Evaluating Artificial Intelligence Through a Christian Understanding of Human Flourishing

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03356v1
• Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2026 17:08:29 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Artificial Intelligence Through a Christian Understanding of Human Flourishing
• Abstract summary: We show that current AI systems are not worldview-neutral.<n>Instead, they default to a SecularProceduralism that lacks the grounding necessary to sustain theological coherence.<n>These findings suggest that the performance gap in values alignment is not a technical limitation, but arises from training objectives.
• Score: 0.6690990520065306
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) alignment is fundamentally a formation problem, not only a safety problem. As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly mediate moral deliberation and spiritual inquiry, they do more than provide information; they function as instruments of digital catechesis, actively shaping and ordering human understanding, decision-making, and moral reflection. To make this formative influence visible and measurable, we introduce the Flourishing AI Benchmark: Christian Single-Turn (FAI-C-ST), a framework designed to evaluate Frontier Model responses against a Christian understanding of human flourishing across seven dimensions. By comparing 20 Frontier Models against both pluralistic and Christian-specific criteria, we show that current AI systems are not worldview-neutral. Instead, they default to a Procedural Secularism that lacks the grounding necessary to sustain theological coherence, resulting in a systematic performance decline of approximately 17 points across all dimensions of flourishing. Most critically, there is a 31-point decline in the Faith and Spirituality dimension. These findings suggest that the performance gap in values alignment is not a technical limitation, but arises from training objectives that prioritize broad acceptability and safety over deep, internally coherent moral or theological reasoning.

Related papers

• Empirical AI Ethics: Reconfiguring Ethics towards a Situated, Plural, and Transformative Approach [0.0]
  Critics argue that AI ethics frequently serves corporate interests through practices of 'ethics washing'<n>This paper adopts a Science and Technology Studies perspective to critically interrogate the field of AI ethics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-22T12:58:15Z)
• ANNIE: Be Careful of Your Robots [48.89876809734855]
  We present the first systematic study of adversarial safety attacks on embodied AI systems.<n>We show attack success rates exceeding 50% across all safety categories.<n>Results expose a previously underexplored but highly consequential attack surface in embodied AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-03T15:00:28Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• Measuring AI Alignment with Human Flourishing [0.0]
  This paper introduces the Flourishing AI Benchmark (FAI Benchmark), a novel evaluation framework that assesses AI alignment with human flourishing.<n>The Benchmark measures AI performance on how effectively models contribute to the flourishing of a person across seven dimensions.<n>This research establishes a framework for developing AI systems that actively support human flourishing rather than merely avoiding harm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T14:09:53Z)
• Exploring Societal Concerns and Perceptions of AI: A Thematic Analysis through the Lens of Problem-Seeking [0.0]
  This study introduces a novel conceptual framework distinguishing problem-seeking from problem-solving to clarify the unique features of human intelligence in contrast to AI.<n>The framework emphasizes that while AI excels at efficiency and optimization, it lacks the orientation derived from grounding and the embodiment flexibility intrinsic to human cognition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T18:24:34Z)
• The Superalignment of Superhuman Intelligence with Large Language Models [63.96120398355404]
  We discuss the concept of superalignment from the learning perspective to answer this question.<n>We highlight some key research problems in superalignment, namely, weak-to-strong generalization, scalable oversight, and evaluation.<n>We present a conceptual framework for superalignment, which consists of three modules: an attacker which generates adversary queries trying to expose the weaknesses of a learner model; a learner which will refine itself by learning from scalable feedbacks generated by a critic model along with minimal human experts; and a critic which generates critics or explanations for a given query-response pair, with a target of improving the learner by criticizing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-15T10:34:06Z)
• Dynamic Normativity: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Value Alignment [0.0]
  We find "alignment" a problem related to the challenges of expressing human goals and values in a manner that artificial systems can follow without leading to unwanted adversarial effects. This work addresses alignment as a technical-philosophical problem that requires solid philosophical foundations and practical implementations that bring normative theory to AI system development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T18:37:31Z)
• Position: Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment [109.57781720848669]
  We argue that the research community should explicitly define and critically reflect on "alignment" to account for the bidirectional and dynamic relationship between humans and AI.<n>We introduce the Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment framework, which not only incorporates traditional efforts to align AI with human values but also introduces the critical, underexplored dimension of aligning humans with AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z)
• Ethical Framework for Harnessing the Power of AI in Healthcare and Beyond [0.0]
  This comprehensive research article rigorously investigates the ethical dimensions intricately linked to the rapid evolution of AI technologies. Central to this article is the proposition of a conscientious AI framework, meticulously crafted to accentuate values of transparency, equity, answerability, and a human-centric orientation. The article unequivocally accentuates the pressing need for globally standardized AI ethics principles and frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-31T18:12:12Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
• Metaethical Perspectives on 'Benchmarking' AI Ethics [81.65697003067841]
  Benchmarks are seen as the cornerstone for measuring technical progress in Artificial Intelligence (AI) research. An increasingly prominent research area in AI is ethics, which currently has no set of benchmarks nor commonly accepted way for measuring the 'ethicality' of an AI system. We argue that it makes more sense to talk about 'values' rather than 'ethics' when considering the possible actions of present and future AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T14:36:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.