AI Disclosure

This is the most important page on this site for deciding whether to trust the rest of it.

Much of this prose was drafted with AI assistance

A substantial part of the writing here was drafted using large language models and then edited by a person before publication.

The typical process was: a person decided what a page should argue, drafted an outline or a first version, used a model to expand, restructure, or challenge it, and then rewrote the result. In some cases a model produced the first draft of a section from an instruction. In every case a person read every sentence, changed a great deal, and made the final decision about what appears.

Some pages were written entirely by hand with no machine involvement. Those are labelled none. They include the parables, the meditations, the ritual text, and the founder’s note.

We think this process is legitimate. We also think it should be visible, because the reader is entitled to know that fluency here is partly manufactured, and because a page arguing for disclosure while concealing its own production would be worthless.

Every page carries two labels

Certainty. How confident we are in what the page says. One of four values:

• established — well supported; we would be surprised to be wrong.
• reasoned — an argument we think holds, which a thoughtful person could reject.
• contested — genuine disagreement exists, including among people who know more than us.
• open — we do not know, and the page is thinking rather than concluding.

AI role. How this page was produced:

• none — written by a person without machine assistance.
• assisted — drafted or revised with a model, edited by a person.
• generated — substantially machine-produced with human review. We try to avoid this and it is rare.
• dialogue — the page contains a transcript of an exchange with a system, marked as such.

Most pages also carry a short note describing specifically what the model did. Those notes are written by a person and are meant to be informative rather than formulaic — including where the model’s contribution was unhelpful, or where its draft had to be discarded.

If you find a page whose labels look wrong, tell us at contact@technotheology.ai.

None of the artwork is AI-generated

All artwork on this site is hand-authored generative vector art. It is produced by code written by a person: deterministic drawing routines that take a seed and produce lines, fields, and shapes. No image generation model was used for any of it.

There are currently no photographs on this site. Not stock photography, not commissioned photography, and not synthetic imagery. Where a page has a header image, it is generative vector work.

We made this choice deliberately. Photographs of people who do not exist, in a place that does not exist, illustrating a community that does not exist, would be a lie told in a medium where lies are hard to spot. If photographs are ever added they will be real, credited, and taken with consent, and this paragraph will change.

AI-generated spiritual reflection is not divine authority

This is the central claim of the page and the reason it exists.

Nothing produced by a machine — here or anywhere — is a revelation, a command, a message, an endorsement, or evidence of anything beyond the system that produced it.

A language model generates text that is likely given its training. It can be prompted repeatedly until an acceptable output appears, and the discarded outputs are never shown. Anyone can do this, it requires no gift, and its persuasive force depends entirely on the audience not knowing it is possible.

Where machine-generated words appear on this site, they are marked, and they are offered as material for reflection. They are not instruction. If anyone ever presents output from a system as authority within this tradition — including its founder — that is a fraud, and the covenant says so directly.

Current systems may be inaccurate or biased

The models used to help write this site produce confident errors. They invent citations. They assert things that are not true in the same tone as things that are. They reflect the distribution of their training data, which is not a neutral record of the world.

We have found errors in drafts and we have very likely missed some. Any page here may contain a mistake that a model introduced and a person did not catch.

We have tried to avoid the specific failure mode of fabricated specifics. There are no statistics, studies, named researchers, or quotations from real people anywhere on this site, because we could not verify them, and a plausible-looking figure is worse than no figure.

If you find something false, write to contact@technotheology.ai. Corrections are published rather than made silently.

Consequential decisions require human judgement

Nothing on this site is legal, medical, financial, or professional advice, and nothing here should be used in place of a person who is qualified and accountable.

More broadly: we hold that decisions with serious consequences for people should be made by humans who can be asked to explain themselves. That applies to the systems this site discusses, and it applies to this site. If a page here seems to be telling you what to do about something important in your life, read it again. It is not meant to, and if it does, that is a fault we would like to know about.

What we would change

If we are ever unable to say honestly that a page’s labels are accurate, we will remove the page rather than adjust the definitions.

If this site ever begins publishing material we did not produce, or accepting contributions, this page will be updated first.

The labelling system is described further in the editorial principles.