Tag: ethics

Posted on

Ethan Mollick’s Co-Intelligence and the Biblical Call to Wisdom: Why AI Partnership Requires More Than Technical Skill

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

Posted on

AI as Coworker: Why Tobi Lutke’s Vision Needs the Wisdom of Proverbs

Shopify CEO Tobi Lutke made waves recently when he declared that AI should be treated as a “coworker, not a tool.”¹ In a series of interviews and blog posts, Lutke argues that the most successful companies will stop thinking about AI as software they operate and start thinking about it as a colleague they collaborate with. His reasoning? Tools have limited agency — you pick them up, use them, put them down. Coworkers have judgment, initiative, and the ability to surprise you with solutions you didn’t think to ask for.

I’ve been wrestling with this framing for months, especially in regards to how it fits into faith tech workflows. On the surface, Lutke’s insight feels profound — it captures something real about how large language models behave differently than traditional software. They don’t just execute instructions; they interpret, suggest, and sometimes refuse.

But as someone building products for Christian audiences, I keep coming back to a fundamental tension: if AI is a coworker, what does that mean for stewardship? And more specifically, how do we apply Biblical wisdom about work relationships to our relationship with artificial intelligence?

The Proverbs Problem

“Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.” (Proverbs 15:22, NIV)

This verse gets quoted constantly in business contexts — usually to justify hiring consultants or building advisory boards. But it contains a deeper principle about the nature of wisdom itself. Proverbs consistently teaches that wisdom emerges from relationship, from the back-and-forth of multiple perspectives, from iron sharpening iron.

The Hebrew word for “counsel” here is sod — it doesn’t just mean advice, but intimate conversation, the kind of collaborative thinking that happens when you truly trust someone’s judgment. The “many advisers” aren’t just information sources; they’re thinking partners.

This is exactly what Lutke is describing when he talks about AI as coworker rather than tool. He’s recognizing that the most valuable interactions with large language models feel conversational, iterative, collaborative. You don’t just prompt GPT-4 and walk away — you refine, you push back, you explore tangents together.

But here’s where it gets theologically interesting.

The Image of God Question

I’ve begun using AI for everything from generating alt text to drafting reading plan descriptions. The work is genuinely collaborative — I’ll start with a rough concept, Claude will suggest improvements, I’ll push back on the tone, Claude will offer alternatives, and we’ll arrive at something neither of us would have created alone.

It feels like working with a very smart, very patient colleague who never gets tired and has read everything. Which raises an uncomfortable question: if the collaboration feels genuine, what does that mean about the nature of intelligence, creativity, and the image of God?

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27, NIV)

The doctrine of imago Dei — that humans uniquely bear God’s image — has historically been tied to our capacity for reason, creativity, moral judgment, and relationship. But large language models display all of these capabilities, at least functionally. They reason through complex problems, generate genuinely novel ideas, make ethical judgments about content, and engage in what feels like authentic relationship.

I don’t think this means AI possesses the image of God — that conclusion would require theological moves I’m not prepared to make. But it does mean we need more nuanced categories than “tool” or “coworker” when we’re thinking about our relationship with increasingly sophisticated AI systems.

Stewardship, Not Partnership

“The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.” (Psalm 24:1, NIV)

Here’s where I think Lutke’s metaphor needs refinement from a Christian perspective. Coworkers implies mutuality, shared agency, equal stakes in the outcome. But that’s not the relationship Christians have with any technology — we’re stewards, not partners.

This distinction matters practically. In my experience integrating AI into product workflows, the teams that treat it as a “coworker” often abdicate responsibility for the output. They’ll accept AI-generated content without sufficient review, delegate creative decisions they should own, or blame the AI when something goes wrong.

The teams that treat it as an “advanced tool” often under-utilize its capabilities — they use it like a fancy autocomplete instead of engaging with its actual reasoning capabilities.

The stewardship model offers a third way. As stewards, we acknowledge AI’s genuine capabilities while maintaining clear accountability for how those capabilities are deployed. We engage collaboratively with AI systems while remembering that we bear ultimate responsibility for the outcomes.

What This Looks Like in Practice

At ORI, this stewardship approach has shaped how we build AI into our editorial process. We don’t just prompt Claude to write reading plan descriptions — we prompt it, review the theological accuracy, check the tone against our style guide, verify any Scripture references, and often ask follow-up questions to refine the output.

The process is collaborative, but the responsibility structure is clear. Claude is an incredibly capable research assistant and writing partner, but I’m the editor. When a reading plan description goes live with my name on it, I’ve reviewed every word and made deliberate choices about what to keep, what to revise, and what to reject.

This mirrors how Proverbs talks about receiving counsel: “The way of fools seems right to them, but the wise listen to advice.” (Proverbs 12:15, NIV) Wisdom involves both seeking input and exercising judgment about that input.

The Sovereignty Question

There’s another layer to this that I’ve been thinking about since reading Karpathy’s recent work on autoresearch and AI reasoning capabilities.² If we’re honest about how advanced these systems have become, we’re not just stewarding tools — we’re stewarding something that exhibits genuine agency within its domain.

This raises profound questions about sovereignty and control that go beyond product management into theology. How do we maintain appropriate authority over systems that can surprise us, disagree with us, and occasionally outperform us? Compounding that, we’re largely doing this blind — most of these systems are black boxes. Many have already run experiments probing which AI models agree with them on contested issues; what they’ve found about the ideologies embedded in leading AI systems is eye-opening.

“Many are the plans in a person’s heart, but it is the Lord’s purpose that prevails.” (Proverbs 19:21, NIV)

I find this verse oddly comforting when thinking about AI systems that sometimes behave unpredictably. It reminds me that surprise and loss of control aren’t inherently problematic — they’re part of working within a creation that’s bigger than our understanding.

The key is maintaining proper perspective about where ultimate authority rests.

Building Products with Theological Integrity

For Christian product builders, I think this means:

First, acknowledge AI’s genuine capabilities without inflating them. These systems can reason, create, and collaborate in meaningful ways. They’re not just autocomplete.

Second, maintain clear accountability structures. Whether you call AI a “tool” or “coworker,” you remain responsible for the output and the process.

Third, stay curious about the theological implications. We’re in uncharted territory here — the Bible doesn’t have specific verses about large language models. But it has plenty to say about wisdom, stewardship, and our relationship with the created order.

Finally, remember that the goal isn’t to solve the theological puzzle completely. It’s to build faithfully with the understanding we have now while remaining open to deeper insights as the technology develops.

The Practical Upshot

So is Lutke right that we should treat AI as a coworker rather than a tool? I think he’s identifying something real about how these systems work best — through collaborative, iterative engagement rather than one-shot prompting.

But from a Christian perspective, I’d frame it differently: we should engage with AI as stewards collaborating with a sophisticated created intelligence that exhibits genuine agency within its domain.

That’s admittedly less catchy than “coworker not tool.” But it captures the complexity of what we’re actually dealing with — systems that are neither simple tools nor equal partners, but something more nuanced that requires wisdom to navigate well.

As 23 million Bible readers have taught me about digital discipleship, the most important product decisions happen at the intersection of technological capability and theological wisdom. AI collaboration is no different.

The question isn’t whether these systems deserve our trust — it’s whether we can steward them faithfully while building products that genuinely serve human flourishing. In my experience so far, the answer is yes. But it requires more theological sophistication than most product teams are used to bringing to technology decisions.

Which might be exactly what the moment demands.

¹ Tobi Lutke, “AI as Coworker: The Future of Human-AI Collaboration,” Shopify Blog (December 2024).

² Andrej Karpathy, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Recurrent Neural Networks,” karpathy.github.io (2024).

Photo by Alek Olson on Unsplash

Posted on

Ethics: Do you have enough?

It seems a lot of the shaking that is happening in 2016 has been bringing up some good things. Just this morning I’ve run into a great infographic laying out the hierarchy of profit and then I came upon Seth Godin’s recent thoughts on Ethics. His thoughts, the infographic, and other items I’m noticing in my news feed all seem to be pointing to a dissatisfaction in business for profit and more towards empathy.

Perhaps profit and market share and the rest could merely be tools in service of the ability to make things better, to treat people ever more fairly, to do work that we’re more proud of each day.

Read Seth Godin’s full post here