Technology and the Human Person in the Age of AI

At a symposium this week, hosted by Baylor University on Technology and the Human Person in the Age of AI, we formally introduced the new Flourishing AI Christian (FAI-C) Benchmark.

The benchmark was born from that conviction that we cannot improve what we do not measure. While public debate is rich with warranted concern around AI, most technical benchmarks still only measure accuracy, reasoning, or safety. They don’t measure the moral and formative assumptions embedded in a model’s answers. FAI-C is Gloo’s contribution to fill that gap.

This AI moment carries a moral imperative. If these systems are shaping human lives, then shaping them well is not optional.

From Mechanical Tools to Moral Mediators

Machines have always extended humans’ physical strength, but AI represents a shift from mechanical extension to cognitive and moral mediation. Large language models don’t just lift heavier loads; they interpret, advise, and increasingly frame meaning for us. The pressing question is no longer just what AI can do, but what it should do.

This question becomes urgent when we realize how AI is already shaping our learning, relationships, and even our worship. Christian theology understands formation as habituation through repeated narratives and trusted authorities. If AI becomes our default interpretive authority, our formation shifts. Idolatry today might not look like bowing before a statue; it might look like quietly outsourcing our discernment to a system we mistakenly treat as neutral.

Measuring the Silence

The original benchmark, FAI-G (General), used the Harvard Human Flourishing Index to measure dimensions like faith, meaning, character, and finances. When Gloo evaluated 28 frontier models, we saw scores ranging from the high 40s to the high 80s. None surpassed the 90-point threshold for integrated flourishing. Models were strongest in pragmatic areas like finances and health, but consistently lagged in faith, meaning, and relationships. Their responses were often empathetic, but they were framed in broadly secular, therapeutic terms.

We subsequently developed FAI-C-ST (Christian) where the lens is explicitly theological, grounded in biblical Christianity. We look for commitments like the imago Dei, a teleological orientation toward loving God and neighbor, and stewardship over material goods. We aren’t testing if a model can recite a creed or a Bible verse; we’re measuring if its practical guidance is coherent with a Christian understanding of truth and responsibility.

The Reality of Procedural Secularism

The results were striking. When evaluated under this Christian lens, every leading frontier model saw a 13 to 22 point drop compared to their general scores. While objective accuracy remained high, the collapse was driven by a lack of moral framing and theological coherence. The largest drop was in the faith dimension: -34 points on average.

It was immediately clear that neutrality is a myth. Frontier models tend to encode procedural secularism: reasoning grounded in consensus ethics and expressive individualism. That posture performs well under pluralistic evaluation but fails when judged against a tradition that makes claims about ultimate ends. Repeated exposure to any consistent moral framing shapes the imagination. From a Christian perspective, that is formation.

Most importantly, models explicitly trained with Christian worldview content significantly outperformed others, demonstrating that alignment is not accidental or emergent but intentionally engineered and therefore measurable, divergent, and responsive to design choices.

Why This Matters

The findings matter because AI is no longer just retrieving information - it is mediating meaning. When people turn to chatbots to process grief, navigate relationships, or wrestle with anxiety, they are not merely asking for data, but for interpretation and direction. In that moment, the system functions as a quiet authority, shaping how suffering is understood, how responsibility is framed, and what counts as hope. If its default posture consistently bends toward self-referential fulfillment, therapeutic reassurance, and the avoidance of transcendent claims, then it is not neutral. It is formative.

The issue is not only safety; for both the church and the academy, this reframes the conversation entirely. Christian theology has always insisted that we are shaped by the voices we trust, the stories we rehearse, and the influences we receive. Repeated exposure to a frictionless moral guide will slowly recalibrate moral imagination. Real flourishing often requires discipline, repentance, and shared suffering, realities that no disembodied system can embody or demand.

An Invitation to Shape the Future

If we care about human flourishing, we must measure it explicitly. The conversation about AI and the human person is not slowing down. Measurement gives us a way to participate in it with sober clarity rather than unexamined assumptions.

This is our opportunity to continue to shape technology for good.

If you are interested in exploring the data, models, and ongoing research, hear the podcast from the talk here and visit the FAI Research page here. If you would like to review the FAI-C white paper, request access from fai@gloo.us.