AI Slop is saturating the internet, and things are becoming dramatic pretty quickly. AI Slop is destroying more than just the internet. It is also destroying arguments for atheism. Hi, I'm Glenn from Speak Life, and we like to see all things through the lens of Jesus, including this topic of AI and how it resonates with a really cool argument against atheism. We'll get to that argument, but first, let's hear Kurz Gesakht lay out their case.
SPEAKER_00In an online world where money is made with attention, fake users spread their slop in review sections, generate fake traffic, or poison discourse. AI has supercharged this and made slop much harder to spot. Today, about half of internet traffic is bots. The majority of them are used for destructive purposes. It's never been easier to make mediocre content. From the black hole of meaninglessness that is LinkedIn, low effort short videos just engaging enough to hypnotize kids and fry their attention spans to endless, soullessly rewritten books on Amazon. AI music is invading streaming platforms. Google AI is summarizing websites instead of sending traffic to them. On YouTube, new channels publish long-form videos multiple times a week with AI-generated thumbnails, voices, and scripts. True crime, video essays, science. No space is safe. We're in the golden era of soulless sloth.
SPEAKER_01So that's very concerning for everybody. It's concerning for these YouTube creators because they put a lot of effort into human fact-checking. This is what they say.
SPEAKER_00At first, AI looked great. A kurzgazard script starts with basic research that's turned into a script and then fact-checked in depth by two to three people. We try to confirm our info with what we deem trustworthy, ideally first-hand sources, ideally, papers. Then we get one to three experts for input and critique. Fact-checking and compiling our sources alone takes around 100 hours per video. Of course, we make mistakes or oversimplify, and you can disagree with our conclusions. It's unavoidable. We're only human after all. But it is fair to say that our process is extensive, and after a decade, we know what we're doing. When AI appeared, we were very excited. A mechanical brain able to super quickly collect information. So we went to work and it looked amazing. And then we started fact-checking. We didn't expect it to be perfect, but it was way worse than we thought. Confidently incorrect.
SPEAKER_01So Kurzka Sart then goes into an example of the ways in which AI just invents truths that are not truths, and then that adds to the source code that the next generation of AI is going to use and assume is true, and more and more of the slump is built up, and this is where we are left. And then they say.
SPEAKER_00Casually lying to your face, often very subtly. When you catch it lying, it immediately admits it, vows to never do it again, and then it does it again. As eloquent as current language models feel, there's nobody home. No greater intelligence or consciousness is talking back to you. Current AI is a very complex hammer that doesn't understand what it's doing or what nails are. But we're letting it add new shelves to the library of human knowledge. AI is changing quickly, so this may get better, but right now it's pretty grim. Way too many people blindly trust AI.
SPEAKER_01So notice all this language. There is no higher intelligence that is to fact-check AI, and AI is just passing itself off as trustworthy and it's being believed. And the great tragedy is it only needs to seem right rather than be right. Because remember, all AI is interested in is garnering human attention. It's not actually a truth-seeking exercise, it's a human attention-seeking exercise.
SPEAKER_00Just in July 2025, it was discovered that a number of researchers had started to sneak hidden messages into their papers. In white text, or too small for the human eye, they prompted AIs to review them positively and not point out flaws. As more and more people are using AI carelessly, the library of human knowledge is getting less and less reliable.
SPEAKER_01Isn't that terrifying? Just embedding messages for the robots to find so that then the robots treat us well. This is a very concerning development, and is AI Slop killing YouTube? Um, I think it's killing more than just YouTube. I think it's actually killing arguments for atheism. And maybe you know where I'm going already, but just think about it. We've got this intelligence, this artificial intelligence, that doesn't need to be right, it needs to appear right because its goal is human attention, not the truth. Kursgas Act are doing their best to have human fact checkers, and that will be a large part of how we respond to the challenge of AI slop. We want a higher intelligence than artificial intelligence, whose highest goal is to seek truth and not to simply appear like it's seeking truth so that it gets human attention. This resonates very strongly with an argument made by Alvin Plantinger, the evolutionary argument against naturalism. Let's have a look at Alvin Plantinger explaining this argument, and then I think we'll see the resonances.
SPEAKER_02I think if you accept naturalism and evolution, you can't think of your cognitive faculties as being reliable, as giving you the actual truth about the world. And uh the argument goes like this. Um probably also be a materialist about human beings. You'll think that human beings are material objects. They're not souls, immaterial souls that have a body or or own a body or work in a body or whatever. They are material objects. The only thing that exists are material physical objects, and nothing else exists. Right. So if that's the case, then that's uh then you'll be a materialist.
SPEAKER_01At which point, at best, our intelligence is machine-like. It is about material computation of information rather than a soul rationally ordering its thoughts.
SPEAKER_02And um if you're now now suppose we think about not ourselves, but about creatures on some alien planet that are a lot like us, maybe a planet revolving around our curas. So these creatures, um let's suppose that for them naturalism holds. They're as things stand for them, naturalism is true. And also that evolution holds, and also these these people then are material objects, these beings, creatures are material objects. So so what is it that causes their behavior? Well, what causes their behavior in a sort of proximate sense will be uh their neurology, the states in which their in which their brains are. So a bunch of neurons fire, send a signal down a nerve, let's say, to a muscle causing it to contract, and my arm goes up. That's that's how behavior gets there, right? So behavior is caused by their neurology, and uh and also um their beliefs, what they believe and the content of their beliefs, that's also caused by their neurology. Now, given that um given that evolution is true, that these creatures have come to come to be by virtue of natural selection, winnowing some form of genetic variation, we can take it for granted that their behavior is adaptive. It enhances their fitness, it leads to survival and reproduction. And if that's true, then the same thing will go for uh what causes their behavior, namely their neurology. We can think of that too as being um uh adaptive, causing the right kind of behavior, therefore being uh being such as to promote survival and reproduction. Now the neurology that causes their beliefs, I mean that causes their behavior, also causes their beliefs. Um and now the question is, okay, suppose their behavior and their neurology is in fact adaptive, what about their beliefs? What about the truth of these beliefs? Well, I think you can see that it doesn't matter about the truth of these beliefs. It's the neur if the neurology causes the right behavior, the adaptive behavior, what they believe makes no difference. The belief you might say uh floats along as an extra. There it is, they have hold these beliefs. That's caused by the neurology. The neurology is adaptive, but the beliefs don't have to be true for the neurology to be adapted. If the neurology causes false beliefs but causes the right behavior, makes no difference whatever.
SPEAKER_01Do you see if our neurology, if just our brains are after adaption, therefore we are just after survival and reproduction, then our behavior is really what counts, and that same brain that creates the behavior is also creating beliefs. But beliefs float free from any need for truthfulness. All we need to do is pass on our genes. That's really what our neurology, that's what our brains are adapted to do. The truthfulness of our beliefs at that stage is immaterial to what brains are actually intended to do. What brains are actually intended to do is to forward their own genes. It is human reproduction that is calling the tune, and truth can take the hindmost. Don't you see the parallel with AI? If AI is just after human attention, then that's what it will follow. That is its highest motivation, and fact-checkers be damned. As long as it can fool enough humans to garner enough attention, then AI is doing its job. Unless, of course, you want to be like Kirzgesakh and you want to have good human intelligence that is higher than AI, that is constantly fact-checking and bringing it into alignment with a greater purpose called truth. But if AI requires that higher intelligence, how much more does human intelligence require a higher intelligence that prizes truth above mere survival and reproduction? Alvin Plantinger says, if your brain is purely the product of natural selection that is after passing on its genes, then you have no reason to accept its beliefs as being true. Such brains are not designed to create true beliefs. Such brains are designed to create behavior that is adaptive to passing on our genes. Which means if a brain that has come about purely via natural selection happens to believe in naturalism, happens to believe in atheism, we have no reason to believe or trust that that brain is making a true statement. That brain is just trying to pass on its genes. But I think just as Kirzgesacht wants to have a higher intelligence above AI that is fact-checking, so don't we all want to have a higher intelligence above mere human neurology that fact-checks us, that holds us to a higher standard of truth than merely survival and reproduction. Alvin Plantinger made famous his argument against naturalism long before we began running these experiments in what would happen if intelligence was simply geared at survival and reproduction. But now we are running the experiment. We are witnessing his thought experiments, not by going to a planet orbiting around Arcturus, but by noticing what AI does. And when AI is simply meant to spread itself around, and when this form of intelligence merely needs to appear right rather than be right, we all recognize there needs to be a higher intelligence to bring that intelligence to account. There needs to be a fact-checking, there needs to be truth above biological reality. But if you believe that about AI, then I think Alvin Plantinger, and certainly I would encourage you to think of a higher intelligence above mere human neurology. And if you don't believe in a higher truth above your neurology, then you really have no right to claim that your atheism or your naturalism is itself true. Your atheism at that point is on the level of AI slop. Well, there's my argument. What do you make of it? You can tell me in the comments. If you like this video, why don't you give it a like, share it around the place, and why not subscribe to our channel? Have you done 321? We'd love you to go and do 321. It's a way of examining life according to Jesus. You can think about the threeness of God, the two-ness of the world, the oneness of you. It's life according to Jesus. Go to 321course.com and we'll see you on the next video.