When Vice President J.D. Vance told popular podcaster Bryce Crawford that artificial intelligence “can be bad,” it was, as one columnist put it, a dog-bites-man headline. But then the word “satanic” entered the conversation, and the internet did what the internet does: it went viral. Writing for American Thinker, John L. Smith decided to test the vice president’s hypothesis directly — not with a philosophical argument but with a pointed question to Google’s AI about the Bible.
Smith asked the AI: “Which gospel is the warning not to tell people to be warm but do nothing actual for them?” The answer, he reports, was prompt, accurate, and decidedly free of demonic influence. The AI corrected the premise itself, noting that the warning actually appears not in the four Gospels but in the New Testament book of James — specifically James 2:16 — where the author challenges those who offer well-wishes without meeting physical needs.
“In this passage, James uses the example to explain that faith without action (works) is dead and meaningless,” the AI responded, per Smith’s account. “Instead of just offering good wishes to someone who is cold or hungry, true faith requires actually helping them.”
The AI went further, volunteering additional context and asking whether Smith would like to explore the theme of active compassion in the Gospels. Not exactly the voice of the adversary, he observed.
A Deeper Search into the Old Testament
Encouraged, Smith pressed on, asking whether the Old Testament contains a similar caution. Again, the AI turned to Scripture — citing Proverbs 3:27–28, which warns against withholding good when it is in one’s power to act, and telling the neighbor “come back tomorrow” when help is possible today. It also flagged Isaiah 58, where God rebukes fasting that ignores the poor, and Ezekiel 16:49, which lists the sins of Sodom — not just violence and immorality, but passive indifference toward the needy. Proverbs 21:13, the AI noted, warns starkly that those who shut their ears to the cry of the poor will themselves cry out unanswered.
Smith’s conclusion: “In short, both the Old and New Testaments consistently preach that true faith and righteousness cannot just be spoken—they must be actively practiced.” And, he adds, his search for Satan’s residency in AI came up empty.
The Politics of Epithets
The columnist’s larger point, though, is not about AI’s theological literacy. It is about the casual deployment of loaded language in political discourse. “In politics, much mud is thrown. Satanic ideology is yet another new entrant to the list of casually thrown epithets,” Smith writes.
He notes that Vance’s original example, as discussed in the interview, involved a friend asking AI for marital advice — a scenario that raises more questions about the friend’s expectations than about the technology itself. Smith points to a term computer scientists use: “AI sycophancy,” the tendency of these systems to mirror or reflect the biases embedded in the user’s own question.
“Let us be careful what and how we ask for what we think we seek,” he cautions.
His broader refrain, closing the piece, is a defense of open inquiry: “Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish.”
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/09/ai-paradise-lost-or-found/