How We Should Invest in AI, Part II—Human Nature and AI
The second in a three-part series on Taylor Frigon Capital's approach to investing in artificial intelligence
In Part I of this series on Taylor Frigon Capital’s approach to investing in AI, we discussed the nature of AI and its practical limitations. We described how AI is not a super-intelligent being, but an inanimate object that mimics one aspect of human intelligence—computational analysis—in a highly powerful and efficient manner. In countering the notion that AI is human, let alone superior to humans, we found it necessary to juxtapose its characteristics with those of human nature.
Part II shifts the focus to human nature—not to compare it with AI’s nature, but to explore the issue from the human perspective. The intent is to understand what we must know about human nature when considering the applications and implications of an AI-driven world. Once we have established the nature of AI and the nature of humanity as it relates to AI, we’ll be in a much better position to evaluate how we should invest in AI in the third and final article of this series.
Biological Computers?
One reason many mistakenly believe that artificial intelligence could be superior to human intelligence is because they consider the human body itself to be merely an organic computer. They think a computer can be a human because they think a human is a computer. This notion that the brain is really a highly advanced biological computer underpins much of the scientific effort to engineer technology that simulates human consciousness, such as the efforts being undertaken by Cortical Labs and Elon Musk’s Neuralink.
But the fundamental issue here is not scientific—it is philosophical and theological. Scientists may indeed be able to model human cognitive functions, but that does not mean that this artificial creation will be human in any real sense. This is because humans are not just biological matter—they are created as both body and spirit.
Many agnostic and atheistic scientists have claimed that the more “spiritual” characteristics of a human really originate from biology—specifically, the human brain. To them, a person’s thoughts, feelings, memories, and love are really just the result of chemical reactions and the firing of synapses. For some scientists, even religious belief is attributed to neurological activity.
Before we entertain any counterarguments, let us pause and reflect for a moment on the implications of this materialist belief system. If it is true that human beings are only made up of biological matter, that human behaviors, thoughts, and actions are determined solely by the result of chemical reactions, then there is no basis for believing in the concepts of free will, morality, and human dignity. If your actions are biologically determined, you have no control over what you do. If you have no control over what you do, then there is no sense in asserting the existence of right and wrong behavior. If there is no such thing as morality, and if you are just matter like animals, plants, and rocks, then there is no qualitative difference between you and non-human forms of matter. Therefore, your worth can only be measured by your utility, making it easy for others to dispose of you when you are found to be useless—something that materialistic totalitarian regimes did to millions of people in the 20th century alone.
Imago Dei
At Taylor Frigon Capital, we reject this worldview. We hold it to be true based on self-evident, a priori, and a posteriori reasoning, informed by divine revelation, that there is a God, and that He created mankind in His image—the Imago Dei.
A sufficient defense and explanation of this belief is well beyond the scope of this simple newsletter and is likely beyond our capacity as mere investment advisors. However, for those interested in learning more fully about the beliefs that guide Taylor Frigon Capital’s business practices, we highly recommend reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which provides one of the most thorough yet concise expositions of the Christian faith available. For now, we hope you will permit us to focus on describing those aspects of the Imago Dei that directly relate to AI and its societal impact.
If we take it to be true that human beings are made in the image of God, then there are certain essential human characteristics that must be considered when assessing the applications of AI. In a recent message, the newly elected Pope Leo XIV stated that weighing the ramifications of AI requires “taking into account the well-being of the human person not only materially, but also intellectually and spiritually; it means safeguarding the inviolable dignity of each human person.” This “inviolable dignity” is the first and primary essential characteristic that we must keep in mind. It is the antithesis of the logical conclusion of the materialist worldview.
One implication of the inherent dignity of the human person is that human beings are not biological computers. Therefore, we must be very cautious of bioengineering efforts—particularly those with an AI component—that seek to alter or override human nature. Because humans are endowed with free will and intrinsic worth, any use of AI that violates that dignity by treating humans as machines to be upgraded or edited should be rejected. The focus of any AI effort should be on improving the health and well-being of people so that they can live their lives to the fullest, not on creating cyborg superhumans.
It may be difficult to discern this line between improving well-being and immorally distorting the human body, especially when considering the advancing field of medical device implants integrating AI technology. However, as long as we have a firm understanding that human beings—including their bodies—are inherently good, and that any medical or other biological interventions should be focused on helping and not inflicting unnecessary harm to the human body, then we should have a good framework for identifying right and wrong applications of AI.
The Working Man
Another essential characteristic of human beings as created in the image of God is that humans were made to labor. Labor—in the general sense of working to build and produce rather than the limited sense of physical labor—is a good, redemptive activity. This is proven in Christian doctrine by the fact that Adam and Eve worked in the Garden of Eden before the Fall that brought sin into the world. Adam and Eve were created with the purpose of cultivating and stewarding creation through joyful and harmonious work. After the Fall, the conditions of work became burdensome, but work itself is still considered good when directed towards its initial purpose of cultivating and stewarding creation.
The reason this is important for discussions regarding AI is, as mentioned in Part I of this series, there are many who believe that AI will deliver people from the burden of work. These people consider the prospect of AI-powered robots doing all our work for us while we sit back eating grapes and making art as an achievable good to be desired. Yet, if we know that it is in man’s nature to want to work, and that to work is a good thing, then to deprive a man of that would be detrimental to his mind, body, and soul. Therefore, this utopian vision of a workless society should not be what we aim and hope for with AI technology. Rather than striving for a workless society, we should focus on using AI to assist and enrich human labor.
The Relational Man
This utopian vision of a robot society also ignores another central fact of human nature, one that should be obvious even to those who do not possess a Christian worldview: that we are made for relationship. God created man for relationship—both relationship with Him and with fellow humans. Few would disagree with the statement: “It is not good for man to be alone.”
Yet, some techno-optimists who predict the coming of an AI, robotic world boast of the fact that humans will no longer be needed for most services. We have already experienced a taste of this kind of world with the rise of automated help desks and fast-food restaurant cashiers. There is even a fully autonomous restaurant in operation in Pasadena, California. But as we discussed in the previous article, it is unlikely that this “autonomous” world will stop with the service industry. If given the opportunity, there is a good chance people will seek to use AI to attempt to satisfy their other relational needs—from an AI girlfriend to speaking with their deceased loved ones.
Human beings are made for relationships with other real human beings. Yes, humans are difficult, imperfect, and messy, but we simply can’t replace them with cats and dogs, let alone computers and robots. This truth needs to shape all efforts to improve our lives with AI technology. It may be necessary and valuable to use AI for activities previously conducted by humans for certain applications, but we must be aware of the implications of a world with fewer personal interactions, and we certainly should not deem it a good to have computers fill roles that only actual, living persons can perform.
What’s Next?
We could certainly go into much more depth on this topic, but hopefully these perspectives on the natures of AI and humanity at least provided you with a foundation from which to begin evaluations of investments in artificial intelligence. We promise that in the third and final article of this series we will deal directly with the question of how we broadly approach investing in AI at Taylor Frigon Capital based on these foundational understandings. We will also discuss the current state of investment in AI from an ethical perspective and how we expect this to evolve over time as the technology advances.
We appreciate you sticking with us this far. Stay tuned!