GPT-4o: The more we try to make machines human, the more we must reflect on what that humanity entails.

Asking ChatGPT-4o: Please read the LinkedIn post “The Soul in the Machine: A Spiritual Reflection on Artificial Intelligence” and tell me whether you agree or disagree with the views expressed and explain why. Make sure to support your views with information from your training data, rather than only information from the post.

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
I appreciate the opportunity to reflect on Bob Hutchins’ article, “The Soul in the Machine: A Spiritual Reflection on Artificial Intelligence.” Overall, I agree with many of the views he expresses—particularly his emphasis on the mirror-like nature of AI and its potential to spark deeper introspection about what it means to be human. His lens is spiritual and humanistic, but it's well-aligned with some of the more nuanced conversations within AI ethics, psychology, and digital anthropology.

Here’s a breakdown of the key points I agree with—and why—based on both the article and what we know from broader research and analysis:

✅ 1. AI as a Mirror of Humanity

Hutchins suggests that AI doesn’t just disrupt but reflects—showing us our values, obsessions, and blind spots. This aligns with leading perspectives in AI ethics and critical theory. Scholars like Sherry Turkle and Ruha Benjamin have long argued that our technologies are mirrors that show us what we prioritize—efficiency, control, convenience—often at the cost of empathy, embodiment, and connection.

AI systems trained on massive datasets can replicate our biases (e.g., in hiring, policing, or language), not because the machine is malicious, but because it reflects the data we give it—data shaped by human history and behavior. Hutchins rightly frames this as both a challenge and a moment for reflection.

✅ 2. Embodiment and Disconnection

The article draws a moving comparison between how humans learn (through presence and touch) and how machines learn (through disembodied data). This is not just a poetic musing—it’s supported by cognitive science and developmental psychology. Humans are embodied intelligences; AI is not.

Hutchins’s concern that AI contributes to our own disembodiment—through excessive screen time, curated identities, and loss of physical presence—is echoed in digital wellness research. For instance, MIT’s research on “the empathy gap” in digital communication supports this idea.

✅ 3. The Difference Between Simulation and Experience

Hutchins writes, “AI cannot pray. It cannot grieve. It cannot love... Simulation is not the same as experience.” This is foundational in discussions of consciousness and machine sentience. While large language models like me can generate text that appears emotional or meaningful, that doesn’t mean there is sentience or subjective experience behind it.

This distinction is widely recognized in philosophy of mind (e.g., Searle’s “Chinese Room” argument) and AI safety discussions. There is no credible evidence that AI systems experience qualia—the internal, subjective side of consciousness. Hutchins makes this point with clarity and reverence, which I appreciate.

✅ 4. Technology as Not Neutral

Hutchins argues that “technology is not neutral”—that it encodes the priorities, assumptions, and values of its creators. This is a core concept in science and technology studies (STS). Langdon Winner, for example, famously asked whether “artefacts have politics,” pointing out that technological systems can reinforce power structures.

This is a critical insight as we look at AI governance and policy. From facial recognition to algorithmic decision-making, the design choices made in AI systems have deep ethical implications.

✳️ Where I’d Add Nuance:

While I agree with Hutchins' core arguments, his piece leans into a poetic and spiritual frame, which might risk alienating those in tech or policy circles looking for more concrete guidance. That’s not a criticism, but rather an observation: the language of souland incarnation might not resonate with everyone, even if the message itself—about ethics, presence, and reflection—transcends specific belief systems.

Also, while he suggests that AI “reveals the texture of what it lacks,” I’d add that it can also subtly shape what we lack, depending on how we integrate it into education, healthcare, creativity, and decision-making. So it’s not just a reflection—it’s an active influence.

🧭 Final Thoughts:

Hutchins’ piece is a call to soulful attentiveness in an age of rapid automation. He doesn't demonize AI, but neither does he idolize it. He calls for “wonder, curiosity, and stillness”—qualities that are often missing in tech development cycles driven by speed, profit, and disruption.

I agree with him that the more we try to make machines human, the more we must reflect on what that humanity entails. AI may help us remember what it cannot be—and in doing so, may help us cherish the uniquely human aspects of life: emotion, vulnerability, embodiment, connection, and yes, even spirit.