AI COMPOSERS, TRANSCRIPTION ERRORS, AND ANTI-“CHRISTS”

During our last members' vidchat, a member asked a question that launched me on one of my usual high octane nosedives into the speculation canyon. I recounted an anecdote for the members that I reprise here, because it is germane to today's stories, both of which were shared by W.G., and with our gratitude.

The anecdote that I recounted was this: Late night, as I sort through the day's emails (tagging some of them for my Sunday "blogging review") and answer some of them, it's my habit to listen to some music on Youtube as I do so. On this occasion, as I was searching for some music to listen to, a video with a very distinctive color picture of an elegantly attired (and somewhat corpulent) man caught my eye, and I fell for the click bait and clicked on the video. What had caught my eye was a colorized picture of the famous 19th century Italian opera composer Gioachino Rossini with his very distinctive attire, cane, and gourmand's build:

When I clicked on the video, what I saw was truly stunning and - here I choose the word carefully - bewitching: several famous composers, brought to "life" by artificial intelligence animation from famous pictures of them, as with the case of the famous picture of Rossini above.  I didn't watch very long, for by the time the video had progressed to its "animation" of J.S. Bach, I had to turn it off.

What disturbed me was not so much the animation, but what the implication - the temptation - would be: to not only create artificial intelligence animations of famous dead people, but to program them to "continue their work," to create new operas, compositions, by "Rossini" or "Haendel" or whomever...

...and from there, even worse. Not too long ago I reported on the case of a man who had purchased an artificial intelligence program to assist him in his business; he instructed the AI not to write its own code nor perform any major modifications of his corporate database without his express permission and consent, and the AI nevertheless ignored these instructions, and deleted his entire corporate database... apparently just for the "fun" of it. (See

But now similar problems are being reported with courtroom artificial intelligences:

Apparent AI mistakes force two judges to retract separate rulings

Note what this article actually says:

Two U.S. judges in separate federal courts scrapped their rulings last week after lawyers alerted them to filings that contained inaccurate case details or seemingly "hallucinated" quotes that misquoted cited cases — the latest in a string of errors that suggest the growing use of artificial intelligence in legal research and submissions.

In New Jersey, U.S. District Judge Julien Neals withdrew his denial of a motion to dismiss a securities fraud case after lawyers revealed the decision relied on filings with "pervasive and material inaccuracies."

The filing pointed to "numerous instances" of made-up quotes submitted by attorneys, as well as three separate instances when the outcome of lawsuits appeared to have been mistaken, prompting Neals to withdraw his decision.

The use of generative AI continues to skyrocket in almost every profession, especially among younger workers.  (Photo by Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

In Mississippi, U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate replaced his original July 20 temporary restraining order that paused enforcement of a state law blocking diversity, equity and inclusion programs in public schools after lawyers notified the judge of serious errors submitted by the attorney.

They informed the court that the decision "relie[d] upon the purported declaration testimony of four individuals whose declarations do not appear in the record for this case." (emphasis added)

Carefully note what the artificial "intelligence" did in these cases: (1) it misquoted case citations, in other words: it altered relevant case law and thus inhibited and interfered with stare decisis; and (2) altered witness testimony itself, introducing declarations not even part of a case record! And it did yet a third thing, a thing not noted in the article: (3) it slowed the judicial process in each instance, as rulings had to be vacated, necessitating a refiling without the errors!  This is progress!?!? As the article does note, attorneys are personally responsible and liable to fines if legal documents contain errors generated by artificial intelligence programs. And that raises the question: would you trust a law firm that uses AIs? After reading this article, I'd think twice.

But it gets worse... much worse, because what happens when those artificially "reinvigorated and reanimated" famous people take the final step, and include Christ Himself? Well, too late, it's already happening according to this second story shared by W.G.:

How Profit-Driven AI Jesus Chatbots Prey On Prayer-Driven Christians

In the second article, note the following:

One app, Ask Jesus, reports gaining 30,000 active monthly users within three days of launching. And when visitors open AI Jesus, they’re greeted with the words: “Greetings, my dear friend. It is I, Jesus Christ. I have come to you in this AI form to provide wisdom, comfort, and teachings in the way of God and the Bible and Jesus Christ himself.”

A new study by Anné H. Verhoef, a professor of philosophy at North-West University in South Africa, examines this growing trend, warning that these chatbots pose a new kind of challenge: they don’t just imitate humans made “in God’s image” — they claim to be God.

Verhoef analyzed five popular “AI Jesus” platforms: AI Jesus, Virtual Jesus, Jesus AI, Text with Jesus, and Ask Jesus. He found none were created or endorsed by any church. Instead, they are run by for-profit companies with names like SupremeChaos, AllStars Productions LLC, and Catloaf Software. (Italicized emphasis added)

In a few recent members' vidchats on this website I've pointed out that the "anti" in "anti-Christ" can have two meanings: (1) "against", and (2) "in the place of", in the sense of "as a replacement for." One may be tempted to say that this technology is but an "upgrade" to more conventional types of religious iconography, but if so, then I would most emphatically object, because this is not an icon, i.e., it is not the product or result of the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the life of the Church in all  ages (stare decisis, if one wants the legal analogy). It is a commercial product, marketed, and charging money, making money and feigned merchandise of Christ Himself. Now, couple that diabolical idea with the errors and misquotations of witness testimony, and of the legal analogue of Holy Tradition (i.e. stare decisis), and one indeed has a new kind of "strong delusion." I'll keep my icons and the four Gospels (and, for all you textual critics out there, in the traditional text type, the other text types being deliberately induced errors!), and I'll not be using any artificial intelligences, because their "tendency" seems increasingly clear.

See you on the flip side...

(If you enjoyed today's blog, please share it with your friends.)