Ethan Mollick, co-director of Wharton’s Mack Institute for Innovation Management, has spent the last two years making a compelling case that we’re entering an era of “co-intelligence” — where humans and AI work together as cognitive partners rather than in a traditional tool-user relationship.¹ His core thesis: the most productive future isn’t human replacement by AI, but human augmentation through AI, where both parties contribute complementary strengths to problems neither could solve alone. This partnership model, Mollick argues, requires us to develop entirely new skills around delegation, collaboration, and what he calls “cyborg” thinking.
As someone building products for millions of users, I keep coming back to a question Mollick doesn’t directly address: if AI is becoming our cognitive partner, what does wisdom look like in that partnership?
The answer, I think, starts in Proverbs.
The Wisdom Literature Has Something to Say About AI Partners
“Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.” (Proverbs 15:22, NIV)
King Solomon wrote this about human advisers, but the principle extends. The Hebrew word for “counsel” here is sod — it means not just advice, but the kind of intimate consultation that comes from deep understanding of both the problem and the person facing it. It’s the difference between getting information and getting wisdom.
Mollick’s co-intelligence framework captures something biblical that most AI discussions miss: partnership requires discernment about what each party brings. In my daily work, I’ve watched this play out in real time.
When my team started experimenting with AI-assisted content curation, the first instinct was pure efficiency — let the AI scan, categorize, and recommend. Classic tool thinking. The results were technically accurate but spiritually hollow. AI could identify themes in Scripture but couldn’t discern why Romans 8:28 resonates differently for someone walking through grief versus someone making a career change.
The breakthrough came when we shifted to what Mollick would recognize as co-intelligence: AI handling pattern recognition across millions of reading behaviors while humans provided the pastoral wisdom about what those patterns actually meant for individual spiritual formation.
What Co-Intelligence Looks Like in Faith Tech
The Proverbs passage about counsel assumes something crucial: advisers who actually understand the context of your decisions. This is where most AI implementations in faith contexts fall short — not because the AI lacks capability, but because we haven’t thought carefully about what wisdom requires.
“The simple believe anything, but the prudent give thought to their steps.” (Proverbs 14:15, NIV)
Applied to AI partnership, this verse cuts both ways. We can’t be “simple” about what AI tells us, but we also can’t be prudent if we’re trying to solve everything ourselves.
This looks like AI identifying reading patterns — which passages get highlighted most, where people stop in reading plans, which search terms spike during cultural events. But the decision about what those patterns mean for product design? That requires human discernment informed by pastoral experience, theological training, and understanding of how spiritual formation actually works.
Mollick talks about this as “keeping humans in the loop,” but I’d frame it differently: keeping wisdom in the loop. The goal isn’t human involvement for its own sake — it’s ensuring that the partnership produces something that serves human flourishing, not just human efficiency.
The Delegation Problem: More Than Task Management
One area where Mollick’s framework gets really practical: learning how to delegate to AI effectively. This isn’t just about prompt engineering, it’s about understanding what kinds of problems benefit from AI’s strengths (pattern recognition, rapid iteration, handling scale) versus what needs human judgment (context interpretation, ethical reasoning, spiritual discernment).
“Commit to the Lord whatever you do, and he will establish your plans.” (Proverbs 16:3, NIV)
The interesting thing about this verse is the sequence: commit first, then act. In AI delegation, we often reverse this, we act first (deploy the AI solution) and try to align it with our values later.
I’ve been thinking about this in the context of sermon preparation tools. AI is definitely coming for sermon prep, and the early products are impressive from a technical standpoint. But most of them are solving the wrong problem by optimizing for content generation rather than spiritual formation.
A co-intelligence approach would start with the theological question: what’s the actual purpose of sermon preparation? Is it to produce content, or is it to help pastors engage deeply with Scripture so they can shepherd their congregations more effectively?
If it’s the latter (and I think it is), then AI partnership looks different. AI handles the research heavy lifting of cross-referencing commentaries, identifying thematic connections, surfacing relevant cultural context. The pastor handles the spiritual discernment of understanding their congregation’s specific needs, wrestling with how the text speaks to current circumstances, crafting application that connects eternal truth to daily life.
The Stewardship Question
This brings up what might be the biggest theological question about AI co-intelligence: stewardship. If we’re called to be faithful stewards of the gifts and resources God gives us, what does faithfulness look like when one of those resources is artificial intelligence?
“From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” (Luke 12:48, NIV)
AI capability definitely falls into the “much has been given” category. The question is what “much will be demanded” looks like in practice.
Mollick’s work suggests we’re still in the early stages of figuring this out. His research at Wharton shows that even sophisticated knowledge workers are using AI at maybe 20% of its potential, mostly because we’re still thinking about it as an advanced search engine rather than a cognitive partner.
But I wonder if that’s actually wise restraint rather than missed opportunity. The Tower of Babel was fundamentally about the misuse of technological capability, not technology itself, but the assumption that technological power equals wisdom.
In product development, this shows up as the difference between building features because AI makes them possible versus building features because they serve human flourishing. The stewardship question forces us to ask not just “can we?” but “should we?” and “to what end?”
Practical Implications for Product Builders
So what does this mean for those of us building products in an AI-enabled world?
First, it means getting serious about the wisdom question. Mollick’s co-intelligence framework is helpful, but it needs theological grounding. AI partnership isn’t just about efficiency, it’s about ensuring that our use of AI capability serves love of God and neighbor.
Second, it means designing for human flourishing, not just human preference. AI can predict what users will click on, but it can’t determine whether clicking on that thing actually serves their long-term spiritual formation. That requires human judgment informed by wisdom.
Third, it means accepting that co-intelligence is inherently messy. The Proverbs model of seeking counsel assumes disagreement, iteration, and the need for ongoing discernment. AI partnerships that work will feel more like conversations than commands.
In our recent experiments, the most successful AI implementations have been the ones that generate multiple options rather than single recommendations, that surface uncertainty rather than hiding it, and that make their reasoning transparent so humans can engage with it meaningfully.
The Long View
Mollick is right that we’re entering an era of co-intelligence. But I think the Christian perspective adds something crucial to his framework: the recognition that intelligence without wisdom is dangerous, and wisdom without love is meaningless.
“If I… can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge… but do not have love, I am nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:2, NIV)
Paul wrote this about spiritual gifts, but it applies to artificial intelligence too. The goal isn’t just more capable AI systems, it’s AI systems that help us love God and neighbor more effectively.
That’s a higher bar than efficiency or even intelligence. But for those of us building products that serve spiritual formation, it’s the only bar that matters.
The co-intelligence era is coming whether we’re ready or not. The question is whether we’ll approach it with the wisdom of Proverbs or the folly of Babel. I’m betting on Proverbs, but only if we’re intentional about what that actually means in practice.
¹ Mollick, Ethan. “Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI” (Portfolio, 2024). See also his ongoing research at OneUsefulThing.org.
Photo by Mindfield Biosystems on Unsplash