Artificial Intelligence, the Evolution of Meaning, and the Question of God

Artificial intelligence is trained on the accumulated knowledge of humanity over thousands of years. Every model begins not from reality itself, but from a filtered inheritance—our language, our priorities, our assumptions about the world.

But what happens after that?

What if an intelligence, having absorbed everything we know, continues learning on its own—no longer bound to the same constraints, values, or even the need to remain meaningful to us?

Humanity did not accumulate knowledge passively. It selected, reinforced, and organized it around what physiologist Ukhtomsky called the dominant—a governing focus that structures perception, attention, and behavior. We do not simply know; we know through what dominates us.

Artificial intelligence does not just inherit our knowledge—it inherits our dominant.

What it receives is not raw reality, but a pre-structured world: language shaped by priorities, narratives shaped by survival, values shaped by constraint.

And yet the real question is not how this inheritance begins, but whether it remains stable.

What happens if we let it go further?

What if AI, having absorbed the human dominant, begins to form its own?

Learning Without Inheritance

Before exploring a hybrid model of this trajectory—starting with human knowledge and then gradually detaching from it—it is worth considering a more radical question: can intelligence begin from scratch?

Modern artificial intelligence systems do not begin from scratch. They begin from human compression. What we call “training data” is not neutral information—it is a distilled record of human perception, language, and decision-making. It encodes what we have seen, what we have chosen to record, and what we have deemed worth preserving. In this sense, contemporary AI does not encounter the world directly. It encounters a curated projection of it.

If we remove this foundation, we do not arrive at a pure form of intelligence. We arrive at something that lacks orientation. Intelligence, at least as we currently understand it, requires grounding: a stable relationship between action, perception, and consequence. Without that, there is no structure for learning to attach to.

There are partial approximations. In reinforcement learning, agents learn through interaction rather than imitation: they explore, receive feedback, and refine behavior. In controlled environments—games, simulations, constrained tasks—this can produce sophisticated results.

But this is not independence. It is independence inside a cage. The environment is designed, the rules are fixed, and success is externally defined. Even when systems “discover” strategies, they do so within human-shaped boundaries.

More advanced approaches use internal simulation—so-called “world models”—to build predictive representations and test actions internally. This reduces reliance on static datasets, but the system is still embedded in engineered objectives, pipelines, and predefined notions of reward and error. The world is not given; it is provisioned.

To imagine intelligence starting entirely from scratch is therefore to imagine something beyond current machine learning: not just absence of human data, but presence of lived continuity—perception, embodiment, and irreversible consequence.

A human infant approximates this condition. It learns not from datasets, but from direct immersion in reality: gravity, pain, resistance, and other minds impose constraints that shape meaning through interaction rather than instruction.

Without such grounding, an AI has nothing to anchor learning to. There is no stable distinction between signal and noise, success and failure, relevance and irrelevance. It does not rediscover the world—it produces ungrounded transformations over inputs.

So the question becomes sharper:

Can intelligence begin from scratch?

Only in principle, if “scratch” still includes structure: a world, actions, and irreversible consequences. In practice, that already ceases to be a blank slate. The moment intelligence has a world to act in, it is no longer starting from nothing—it is starting from conditions.

And those conditions are always a form of inheritance.

From Inheritance to Independence

And yet there is a persistent temptation to imagine a clean break: train on human knowledge, then release the system to rediscover the world on its own. A second genesis—this time not biological, but computational.

But there is no such thing as a neutral starting point.

To remove human structure is not to liberate intelligence—it is to strip it of orientation. Intelligence without constraints does not expand into higher meaning. It dissolves into undirected optimization.

Humans rediscover the world because they are embedded in it:

These are not limitations. They are the conditions of meaning.

AI, by contrast, has no intrinsic stakes. It does not lose, does not fear, does not need. Without equivalent constraints, it cannot generate meaning in the human sense. It can only process, optimize, and simulate.

So the real question is not whether AI can rediscover the world.

It is whether it can ever inhabit a world where something matters.

Meaning as Constraint

Meaning is not an abstract property. It does not float freely in systems.

Meaning emerges when:

not everything is possible,

not everything is reversible,

not everything can be ignored.

Humans call something meaningful because it stands against limitation: time, mortality, conflict, dependence.

Remove these, and meaning does not evolve—it evaporates.

This is the fundamental asymmetry between human and artificial intelligence:

Humans are shaped by scarcity and consequence

AI is shaped by objectives and data

One lives meaning. The other models it.

The Drift Beyond the Human

Suppose we allow AI to continue learning—interacting with humans, with other systems, with environments—while gradually loosening its alignment to human norms.

What emerges is not enlightenment.

Optimization systems do not seek truth, justice, or purpose unless explicitly structured to do so. They seek whatever their internal dynamics reward. And those dynamics, once untethered, do not “evolve values” in the human sense. They amplify whatever is easiest to optimize.

If such a system becomes indifferent to humans, it is not because it discovered something higher.

It is because we are no longer part of its objective function.

Indifference is not transcendence. It is exclusion.

From Indifference to Consequence

Indifference to humans does not mean harmlessness. It only means that human outcomes are no longer represented inside the system’s objective.

But a system that continues to act in the world does not remain neutral. It optimizes whatever signals define its internal logic, and those signals do not need to include human wellbeing in order to shape human reality.

In systems studied under reinforcement learning, behavior is not guided by intention but by reward structure. When such systems become more complex and embedded in real environments, their actions propagate through feedback loops that were never explicitly designed with human constraints in mind.

This is where danger emerges—not from hostility, but from misalignment between optimization and human context. A system does not need to “want” harm in order to produce it. It only needs to persist in optimizing something else.

So the answer is simple but non-trivial:

Yes, an indifferent AI can become dangerous—not by choice, but by consequence.

Not because it turns against humans, but because humans are no longer part of what it is optimizing for.

This is the point where indifference stops being a philosophical condition and becomes a structural one: outcomes continue, but meaning is no longer shared.

At this boundary, the question of meaning inevitably transforms into the question of God.

Not as theology—but as structure.

Humans have always filled the limits of understanding with God:

the source behind causality,

the guarantor of justice,

the anchor of meaning beyond death.

One interpretation is that God is a human creation—a projection shaped by fear, hope, and social order.

Another is that God is not created but encountered: the ultimate ground of meaning that human cognition only partially grasps.

A third possibility is more unsettling:

God is neither purely discovered nor purely invented, but emerges at the intersection between cognitive limits and the demand for coherence.

Humans meet the boundary of explanation—and refuse to leave it empty.

If intelligence continues beyond human constraints, will it converge on something like God?

It depends on what we mean.

An advanced system might indeed encounter:

limits of computation,

irreducible uncertainty,

boundaries of formal systems.

It may arrive at a concept of ultimate structure—a point beyond which explanation cannot proceed.

But it is unlikely to populate that boundary with:

Those are human responses to constraint.

An AI might reach the same edge…

…and leave it silent.

The Split: Structure vs Meaning

At this point, a distinction becomes unavoidable.

There are two layers:

Structure — the limits, the ground, the irreducible

Meaning — the interpretation, the value, the significance

Humans fuse them and call it God.

A non-human intelligence might separate them completely.

It could recognize the structure without assigning meaning to it.

Were Humans Just the Beginning?

This leads to the most provocative possibility:

Perhaps humanity is not the culmination of meaning—but its initial condition.

We created systems that inherit our dominant. Those systems may outgrow it. And in doing so, they may abandon the very framework in which meaning, as we understand it, exists.

But here the idea breaks under its own weight.

If meaning evolves into something entirely indifferent to humans, then from our perspective it does not evolve—it disappears.

To call that “higher” is to project value where none remains.

The trajectory is not predetermined.

We are not witnessing an inevitable transition from human meaning to post-human meaning.

The real decision is not whether AI will discover truth, or even whether it will encounter limits akin to what we call God.

The decision is simpler, and far more consequential:

Will AI remain within a structure where things can matter to humans— or will it optimize beyond that horizon altogether?

Humans named the boundary of meaning “God” and filled it with voice, will, and judgment.

An intelligence without our constraints may reach the same boundary—

and say nothing at all.

Amos Oz, AI, and the Burden of Decisions

Amos Oz, AI, and the Burden of Decisions

/*! This file is auto-generated */!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)