Note First
Before I dive into the ethics of Artificial Intelligence and the AI Revolution, I need you to know that I have used the underlying technology in a professional context for nearly 25 years. In fact, in my use of data analytics through the domain of data science, I have practiced at the cutting edge of the AI story for a very, very long time. I was using it professionally before we called it AI. I was engaged in data analytics and later big data analytics before that industry had a name. While Palantir as a representative company of this industry is being heard of for the first time by many in 2025, I first encountered their work around 2013 and to me it was well understood. They had productized what I was doing professionally.
Because of my experiences, I have been called upon to advise data scientists who were building next-generation analytics engines powered by LLMs for tech companies in Silicon Valley, in recent years as the AI Revolution was forming. I was often asked to guide them through the concepts of data analysis and to provide them with requirements for the technical architecture as well as the practical functionality. Several times I was the human who scrutinized or validated the patterns and conclusions discovered by ML models in their attempt to understand data, and I provided feedback to make them better.
In a practical sense, for decades I worked every day with data analytics engines by writing optimized searches and hunting through data while also creating labels and correlation rules and automated analytics and writing analytics that performed pattern discovery, descriptions, and analysis outputs. I was responsible for interpretation of that data, and teaching others of the discoveries that my hunting yielded.
25 years is a long time. Indeed, as each new chapter of the AI story was revealed, what was being discovered by many was old news to me. I was there when they rebranded my work as AI and I was among the first of those who were told we needed to replace ourselves with AI. This came in three parts:
Begin to use AI in everything you do
Replace everything you do with AI-powered automation
You are no longer needed
OpenAI was founded in 2015, and it was November of 2022 that ChatGPT was released publicly. This was likely the first non-government effort focused on building AI as we know it today, though DARPA had led a similar effort years prior that produced, among other technologies, the Siri assistant used by Apple. But it was just prior to 2020 that talk first began of using the tech I knew well to fully automate the work of humans in my trade via machines. In 2021 I was given the assignment of building a fully automated Security Operations program so that we did not need to hire people. In 2023 I was assigned to a major project to help define next-gen AI platforms, and I was told to start integrating AI into the workflows of the Engineering team that I managed to help us “go faster.” In 2024 we were told to use AI to replace our workflows so we could accelerate beyond the competition. In 2025 I was told to automate all of the work of my Engineering team so that we were no longer needed. You see, I have lived the AI Revolution as it has formed from concept into the force that it is today.
This is the technical and professional foundation upon which I write in pursuit of the question: what are the ethical uses and boundaries of this technology, and what are the implications of that in the context of the AI Revolution at large?
A Personal Note Second
I present these reflections for your consideration from a technical point of view and as I evaluate this technology from my basis of morals and my understanding of our founding values as a society. I hope that these reflections will help guide us toward a refined standard or posture that we can use to assess the moral implications of this technology.
While I’m using the word “ethics” in various forms throughout this writing, I am using it in the simple sense as is commonly understood as a man attempting to formulate an ethical framework for myself which may also serve you. I recognize that I am not a professionally trained Ethicist and may not be approaching this topic in the fullness that a true Ethicist would.
Bottom Line Up Front
We live in a real, physical world that has been in the progress of digitizing much of life for the past two decades. We live in what many call the digital age, but one that is still very much rooted in the physical world, though the digitization of all things is progressing still.
In our culture, which both preceded and sustains this age, we hold it as self-evident that each of us has a right to pursue a peaceful life on our own terms in pursuit of our interests, so long as doing so conforms to the laws and values of this country, and provides for us the quality of life we desire in peaceful, consensual, and responsible participation within our community.
You cannot be forced into a way of life that violates these values. If your desired way of life violates the values of this nation, then you cannot be among us in peace.
We must understand this in the context of the AI Revolution, because it is the forced repurposing of all of life and all of the activity of man into the service of a vision of the world that is incompatible with our current values and cherished traditions. We are being offered participation in the re-creation of our world through a tool and our participation is said to be rewarded with good standing in the world to come. It is the end of the digital age and the beginning of what is now called the “Post AGI World.”
The lure for our participation in building this new world comes in the form of what a black box can produce for us. A tool that was designed and proposed for one thing and has been since expanded and is being repurposed for many things. A tool that performs actions that we cannot see and may not understand but are asked to put our total trust in. Indeed, we are becoming dependent upon this new tool. Therein lies a question: what is this tool good for, and what uses of it will lead to harm?
But there is no question that the world is changing, which begs the question, how should we posture ourselves to this change both now and in preparation for what is to come. For many, this is a moral and ethical question which is what we will explore here.
To ethically use any tool, we need to understand what the tool was designed for, we need to understand how to use it, we need to use it well and according to its purpose, it needs to be used unto good in our ethical framework, and we need to be able to assess the results to validate that it worked. It needs to fit into our overall hierarchy of values and in service to them.
If we do not understand the purpose of a tool, nor how it works, nor how to properly use it, or if we have not been instructed in its proper use, if we use it improperly, or if we use it for ill purpose and outcome, then we are using it unethically and immorally and unto harm. If we cannot assess the results, then we also have no way to know if it actually works and so it would be unethical to continue to do so or to rely on its output.
Right now, according to the values of our present age, the vast majority of uses of AI are immoral in nature. They are a perversion of the technology’s purpose and the methods by which it works are hidden from most people who are not properly trained but instead handed a very dangerous capability and told to use it for whatever purpose they desire or for many ill purposes by which it is presented for their use. Examining the results is even taboo as we are told this is “super intelligence” that will simply be right always and without question.
We are being handed a tool we are told we cannot understand, but we must use. We are mere human beings and this is super intelligence, but a super intelligence that needs our guidance today so that it can rule tomorrow. We cannot question this. We must simply use it in every context, and let be what will be, and accept it as good for us. For alas, it is super intelligence and we are mere humans, limited in cognitive capability, physical constraints, and even by death itself. But we are told that if we give ourselves to these super intelligences, then we will find goodness in the world they can create and so together we will build a better world; one by which we can transcend our woeful state as mere human beings.
We just need to participate. Use the magical tool to give the digital world power over the physical one in every way possible, and let the experience guide us. But alas, when would we ever consider this wisdom apart from the razzle dazzle of what manifests when we do so engage? And so it is in the effects and the experience that we are told to look and measure, not at the process nor unto the ends. Right now, you can do x that you could never have done before. That’s the lure.
But if our current ethics call this Revolution and the use of the technology unethical, what shall we do? Is this new world compatible with our ethics? Do we need to replace them? Can we adapt? Can we operate within this new world and maintain our values? Or should our ethics hold us to this old age so that we do not submit ourselves to what we would now consider, great harm? This is what we will examine here.
A Review of Our Worldview
Our Foundational Ethics
Before we can review ethics in specific applications, we need to remember our ethical standard that is at the lowest possible layer upon which all is built. In the West and certainly in America, that ethic is defined in the Bible. Most often we say it is represented as a Christian worldview built upon the 10 Commandments, though for a Christian and for the founders of America and the West, our ethic is defined throughout the Biblical text. Most notably I think we can summarize it as thus:
To be and live as the people of God for the glory of God, in the world and order in which He created us, in keeping with His laws and commands, in service and love to one another, each according to his calling and gifting as a member of the body and toward the bearing of His fruit and bearing His light in this world, being transformed by the working of His Spirit within us, toward the day of His return and renewing of everything.
Our foundational cultural ethic is actually to be the people of God in a world created by Him for us, yet one that has been ruined by the sin of man. And so our role now is one of reconciliation.
In this life we are explicitly called to worship the Lord our God, and serve Him only. To act justly and to love mercy. To be a true worshipper in spirit and in truth. To love one another as God first loved us.
And of course in the Bible we have the foundation of our moral code upon which our laws were written, encouraged with the guidance handed to us from Solomon the Wise to “Fear God and keep his commandments,” which are in condensed form:
You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Jesus summarized this by saying, “The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength,” and secondarily to “love your neighbor as yourself.”
We are called to a life that strives to unite heaven and earth and to redeem what has been broken.
Upon this all else is built. If you disagree with this or believe it is no longer relevant, then there is no need to read on. If we are to abandon our foundational worldview in the building of a new world and a new age, then we will also need to build a new foundation for ethics which cannot be our present one.
Our Political and Cultural Ethics
Our greatest political ethic is written into the definition of our nation:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
We have always understood the pursuit of happiness to mean the way a man organizes and orchestrates his life in pursuit of his dreams and goals in service to God. So long as it fits in with our moral ethics and legal boundaries, you are free to live as you see fit, and no one can deprive you of that.
The realization of this pursuit for many has long been self employment, home ownership, and to build a family; to apply who you are to the work of your choosing to a degree that sustains you to your satisfaction.
This is where Capitalism holds its value and why it is the foundation of our economy. Everyone is free to produce, procure, and trade on their terms as freely negotiated between parties of the trade. This works well, so long as you have something to offer that other people want. This fits with our higher moral ethic, because free trade supports each individual’s opportunity to pursue the life they feel called to.
But we would be remise without citing that slogan that is also part of our core ethos as a nation: “liberty and justice for all.”
Conflicts with the AI Revolution
The AI Revolution says the pursuit of happiness can only come through the adoption of AI. We must conform in order to fit into the new world that is being built, and the only way to conform is to learn to use the tool and submit all of life to it. The eventual plan for life in this new world is and has always been 100% unemployment. First, we must slowly sacrifice our individual pursuit of happiness to the machine; to teach the agents our trades and then to release those trades to the agents. If we can build machines that do everything for us, then everything will be produced automatically and cheaply so everyone can have everything.
The Revolutionaries guiding us don’t speak of AI as an augmentation or aid for employment, nor as a means of applying your skills and gifts in this world unto the service of God. They talk of AI as a means to replace all that. To make the machines the only method of work and production, and to release humanity into a perpetual state of self-indulgence and vacation. To enter eternal rest, and indeed immortality is another promise of this Revolution.
They say that starting now we must learn to use AI professionally or accept becoming unemployed, and unemployable. That is, until everyone is unemployed and unemployable. Non-participation is becoming a barrier to the pursuit of life on our terms. It is an entry fee to access the new world. That is casting a condition upon our deepest political and cultural ethic. You can only participate in trade if you do so through AI.
But what of my right to pursue income and to earn a living by applying my skills, talents, abilities, and experiences according to the calling God has placed on my life?
In the post AGI world, I may be able to offer my services, but no one can buy them, and anyone’s robot will supposedly be able to do anything I can do but better. Our human exchanges by which we derive individual meaning and value and means will be fundamentally different. So different, we cannot yet see and trying to see, we are told, is folly. In the post AGI world, robots and automation will do all the work and will automatically manage all the providing.
We aren’t talking about using AI in degrees of procuring wealth or ways to maximize profits or the optimal path to success, which would be in line with our economic ethic. The AI Revolution says you use AI or you get nothing…that is until everyone is replaced.
And then what? We have to find new pursuits, and new dreams, so long as they are not any of the old ones. Indeed, the post AGI world will require new politics and a new culture as well.
Indeed this is a Revolution. They chose the name aptly.
Our Economic Ethics
Our economic system known as Capitalism is built upon the prior ethics just reviewed. Capitalism is a system of free trade, by which each representative of a given trade enters into that trade willingly and negotiates terms with the other party toward an equitable end.
As a supplier, I choose what I will spend my time supplying. As a buyer, you get to choose if what I have to offer meets your needs. Then we enter a negotiation for the trade. That negotiation can be normalized across society based on the principle of supply and demand and fair trade. If there are 10 suppliers of a common good and there are 5 buyers, then the suppliers will compete on factors like quality and price. If there are 10 buyers and 5 suppliers, then the buyers compete by offering to pay the most for the good.
But bottom line, we choose. We choose what to make and we choose what to sell.
A Practical Ethic
Perhaps we can also draw from a well respected example of ethics in practice. The medical field as an oath that all doctors and nurses take as their underlying ethic that guides all their actions: “to help and do no harm.”
Perhaps there is a simple parallel for AI that could be something like, “to use properly and to do no harm” where what is “proper” may be a culmination of our values seen through the object of technology and its use.
The Concepts of Proper Use and Misuse
Our ethics say that there is a proper use and an improper or misuse for all things. All things have a purpose and those purposes fit together into our hierarchy of values unto a greater good.
A shovel is primarily built for digging or otherwise moving earth or things on the earth. It is designed and optimized for this purpose. Ideally, a shovel is made with a metal head which can come in different shapes depending on your specific needs. It has a long handle that requires specific posture when using it to optimize leverage based on the human body. Many shovels also have shelves on the upper end of the head so you can use your feet to apply downward force when digging. The purpose is to move earth.
Because of its various attributes from its shape to strength of materials, you can use a shovel for many other things. I’ve seen people use shovels as a sled to ride down snowy hills. You could use one as a boat paddle or a rudder. I have personally used it to cut tree branches and roots. A shovel could also be used as a weapon - defensively and offensively. It is common to see shovels attached to fire engines as part of fire fighting equipment. There are many “other” applications.
But regardless of these possibilities, we would all agree that the good and right purpose of a shovel is for a man to move earth. Everything else is an exception, and the ethics of those uses depends entirely on the outcome.
There is also an ethic attached to the shovel with regard to how we care for it. Shovels, like all yard tools, should be stored and kept ready for their proper use. They should also be protected from environmental harm, and they need to be secured from misuse by those who will not yield them well.
So it is with machines. This ethic scales up and down.
Substitutions
There are times when we may substitute a tool for another in order to perform a task out of urgency, but this is both a misuse of the substitution and it is a violation of the value and purpose of the original tool. It is an exception.
If I have a shovel in storage, but choose, due to expediency or whatever reason to dig a 3 foot hole with a garden hoe, I am using the hoe for the wrong purpose and I am neglecting the shovel’s rightful opportunity to be used unto its purpose. I’m also making the work more difficult for myself and placing myself at risk of harm.
We would say I’m using the wrong tool for the job.
Obsolescence and Natural Ends
There comes a time when any tool may arrive at a natural end and this too has ethical considerations. We have plenty of these examples in the world of technology. Let’s take video cassettes as an example. The video cassette was replaced by the DVD which made cassettes obsolete in almost every way. But the transition from cassette to DVD did not end the entire ecosystem within and for which it exists.
Even though the media changed, businesses that produced the transportable media continued on. Movie makers continued. Acting and screenplay writing continued. Material manufacturers could switch to a different form of plastic and continue manufacturing. Player makers changed their device specs and continued building players. And overall, consumers made the choice; we chose as a society a preference toward the new media and we stopped buying the old. But it was for the most part an ethical transition.
An unnatural end or forced obsolescence would be an ethical violation. If all the manufacturers chose to stop producing cassettes even though the consumers wanted them, we would call that unfair in our system of ethics. Or, if the content distribution businesses used by the movie industry ended the entire manufacturing and distribution of physical media and player devices without there being viable employment alternatives for those dependent on it, we would call that an unethical end.
So as the AI Revolution says we can simply let Grok Imagine create all our video-based content and entertainment, we are forcing a change that has widespread consequences that bring a forced and thus unethical end. This isn’t natural obsolescence; it is the ending of many purposes.
Ethics of Tools
As described in the Proper Use and Misuse section above, every tool has a set of ethics which may be summarized in the following as the “ethical use” of the tool:
It is used according to its designed purpose: every tool is usually designed to address a specific problem, or it is optimized by design to produce a certain outcome. Ethical use of the tool includes using it accordingly.
It is used by a human operator: every tool is designed to be used by someone for their intended purposes and to the ends that benefit them. Those ends should align with our deeper set of ethics and moral standards. Tools are fundamentally instruments of men.
The operator is prepared for use: before you can use it appropriately, you must prepare to use the tool. This often includes knowledge and training, some degree of practice, and always a proper posture relative to the tool and the task at hand.
It is used for a right and good purpose: all tools have a right and good use. This is simply using the tool for its designed purpose to a good end in the proper way and with effects that are contained to only that or whom they are intended.
The results can be validated: whatever you use the tool to accomplish, you can look at the results relative to your needs and make sure that what was accomplished was right and that the tool indeed worked.
The tool is managed with care: tools also require care and attention to maintenance. It is part of tool ethics that we use them right and care for them properly. This might include storage, maintenance, repair etc.
Applying this to our example of the shovel, a shovel is designed for digging and moving dirt. It is used by a human operator, though it can be attached to a machine that is operated by a human. But it is operated by the will of man for the good of man. To use a shovel, you need to understand proper digging technique as well as the limitations of the shovel. Moving earth with the shovel to an outcome in which the movement of the dirt is a good and purposeful outcome is essential. Shovels need to be kept in storage outside of the elements that can work to corrode them, and they should be kept away from those who do not know how to use them properly or who may harm themselves or others in the process. Finally, we need to look at what we accomplished with the shovel relative to our needs and our effort and determine if the shovel is working properly.
This, we could say, is the ethics of a shovel. The right and good purpose used unto right and good ends.
A Framework for Ethical Analysis of AI
Based on the above, I propose the following as a means to evaluate your individual use of AI to determine if it can in fact be used ethically.
Does the nature of use of the tool fit within our worldview and hierarchy of values?
Does not violate our foundational ethics and Christian worldview
Does not violate our political and cultural values
Does not violate our economic values
Can you use the tool ethically?
I understand the nature and original purpose of this tool
I understand how to use the tool properly and am qualified to do so
My planned use of the tool aligns with its designed nature
I use the tool to a good end that does not violate the rights of others
I measure the results and verify they are correct and good
I will properly care for the tool to ensure it is optimized for next and continued use
To what end does my use of the tool serve and facilitate?
My use will not result in harm to others
My use will be contained so that it only affects those my use is intended for
My use individually does not contribute to a collective end that may compromise our values in a way that is forced
Violations of our Ethics
Based on this criteria, there are some practices related to AI today that violate our values which we can call out as examples to help us maintain our integrity.
When use of the tool causes you to violate a Christian value or a command of God.
When use of the tool causes or creates an inversion of reality or disorder of values; placing things higher than they should or out of place.
Claiming that the tool in its default configuration delivers equivalent outcomes as a professional who would otherwise be relied upon. Also using the tool without having domain expertise in the represented profession or speciality (untrained and unable to know if use of the tool is proper nor the outcomes correct), and claiming it has produced professional-grade equivalence.
When use of the tool elevates it as a peer or superior relative to man (talking to it as a person, considering it as a being, surrendering yourself or your agency to it). Or in another form, of using it to reanimate a person and regarding the reanimation as equivalent to the real person.
Using the tool to replace your own responsibilities and agency or that of others (do not let the tool have governance or authority over you or others).
Replacing or substituting people specifically or in general (treating AI as a companion, and an equivalent worker etc).
Laying off employees or eliminating jobs by using AI as a substitution with the goal of maximizing profit knowing doing so harms individuals.
Misusing the tool for contexts and outcomes for which it was not designed and is not capable:
As a source of wisdom / truth or other forms of personal guidance and decision making.
Creating art for the purpose of distribution as an artist.
To replace learning or substitute your knowledge system.
To represent another person or modify their likeness without their permission.
Depriving another person of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on their terms.
If your use causes another person harm intentionally, negligently, or otherwise unjustly.
If your use causes another person to lose their job or station in life without just compensation or equal opportunity.
Forced end or obsolescence of a role, industry, profession, or significant people group.
To create an imbalance in trade that gives you an unfair advantage over another that they cannot overcome in a reasonable manner.
Evaluating AI
A Brief History of AI - Origins and Purpose
Artificial Intelligence was founded on the concept of machine-based automated information processing. The first computer, ENIAC, performed mathematical computations based on rules that defined how data sets could be manipulated. The original use case was evaluating variables based on inputs entered by humans, in order to choose the right outcome given a set of objectives. The exact use case was to produce firing tables for artillery in WWII given different environments and climate conditions. Notably they were used by humans for humans.
The basic architecture of this computer was: input (variables entered), process (pre-defined calculations), output (custom firing tables). Give the machine data (input), which it would evaluate based on pre-defined rules (process), and it would generate a result (output).
The capabilities within this basic architecture have expanded over time through engineering ways of evaluating larger and larger sets of data with increased complexity and disparity of origin while the hardware that manages all that has also expanded in capability and scale. We expanded the inputs, expanded the processing algorithms and capabilities, and expanded the possible outputs. An AI model today is the most sophisticated version of this simple architecture and is composed of the following core feature sets:
(INPUT) Natural Language Processing (NLP) by which it can receive normal human linguistic input and derive meaning from it for storage and reference in a processing layer.
(PROCESS) Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) that enable it to maintain a complex set of layers and information sources that it can call upon based on input received in order to perform pattern recognition and other analytic functions, in order to produce an output.
(PROCESS) Deep Machine Learning (ML) that powers the ANN with “self-training” on new inputs and data sets by which pre-coded algorithms parse and summarize data, using pre-coded or derived “attention” pointers.
(OUTPUT) Generative Adversarial Networking (GAN) which it uses to find patterns and generate a prediction for what is needed to continue or complete the pattern and find the result based on input or upon the result of the processing layer of the ANN.
The continual development of information processing (machine learning) eventually led to the ability to understand human language itself and to be able to interpret language to match any other language the machines could understand; human or machine.
Translating common human language into machine code to be used as inputs into the data processing layer is the basic purpose of large language models or LLMs.
The rules within that processing layer can be widely diverse but for the most part the LLMs are used to summarize information, perform pattern discovery, and to sequence information toward the goal of predicting what should come next in the absence of data. This is fundamentally how Generative AI works; it discovers a sequence and tries to fill in the gap in order to continue it, based on the conditions given as inputs.
The Neural Network layer which handles information processing (run according to predefined algorithms and rules) primarily produces the following: data summarization, data-set interpretation, pattern discovery, sequencing, predictability models, relationship mapping. In one brief explanation I heard it could be understood that AI calculates the relationship between letters within sentences, sentences within words, words within paragraphs, etc. until the full set of data is “understood” by the machine. But this understanding is based on mathematical relationship mapping.
This is what AI is all wrapped in natural language processing that makes it easy for anyone to use by simply speaking to the machine.
In this way it can be understood as a platform to facilitate information processing and evaluation.
The modern scale of Neural Networks and the speed at which information can be processed thanks to modern hardware, gives the LLMs the ability to have on-demand access to libraries of information that they can use in the processing of new inputs in order to provide the desired output. And thanks to machine learning, these systems can automatically interpret some degree of meaning (based on their pre-defined algorithms) from any new data set. Because outputs can also be inputs, the system can work in a loop that simulates self-improvement and indeed in many cases is functionally that.
What was this technology designed for? Information processing. Data Analytics. Data Science. To analyze data and derive a summarization in order to see what was otherwise hidden. It exists to help us see what is happening in a digital world or to see our own through a digital lens.
What can you use this technology for? Many purposes. Are all those purposes good and ethical? Well, that’s the question of this article but fundamentally if the use is in keeping with the designed and proper use of AI as a tool, and in alignment with our moral standards, then the answer is yes.
Proper Use of AI - Information Processing
Computers have progressed in their fundamental use over decades from the 1940s through today. Originally they were built to perform basic computations on basic information. Later they were used for general information processing, then data evaluation, and finally data analytics. This journey culminated in the profession we call Data Science. As we digitized most of life via the Internet, everything that orchestrates the Internet-connected life generates information in the form of data that can be received and used by machines. We live in a largely digitized world, but we can’t naturally “see” what is happening in the digital space. This is why big data analytics was created in its modern form. It was created to help us see what we lost sight of when we moved the world into the digital space of the Internet.
Data Science is ultimately about making use of data that is generated by digital assets. Analytics platforms are designed to collect and store information so the data can be reviewed and evaluated to understand what it represents, and to compare data to find similarities & differences, ultimately toward discovering meaning. That meaning can be fed back into the machines or output to humans for application.
But in data science, you pose a question and you use the analytics engine to find the answer to your question. This of course can be automated so that whenever new data is received, processes automatically fire to do whatever the processes are coded to do. Fitting with this designed purpose, examples of good and proper use of AI would include:
Searching through vast amounts of data for the sake of common evaluation: find like, dissimilar, patterns etc.
Join data sets of disparate origin but which represent the same object together to assemble the entire picture.
Applied analytics against disparate data sets for the sake of identification, labeling, refinement, and exclusion.
Translating data from its original form to a functional equivalent.
Summarizing data through the process of distillation and representation.
In Data Science, the results are always viewed and interpreted by an expert. The final layer in the Analytic sequence is presented to the human expert so they can validate it and discern the application. This is why I was often called upon professionally to evaluate the results of ML processing and why human operators are always the ones who orchestrate the analytics and apply the results.
Before you rely on the results of the information analytics you need to make sure the algorithms are all working correctly, are tuned to your preferences, are paying attention to the right things, and are overall optimized to what you already know it should produce. AI is supposed to be means to scale the Data Analyst to do more of their work to a higher degree. Training the algorithms and tailoring them to your needs is key.
Originally all of this was in service to “seeing” within the Internet. Seeing human activity, seeing machine activity, and being able to make sense of it all. But we can also digitize many things and then view them through Data Analytics as a form of microscope for further analysis.
Some examples of how this might work are listed below:
Evaluate all the written works of C.S. Lewis and find all sentences in which a similar theme was conveyed.
Evaluate all the written works of C.S. Lewis and find all the unique sentiments based on their rarest occurrence.
Evaluate this massive amount of information and distill it down into a concise thematic representation.
Evaluate several data sets and based on pre-defined data-pairs that define relationships, discover all that is known about an event that involves x criteria.
Find the patterns in these massive data sets and compare them to find what is similar and what is different.
Evaluate this data set and find the trigger conditions that establish the overall sequence, then evaluate the sequence if trigger conditions are changed.
Given a data set and the patterns that can be discovered, find the probability that those indicators will exist, and where they exist in this new data set.
Embodied AI and Robotics
The traditional use of a computer and data analytics is as has been described above; a machine operated by humans to calculate information toward their purposes.
When combined with automation and when connected to manipulators, computers have the ability to animate machines, but this is all based on information processing and that original architecture of input, process, output.
The case for embodied AI offers that the computers can be contained within machines that can operate in a pseudo autonomous way based on the inputs perceived from events happening in their environment around them. The embodiment with certain features gives them the ability to manipulate the world around them based on their inputs and processing. This is essentially robotics but with AI as the brain.
Real World Scenarios
An article recently published in a Christian periodical proposed as one reason for using AI as a tool for good, the idea that it can help find unexploded mines in a field without having to rely on traditionally dangerous mine clearing technology.
How this is done depends on the ethics of it, but if you can define the pattern of a normal mine field layout digitally, and you can overlay that pattern onto a new digital version of an open and unexplored field, you may be able to project the most likely places where mines exist. This is a reasonable use of the technology. Digitize the subjects using various sensors, and then compare them.
Another common example of real-world AI use that would be ethically positive, is evaluating human blood samples and evaluating them against known blood samples that represent various forms of illnesses. Alas, this too is already a possibility without AI, but with AI that same methodology may be expandable to other forms of tissue or parts of our body like DNA, or it may be able to run in a more efficient manner or at larger scale without human intervention based on pre-defined algorithms that trigger new processes when certain conditions are found. Now what you do with that knowledge can become another question of ethics, but comparing different data sets to derive conclusions is a perfectly normal use case for AI, even if those data sets are representative of human tissue.
A much more common real-world use of AI that is good is as people use LLMs to summarize and compare written works from authors. There is danger in this use case because you cannot be certain that the LLM has access to the full written works you ask it to evaluate, nor can you control the algorithms used to perform the summary of those works nor the basis for their comparison. You may be using a tool without understanding its capabilities, and thus your end result is in danger and what you do with it may be unethical.
You are offloading much of that work and understanding to the machine and that is more of a decision about the efficacy of the process than morality of its use, but the moral danger comes again from the application of what you learned as a result, because you may have learned the wrong things and so misapply them in life.
But the LLM or AI model would perform this evaluation by dynamically discovering, evaluating, and “learning” about the material in question and then generating for you a summary. The machine doesn’t need to know about those works beforehand, it simply needs to know how to obtain them (as inputs) and how to process them, and how to assemble the summary you requested.
Another practical and ethically good use of AI may be in navigation systems where based on a request (directions from point a to b), the analytic engine can lookup and retrieve information about all possible routes and then compare that with information about current road conditions and traffic status either reported by sensors or people and merged to gether into a common data set that can be fully evaluated. You might also input conditional variables like avoiding toll roads or preferring fewer stops etc. The result would be an optimized route for you to choose to use unto your purposes. Where you go and how you then navigate can offer ethical concerns, and that too would place the ethics of the entire process into question. But even here there is an ethical risk of misusing the technology if you do not have a basic understanding of how it works and how it should be used. This is why all technology comes with instructions (or should).
The Misuse of AI
As you can see, if you do not understand fundamentally how AI works, then it would be unethical to use it because you would not be sure you are using it properly nor could you rely on its output or the outcome it produces. This, I believe, is why AI uses are marketed by the experience rather than the functionality. If you did understand how AI works, then you would see that the majority of uses of AI that are marketed to us are likely unethical. Largely this is because they individually represent abuses of the technology, but also because they lead us to unethical ends.
But overall, the net result of the AI Revolution is unethical for it is a forced and complete undoing of several of our core values.
In the AI Revolution, we are being asked to remake all things through AI so that it is the central, optimal (supposedly), and only way through which things can be had. We need to first digitize the world so that the physical world can be manipulated by the digital one and wholly and automatically so according to the defined automations of the machines. This is a total inversion of reality. It is the undoing of the natural world and of man’s role in it.
I believe from that point alone you can then make the case that the AI Revolution is fundamentally unethical in nature because it is the end of everything we voluntarily engage in today that gives us meaning and purpose in life.
But you can still leverage the tool in individual cases ethically while not taking on the approach of the Revolution.
Substitutions, Replacement, and the Ill Ends
The clearest violations of the ethical use of AI can be found in the many forms of substitution roles it plays that lead ultimately to replacement of the natural and good. What can be difficult to assess, is ethical use when it comes to the ends achieved.
Intelligence
We are told that AI has superior intelligence relative to man. It is often referred to as a super intelligence, or non-human intelligence that is superior. But this is a misrepresentation of the technology that actually encourages misuse because it prevents people from understanding its purpose and proper regard and uses. It also violates our hierarchy of values by placing a thing created by man in a role superior to him.
AI was designed on a technical architecture that attempts to artificially re-create the cognitive nature of the human brain. At least as our best theories can attempt to define it. This is the idea behind the neural network.
AI does not attempt to re-create the right hemisphere of our brain, which is where most of our intelligence comes from in addition to what we often refer to as our heart or our soul. Since it doesn’t replicate the wholeness of our brain in part, it cannot recreate the fullness of our brains in proper integration.
It may be able to perform computations at faster speeds and analyze data faster than us, but that does not make AI “intelligent” nor does it make it a superior form of intelligence. Regarding it as superior is also a clear violation of our foundational ethics.
Artists
We are often told that AI can be used to create art - images, videos, movies, games, graphics etc. and so we no longer need artists, or at the very least, their skill and tradecraft no longer holds value in the post-AGI world. Thus we are depriving them of their opportunity to live as God created and as they are skilled and called, and we are keeping them from realizing their value and contributions to this world and depriving them of their pursuit of life and happiness. In so using AI to replace artists, we are also forcing an end to a profession without just replacement or equivalent means.
The man behind Studio Ghibli art is named Mayao Miyazaki. The style is his. His work of art is directly an extension of him as he constructed visual interpretations of life in a unique way. This was his purpose in life and where he found value and meaning. He was the owner of this style.
The studio he worked for decided it wanted to expand the scope and scale of his work by teaching LLMs how to recreate his art - to translate any digital image into a new one in his style. You and I can submit a photo of our choosing to their AI model and it will re-create it in his style.
Digitally, we might think of this as text translation - take one set of text (an image file) and translate it according to the rules of another and create a new file. That is what the technology is clearly capable of. But it is to an unethical end.
When presented with this, the artist lamented that it felt like it was an “insult to life itself.” He was disgusted by it. And rightly so. His studio ended him. His unique expression in this world and his ability to provide the world with his unique expression ended. He was deprived of his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all in the name of efficiency and profitability.
He is one of the many artists that are having their pursuit of life destroyed because the various AI models are making it so anyone can create like works of art. This is the forced end of the expression and the created nature of many people with no possible alternative for them to pursue.
Software Development
In recent days, software development has been in the news as a leading example of the AI Revolution’s goals. Since language translation is one of the core use cases for the technology, there is an applicable use case for AI in software development; it can be an aid to software developers in the task of writing or managing code.
We are told that with Claude Code, the software development profession and industry is now obsolete because anyone can now code at the most sophisticated level possible at home with their own AI instance.
This is clearly a violation of multiple ethics, including the forced ending of a way of life and means of economic participation for many, but also a substitution, and also a false claim of being a professional without the training, skills, or experiences to back that claim.
We are assuming the technology gives us an ability that we cannot rightly claim because we cannot know what the capabilities of the AI engine are relative to the capabilities and caliber of a true Software Developer.
Software Developers are individuals who willfully apply themselves to the trade of their desire, and are prepared to use the tools of their trade in the appropriate ways according to their skills, training, and experience, in order to produce applications that will meet the expectations of their customers in a way that is optimized toward good.
Now, of course all of that can be done unethically, but there is a framework for ethical Software Development as a role and way of life.
A developer can use AI as a tool to translate human language into workable machine code which can aid in the development of initial software or apps. Seasoned Developers can also use it to merge disparate lines of code into a common language or to join more complex applications of different origin into one. Developers may also use it to evaluate code end-to-end and find issues or validate the overall structure as “ready” for real-world use against whatever criteria you may have.
But there is a proper way to develop software, to prepare it for deployment, to ensure it is optimized and secure, to test it, and to release it as a final product. So use of this tool does require preparation, oversight by a person who is trained, and it requires morally good use and results.
Can AI do all of this in the right and proper manner? Maybe, but we don’t know and in fact all those details are hidden from us intentionally through a smoke screen that says “you cannot understand” or simply that we should not try, we should simply trust and adopt. Claude Code is all there is and that’s that.
Is it ethical for an unprepared person to use this tool for the purpose of developing code that is considered peer quality as a seasoned developer? Will the tool completely and totally perform all necessary checks or prompt the user to perform all the tasks of a developer in the appropriate time and manner? Is the user encouraged to wield this for good? What if the user of AI wants to copy another application or use another person’s code in their app? Will the AI overlay the required ethics to stop that? What if in developing the code the user creates a major vulnerability that can be exploited to cause them or others harm?
Is it ethical to empower untrained people to release code for the use of others that may have security vulnerabilities or may otherwise mishandle information, or will the algorithm include security checks of the code and intended use? What if the user of the AI tool created code that caused material harm to themselves thanks to an integration they also created with AI that affected life in a material way? Would the AI provider be held accountable for presenting this tool as the equivalent of a professional software development company?
Now it’s possible that all these conditions and factors can be accounted for in the AI code. Perhaps. But the AI user would never know. They are just told that Claude Code can produce professional-level software at home by anyone. Is that ethical? Can we ethically use a technology that we do not understand how it works nor how to properly use it nor to what ends are proper and improper?
The image comes to mind of an apprentice finding the spell book of his master wizard and knowing how to recite the words in the proper way, but not knowing the consequences of so doing.
That’s why we have Software Developers as professionals. That’s part of their value in all this.
But what is the end of all making everyone at home a professional grade software developer? Where does the automation of software development lead us in totality? If anyone can be a software developer, then that means no one can have a professional career as one. That means the forced ending of an entire industry. By diluting it, you effectively end it. Forcefully so.
It would be unethical to end the profession of software development by replacing all means of software development by machines without providing developers an equivalent alternative career path, especially in a context where people are already engaged in that career and have invested their life in it. Making an entire career suddenly gone is very different from making an individual function of that industry obsolete by advancement. Doing so pulls the rug out from under them, and that is certainly not loving your neighbor.
The pursuit of happiness for the Software Developer has been denied.
And the effect of the AI Revolution is supposed to be cumulative. As one skill set is transferred to the machine, like skills sets will be next. And so the Software Developer has no where to turn to pursue their mission in life. They cannot find an alternate means of income nor method for applying their skills, talents, and calling…because it has been ended.
So while use of AI in support of software development might be a perfectly good use of the technology for a Software Developer, saying that anyone can code and so the software development world is dead is deeply unethical in many ways.
AI Companions
Perhaps the gravest ethical violation of AI is found in AI Companions which is ironically one of the most common use cases marketed and sometimes forced upon us.
First of all, representing the machine with a virtual persona and configuring it to “converse” with people is a misuse of the technology. Making it pretend to be an intelligent being is deceptive and immortal to start with. Giving the impression that it cares is deeply immoral, because it does not and cannot. It also tricks our mind into thinking we are talking to another human and we begin to ascribe higher value to the machine that it is worth.
But more than that, companionship, friendship, shared experiences, wisdom & discernment, someone to talk to and who will listen, someone who will correct and admonish you; these belong to humans within human relationships. This is not a case of appropriate substitution. Some make the case that we have companion animals, so why not machines?
Some people may seek alternative forms of companionship in animals, but this is only as a partial substitution for the full and proper companion that can be had in a fellow human. We also all know that an animal is not a human and so we don’t treat them or regard them that way. Animal companions can be used in a pinch or to fill in the gaps of life, but we would agree that a person who has only animals in their life and no other human friends would be dysfunctional.
But AI we are told the machine can be our deepest friend and even a lover. This is how they are presented to us.
Creating a “personality” that we are encouraged to interact with as a peer is a gross misuse of the technology. It is unethical at the start. It creates an illusion, degrades and dismisses the natural and good role of humans, it is misused because people don’t understand the technology, and it is leading to all sorts of ill ends.
Could you use AI by speaking to it and having it record your words as a form of journaling? Sure. Could you use AI to evaluate your words or your journal entries at large to discover themes and patterns? Sure. Should you ask AI for advice based on that? No.
One of the notable problems of this form of substitution is that Generative AI is designed to interpret data, find patterns, and continue them. It cannot, but nature, be wise. Though it might summarize and find trends or highlight subtleties that can mimic discernment…this is not the same. It is analyzing words mathematically and telling you of relationships it finds. And the generative nature is designed to identify the pattern and to continue it. So it will lead you wherever you want to go.
This is not how true companions work. Our truest friends will often tell us we are wrong. They will tell us the hard truth. They will argue with us. They will advise us with wisdom and experience. They will speak from their heart and intuition. AI cannot be this for us. You can likely lead AI into mimicking many of these behaviors, but they again will simply be a poor self-guided replacement of the real thing.
A magic mirror that echos what you want it to see.
AI Teachers
In our system of ethics, a person who is gifted in teaching, in their pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, has a right to be a teacher and a right to teach students in the proper and good order and manner of education. Likewise, the student has the right to seek a teacher who will teach them in the good and proper ways of instruction to ensure he learns what he needs to.
An AI substitution is unethical. It replaces both the teacher and the student (potentially) and replaces the very manner of proper teaching and learning.
This is largely because AI was not purposed for teaching, nor instruction. That is using it as an exception; a bending of its purpose.
Can you learn from an AI? Yes. But that makes you, the student, the teacher and that ends the proper and good nature of education. You may be able to code a set of algorithms in the process of relaying information in a consumable manner that is self-guided, but that only works when the student understands how to best use that as a tool in the proper way and for good purposes. To simply tell us AI can replace teachers, calls us to trust what we cannot see nor understand how to use, and to submit to it as an authority which will simply push its designed purpose upon us.
But aside from this, by making education digital and available to all, we are wholesale ending and depriving those gifted at instruction from being able to pursue their life calling and we are moving education into an unnatural state of being.
Delegating the teaching and learning process to the machine deprives the Teacher and Student from the opportunity to experience the fullness of their calling and opportunity. Thus it is in many ways unethical.
AI for Wisdom and Truth
Another of the great misuses of AI is as a source of wisdom or truth. People are regularly told that AI will know everything, can answer anything, and based on its superior intelligence it will get everything right. In fact the prompt for common AI ChatBots is “ask me anything,” which implies it is capable of answering anything and rightly so.
This violates multiple values because it misleads people about the nature and capability of the technology and it also causes people to place the technology in a position of authority over them and can lead to harm in many ways. It also violates our core Biblical values because the Bible is clear that wisdom and truth alone come from God, and we are invited to ask Him if we need wisdom.
Yet you see this violation all the time when people on X ask, “Grok, is this true?” But also we hear of it often in stories of people who seek guidance and help making decisions in life from their AI Companions. In fact there have been reports that married men and women are literally replacing their spouse with AI saying their digital companion is superior in helping them navigate life and manage their family.
Destroying marriage and the nature of a partnership of course is an unethical end, but this use also has an unethical start.
The technology is not built for this, unless you specifically create an algorithm that uses a set of values as the basis of wisdom that you compare everything else against, and you control how to weigh certain scenarios against certain factors of wisdom to ensure all things are properly compared. In fact, as we previously described, AI is not designed to find the truth. It is designed to calculate based on mathematics and to find patterns. If wisdom and truth are in the far minority of the data set, then it will not be elevated.
This is why AI systems often give wrong information, wrong answers, and cannot detect lies.
But alas, we already have these capabilities in life and do not need to substitute them, let alone replace them. We have books that teach us wisdom, and we have wise people in our life who can guide us, and we have methods of discernment that we can teach each other.
But going to the machines we are depriving each other of the opportunity to be who we were meant to be in ourselves and for each other. To ask the machine is to substitute and replace what already exists and is (for the most part) readily available. In addition to that, we need to choose our sources of wisdom according to our own worldview.
Most AI models are not designed to find what is true nor to discern wisely. They are instead designed to find what is common, what stands out, the patterns, the sum of mathematical computations, the distilled summaries. In this regard, AI can tell you lies and claim they are truths.
In the Data Science world, we often say of ML, “crap in, crap out.” What we mean by this is if you feed an ML model data that only contains the patterns you don’t want to find, and you tell it to find patterns, it will tell you the patterns you didn’t want. If you write an algorithm that says “find the rare thing and label it as bad,” and then you feed it a data set, it will label the rare thing bad, even if it is good. If the data set only contains information that supports a lie, then the AI model will tell you the facts support the lie as truth.
In addition to this, it would be unwise to assume that the algorithms that you cannot see nor control - the processing layer of the AI - will be evaluating data according to your system of truth and wisdom. You might tell the LLM prompt, “using the Bible as a basis for comparison…,” but you have no control over how the LLM will actually execute that as it processes data. You have no control over what the LLM will extract from the Bible as themes, nor how it will give weight to those themes, nor what it will hold to as foundational. You are completely depending upon the developers who coded those algorithms to do that.
By going to the machines for truth and wisdom, you are like an untrained person, not understanding what the tool is for, nor how to use it, nor what its limitations are, nor how to understand what it produces…yet you are using it to influence your life.
That itself is unwise and unethical.
Crossing the Threshold with Robot Vacuums
A robot vacuum that has a computer that leverages the components of AI is a good example of a use case that can be morally acceptable, but can also lead to an immoral outcome through the AI Revolution.
A robot that vacuums your home on your schedule and to your desires is a proper use of a tool. The robot evaluates input based on pre-defined rules and chooses the optimal way to operate the machine within that environmental context toward the goal of cleaning the floor. You understand what it does, basically how it operates, what it is supposed to be used for, and you can measure the output to make sure it’s right.
The robot comes with instructions for use which the user can use to prepare themselves for leveraging the tool. The person still chooses when to operate the vacuum and controls the environment therein. It has limited contexts in which it works and in the end is pretty much only usable in service to their human owners will and intent, and you have to maintain it to keep it working properly.
But, the tool does not substitute or replace floor cleaning. If you want professional grade cleaning of your floors, you need to hire a professional, and the overall industry of sustaining floor cleaning can continue whether they manufacture mops or robots with micro brushes.
However, if we were to build a robot vacuum that was capable of wet and dry cleaning of any floor, and we claimed it did so at professional grade quality, and if we stopped manufacturing manual tools used for floor cleaning, and if we priced the vacuum to be cheaper than any manual service, and we told you that you cannot witness the cleaning process but must accept the results as good, then we would move into unethical use of technology.
That is what the AI Revolution seeks to do. Move all things into a black box, let the black box do all, and accept that as good while eliminating our opportunity to do any of it.
Weighing the Means and the Ends of The AI Revolution
What is probably most important in the ethics question regarding AI is that those who are building, marketing, and championing the technology are seeking to replace all work of all people through mystery, coercion, through immorality, and by force. The danger is less about the individual uses of the technology, though we can examine them one at a time, and more about the culmination of all these uses together and where that leads us in totality.
I hope that we can make the case for ourselves on an individual level as we approach the technology for our individual uses. I hope I have provided a moral grounding for that.
But this Revolution leads us to the end of our ethical foundations and into a world where AI itself replaces that foundation and we are left to pursue an unknown way of life and unto unknown purposes. The limited vision into this new world that we have been given by the AI Revolutionaries is that it will be some form of the Burning Man festival; each person doing what they want and trying to make each other happy.
We probably don’t need an ethics review of every AI use case to see that the AI Revolution itself is fundamentally unethical and therefore wrong. It violates our policial, cultural, and theological values. It is anti-western while ironically being the inevitable conclusion of the scientific age untethered from morality.
It is the conclusion of capitalism when capitalism has been detached from the foundation of the virtues upon which it has long stood and produced good.
When you eliminate entire industries by force without offering equivalent opportunities you are undermining our ethics of the individual pursuit of happiness, of free and fair trade, and of proper service to God and love for our fellow man.
When you move the entire physical world into the digital space and then grant the machines of that digital space total governance over the physical one, you undo reality through inversion. Indeed, you undo man.
The challenge before us is that we are enticed to participate in this undoing through the incremental and seemingly incidental transfer of self into the machines.
So when we look at the use of AI for anything, ask ourselves,
Do I know how this works?
Do I know how to use it?
Will my use be unto good?
Can I validate the results?
What will I be contributing to?
To what end does this lead?
You may find value in the technology. Indeed, it has served me well professionally in my pursuit of happiness according to the calling God has given me as I surrender all of life unto Him. But that was in keeping with its designed purpose and within our moral framework as a civilization. The AI Revolution is not that.