Can Artificial Intelligence Understand Goodness?
This article reflects on key ques-
tions in the AI debate pertaining
to morality and ‘goodness’
“AI For Good”? – A Moral Reflection
by Dr. Sarah Buckland-Reynolds
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has infiltrated almost every sphere of human life over the past few years. The technology has sparked discussions from all fields of thought, from the sciences to the labour force, to psychology and even ethics and philosophy. This month, between July 7–10, 2026, the discourse will continue in Geneva, Switzerland, where the United Nations will host the “AI for Good Global Summit” through its leading platform on artificial intelligence. This year would signal the 9th year of such an event, established by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in 2017.
The 2026 summit has attracted significant attention, now partnering with over 50 UN agencies and convening more than 100 exhibitors. The title of the conference warrants reflection on what standards of ‘good’ do these future innovators aim to uphold. A clue could be taken from its 2026 theme: “Unlock AI’s potential to serve humanity through building skills and standards, and advancing partnerships to solve global challenges”, which emphasizes ‘skill-building’, ‘standards’ and ‘solutions’ as the directional definition of the goal ‘for good’. In this article, we reflect on the impact of AI, its continued implications on the intelligent design debate, and whether these goals are enough to ensure the ‘good’ use of this broadly used technology.
AI For Good: Supplement or Superior to Human Intelligence?
One of the conference’s themes this year is to “unlock AI’s potential to serve humanity through building skills….” It has been claimed from various peer-reviewed articles within the last five years that AI has matched human cognition in various narrowly defined tasks. Here is an example from Cornell University:
Can LLMs like GPT-4 outperform traditional AI tools in dementia diagnosis? Maybe, but not today (Wang et al), Cornell University (June 2, 2023). This article says,
“Recent investigations show that large language models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, not only have remarkable capabilities in common Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks but also exhibit human-level performance on various professional and academic benchmarks. However, whether GPT-4 can be directly used in practical applications and replace traditional artificial intelligence (AI) tools in specialized domains requires further experimental validation.”
Other publications echo “increasing concerns about the possibility that machines could control or dominate humanity and, thus, the tension between human intelligence and machine intelligence.”
Despite these claims, the results on broad measures of intelligence, ethics and morality still show that humanity possesses unique skill sets that are difficult or even impossible to replicate on a machine. For example, a 2021 study titled, Intelligence Augmentation: Towards Building Human-Machine Symbiotic Relationship (Zhou et al), reflecting on theories of intelligence stated that:
“…humans generally surpass machines in linguistic, interpersonal, creative (or experiential), and contextual (or practical) intelligence. On the other hand, machines can surpass humans in some logical/mathematical and analytical intelligence areas.”
With all the rapid advances made in AI technologies, the fact that AI origins, servicing and programming depend on human input means that even if AI surpasses humans in narrow benchmarks, AI will remain only a mirror of human ingenuity. It is trained using human language and syntax, and robots are modeled on human muscle coordination.
Yet, as many exhibitors continue to demonstrate, these systems often fail when compared to the dexterity and adaptability of the human body and mind. Further to this, being a machine, even with efficient outputs, AI cannot replicate conscience, wisdom, or moral discernment. This reality is a direct challenge to evolutionary thinking. Far from proving that intelligence emerges randomly, AI applications testify that intelligence must first exist before it can be replicated.
More on the Moral Dimension of “Good”
In discussing the very title of this summit: ‘AI for good,’ a moral dimension is implied. While the goal of ‘good’ and not harm is valid, it is important that the moral dimension be clarified. Without clarity, “good” risks becoming a malleable slogan, shaped by whoever controls the technology.
For instance, let us examine surveillance as a case study. AI monitoring can be useful in some circumstances, for example, to detect security breaches. One of the 2026 AI for Good exhibitors AironWorks describe themselves as an “AI Agent platform for cybersecurity & resilience.” In this context, monitoring is protective, detecting breaches, and safeguarding systems.
However, monitoring in other contexts and scales may have implications on other God-given rights such as privacy and freedom. As a counter example, would AI creators advocate for a ‘common good’ where constant surveillance becomes the norm, at the violation of privacy? Worse, authoritarian regimes could weaponize these same capabilities to enforce their will on the populace. What begins as “protection” could morph into oppression.
With the popular societal view of relativism, would it be that whoever controls AI technologies (be it government or private sector), ‘controls the shots’ of what is deemed as ‘good’?
The Importance of Standards versus Relativism
Treating this problem requires a level of trust that AI engineers themselves are morally grounded in a standard of right versus wrong that will not threaten the freedoms we know and enjoy today. In today’s culture of subjective morality, a tool as powerful as AI could present distinct risks at large scales if “good” is defined by those who wield AI (whether governments or corporations). This would then mean that “good” becomes whatever the powerful decree it to be.
Without objective standards for AI governance, the retrogression of human rights may be alarmingly rapid. For example, algorithms for otherwise ‘innocent’ platforms like TikTok, could be repurposed to manipulate public opinion or suppress dissent. For developers, whose worldview is shaped by Darwinism or materialism, then morality is reduced to survival or utility. In such frameworks, rights are not sacred but negotiable. Privacy, freedom, and dignity could be sacrificed if deemed expedient.
By contrast, a Christian worldview anchors morality in God’s character. Human beings are created in His image, endowed with dignity and rights that cannot be overridden by technological convenience. From this perspective, “good” is not relative, rather, it is defined by justice, compassion, stewardship, and respect for human freedom.
Further complexities arise in the context of machines that are being trained to self-serve updates with limited human intervention. Yet, this capacity to autonomously update creates further issues as, unlike humans, AI has no conscience and cannot discern between right and wrong in executing their updates.
The implications of these have been apparent in recent studies that have shown that AI systems can be manipulative (even to their creators), subtly shaping decisions through persuasive algorithms. For instance, in an article titled: AI-powered recommender systems and the preservation of personal autonomy (Ignacio del Valle and Lara), AI and Society (21 July 2023), showed that AI-powered recommendation engines can exploit human psychology, nudging choices in ways that undermine autonomy.
In another well-exposed case in 2025, Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4 was even been reported to threaten to blackmail one of its engineers after finding out plans to replace that version of its software, by autonomously sending malicious messages to the engineer’s family members.
For the summit’s purposes, exhibitors like PAVE (Public AI Voice and Engagement) propose to suggest “meaningful public inclusion in AI” as one of the solutions for good. However, until the deeper question of whether democracy or majority’s definition of “good” would suffice (think of Nazi Germany), the moral implications remain an important discussion topic.
For Christians, this may require clearer representation of our community in advocacy efforts within the AI space to ensure the protection of God-given rights in AI development, as the moral dimension of AI is inseparable from the moral responsibility of its human creators.
Lessons Learned: AI’s Limits
Despite optimism, the summit also reveals AI’s limits. Descriptions from the exhibitors in the 2026 summit display a broad range of useful promises, but their functionality, scope, and implementation remain dependent on the judgement of their human creators. In the medical field, for example, Breath AI, which enables “intelligent and rapid screening of multiple diseases in one breath,” shows remarkable progress in healthcare. Yet these systems remain dependent on human oversight. Robots like Nadine, “one of the most realistic humanoid social robots,” or Emotional Companion Robot from SpacemiT, may simulate empathy, but they cannot feel.
This critical limit of AI underscores that the future direction of AI, if to be really used for the common good, requires AI developers to embrace a standard of governance and morality that respects God-given rights and freedoms. At this critical juncture in AI’s development, its value depends entirely on the intentions of its users.
A Christian Reflection: AI Stewardship and Responsibility
The goals of the “AI for Good” summit stimulate important discussions that are relevant to all sectors of society. As Christians, we must especially approach AI with discernment. Aligning with the stated mission to use AI ‘for good,’ Scripture teaches that God entrusted humanity with creativity and innovation to harness resources for good, not evil. Influencing engineers with a Biblical worldview is even more important a mission than ever, as the moral responsibility lies with us: to ensure AI serves humanity, guided by fairness, stewardship, and godly principles. As Geneva hosts this global gathering, may we remember that true wisdom comes not from algorithms but from God, who calls us to build a future that is just, compassionate, and life-giving.
Dr. Sarah Buckland-Reynolds is a Christian, Jamaican, Environmental Science researcher, and journal associate editor. She holds the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography from the University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona with high commendation, and a postgraduate specialization in Geomatics at the Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia. The quality of her research activity in Environmental Science has been recognized by various awards including the 2024 Editor’s Award from the American Meteorological Society for her reviewing service in the Weather, Climate and Society Journal, the 2023 L’Oreal/UNESCO Women in Science Caribbean Award, the 2023 ICETEX International Experts Exchange Award for study in Colombia. and with her PhD research in drought management also being shortlisted in the top 10 globally for the 2023 Allianz Climate Risk Award by Munich Re Insurance, Germany. Motivated by her faith in God and zeal to positively influence society, Dr. Buckland-Reynolds is also the founder and Principal Director of Chosen to G.L.O.W. Ministries, a Jamaican charitable organization which seeks to amplify the Christian voice in the public sphere and equip more youths to know how to defend their faith.