I’ve recently discussed Artificial Intelligence (AI) on several occasions. I refer to it as “so-called” AI because these algorithms lack true consciousness. They are statistical models that mimic human communication but do not understand the world as we do.
Today, I came across a post on Mastodon by a user named EngagedPureLand, who mentioned an article from Lion’s Roar magazine about an AI named “Sati-AI.” In Buddhism, “Sati” means mindfulness, and Sati-AI is claimed to be a “non-human mindfulness meditation teacher.” The article features an interview with Marlon Barrios Solano, the purported creator of Sati-AI, conducted by assistant editor Ross Nervig.
There are a lot of qualifiers in my language regarding this topic, particularly casting doubt on claims about AI and Solano’s involvement. EngagedPureLand’s response questioned the legitimacy of Dharma teachings by machines, describing Sati-AI as misguided and anti-Dharma. They argued it undermines traditional Buddhist practices, lacks genuine insight, and distracts from meaningful meditation work.
I agree with these concerns. Reading the article, I speculated whether Solano’s words were AI-generated. Perhaps someone at Lion’s Roar had used ChatGPT to create a politically progressive-sounding piece about an AI mindfulness teacher.
I was skeptical about Solano’s existence initially, but he is indeed a real person. The kind of language used in the article prompts my skepticism. Considering the high development costs of AI systems by companies like Google and OpenAI, it’s improbable a lone programmer could develop effective AI for mindfulness.
My criticism of Sati-AI is strong. While it may give competent advice by repackaging content from real teachers, it lacks the human connection crucial for genuine learning and support. AI’s attempts to replace jobs previously requiring human creativity have met mixed results, often with problematic outcomes, such as harmful advice or inaccuracies.
AI’s encroachment into various fields, including meditation teaching, is concerning. These AI systems, created by those who believe they are reshaping the world, often ignore their limitations and exploitative nature. For instance, questions about diverse topics can be input into Sati-AI, but its responses are general, repackaged information with no depth.
Solano admits that Sati-AI uses ChatGPT, describing it as a “meditation chatbot powered by GPT-4.” However, framing it as a dedicated meditation teacher is misleading. It’s essentially ChatGPT dressed up for mindfulness queries. Solano also makes bold claims about Sati-AI’s future and its potential for community engagement, which, to me, seems unrealistic.
Moreover, Solano’s assertions include over-the-top claims about Sati-AI’s capabilities and significant name-dropping to boost credibility. These tactics mislead readers about the AI’s abilities, suggesting impossible depth and spiritual understanding.
In summary, Sati-AI is not a unique AI but rather a clever use of existing AI technology, misrepresented as a specialized meditation teacher. The overarching issue is that AI, as it stands, can mimic but not replace the genuine human experience and insight essential in fields like meditation and spiritual teaching.
It’s vital to be mindful of the limitations and ethical implications of AI in all aspects of life. AI should not replace human jobs where empathy, experience, and genuine interaction are irreplaceable.