Artificial intelligence (AI) brings unprecedented benefits and challenges. While accessing information has never been easier, the risks have also become more subtle. Yet neither outright rejection nor uncritical acceptance of AI is a viable response. AI is here to stay, but without the constant exercise of our non-artificial intelligence, our integrity (and intelligence) may be at risk.
Ancient Wisdom for a Modern Dilemma
This article briefly introduces the insights of Aquinas and Zhu Xi (朱熹) that can help us use AI more responsibly. These eminent thinkers represent and have shaped two major traditions—Christianity and Confucianism. Hence, their wisdom may offer valuable guidance for Christians living and serving in a Confucian cultural context.
But why turn to thinkers who lived nearly a thousand years ago? They had no knowledge of today’s dizzying advances in information technology!
Information and Its Independence from Time
The progress in information technology reveals two important insights. First, since information can be encoded in various media, it is relatively independent of its transmitters. Thus, insofar as the information is not outdated or misleading, it matters little whether it is transmitted by minds from the past or the present. Second, as AI shows, all information is interconnected. The effectiveness of generative AI stems from the ability of deep learning to detect statistical patterns that mirror semantic or conceptual links between propositions. As such, all propositions—especially those addressing perennial issues like ethics—are inherently interconnected, regardless of their time or origin.
Two Thinkers, One Intellectual Curiosity
Aquinas and Zhu Xi were very inquisitive and eager to explore hard problems. Aquinas was open to learning from Aristotle and critically engaged with the insights of Jewish and Muslim thinkers of his time. Similarly, Zhu Xi drew insights from many other thinkers, including those from rival traditions such as Buddhism and Daoism.1
It is reasonable to assume then that both would be open to the use of AI as a product of scientific advancement. Moreover, both Zhu Xi and Aquinas exhibit an intellectual outlook, emphasizing the central role of knowing and thinking in moral formation. Reading Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae is like engaging with a vast chatbot—full of carefully posed questions and answers that progressively sharpen and refine understanding.2 Thus, if AI is seen as a tool that enhances thought, it is unlikely that they would reject it.
AI as a Tool for Moral Formation
However, as individuals with high moral standards, they would likely be concerned about the ethical risks of AI. If they lived in our time, they would advise us to avoid unreliable data sources, reduce AI bias, and prevent AI hallucinations.3
Moreover, Zhu Xi and Aquinas both affirm the intelligibility of reality and think that rational principles permeate all things. For them, each thing is not just made of matter but also contains informative elements—what Aquinas calls forma (form) and Zhu Xi calls li (理, principle or pattern).4 This view resonates with the modern idea that the universe functions as a vast transmitter of information. This reading aligns with the workings of natural and artificial neural networks, which decode information via layered pattern recognition.
Toward Unity: Pattern Recognition and Integration
As both thinkers recognize, “decoding” a thing’s essential features is hard. Zhu Xi urges learners to find the essences of things by exhausting their principles to the utmost—qiongli, 穷理.5 Aquinas also values accuracy and completeness; for him, truly knowing something means grasping its essential features.6 AI here can serve as a valuable tool for uncovering more complete aspects of things. Ideally, the use of AI is driven by a desire to dig deeper—to understand the essential meaning of the words and things we often take for granted.
Another aspect of their thought that aligns with AI is its emphasis on organic coherence. Both philosophers excelled at synthesizing diverse intellectual traditions. AI is a valuable tool for identifying conceptual connections, since deep learning operates by mapping distances between terms and recognizing semantic similarities.
Furthermore, according to Zhu Xi and Aquinas, learning is complete only when learners can connect all principles to the highest principle and obtain a unified view of reality. For Aquinas, this is the hallmark of wisdom—sapientia, as the forms of things are expressions of divine ideas. For Zhu Xi, investigating things—gewu, 格物, culminates in a moment of insight in which the organic unity of all principles becomes clear. To accommodate this emphasis on a unifying “theological” knowledge, experts can collaborate to design chatbots that incorporate theologically vetted resources.
Learning with Reverence and Virtue
Lastly, certain aspects of their thought suggest a more cautious approach. For Zhu Xi, true learning occurs only within the context of moral self-cultivation, carried out with reverence—chijing, 持敬, and single-minded attention. The popular use of AI tends to prioritize speedy and convenient provision of information, which can erode the capacity for sustained, thoughtful learning for moral growth.7 Different from Zhu Xi, Aquinas acknowledges that gaining knowledge is not identical to cultivating morality. For Aquinas, the pursuit of knowledge should lead to the development of intellectual virtues, perfecting our capacity for thought. Central to this process is the free and habitualexercise of our intellectual faculties.8 In this light, we should see the use of AI as a part of our stewardship of our intellect, meaning we must not let it compromise our freedom or diminish our agency.
Upgrading AI Use, Not Just the Tech
To accommodate both thinkers’ insights, we need to upgrade, not downgrade, AI and its use. This implies that we should:
- upgrade the content of AI, ensuring it is theologically sound and thoughtfully curated;
- upgrade how people access AI, offering structured exercises and tiered learning programs for advanced users;
- upgrade how people learn about AI, embedding it in broader programs of theological or spiritual formation; and
- upgrade how people contribute to AI, perhaps by having discipleship groups serve as collaborative teams to produce and vet content.
In short, consistent with Aquinas’s and Zhu Xi’s thoughts, AI should be used not merely for convenience but to democratize responsible knowledge acquisition within the broader context of human development.
- D.K. Gardener, Learning to Be a Sage: Selections from the Conversations of Master Chu, Arranged Topically (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014). This work details Zhu Xi’s intellectual method and his engagement with other schools of thought. For Aquinas, see “Thomas Aquinas,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, December 7, 2022, accessed July 8, 2025, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/. This article discusses Aquinas’s synthesis of Christian doctrine with Aristotelian philosophy and his engagement with Islamic and Jewish thinkers.
- Thomas Aquinas, “Summa Theologiae,” I, Q. 1, Art. 8, New Advent, accessed July 8, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm. Aquinas argues that sacred doctrine can fruitfully use philosophical reasoning as a handmaiden, demonstrating his principle of using rational tools in service of theology.
- For academic overviews of these specific AI risks, see Ji Ziwei et al., “Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation,” ACM Computing Surveys 55, no.12 (2023): 1-38; E.M. Bender et al., “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?” Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (2021).
- For an overview of Zhu Xi’s metaphysics, specifically its discussion of li (理) and qi (气), see “Zhu Xi,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, September 3, 2015, accessed July 8, 2025, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zhu-xi/. For Aquinas, the concept of “forma” is central to his hylomorphism, detailed in works like De Ente et Essentia (On Being and Essence).
- D.K. Gardner, “Principle and Pedagogy: Chu Hsi and the Four Books,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 50, no. 2 (1990): 57-81. This article provides a scholarly analysis of Zhu Xi’s pedagogical methods, including qiongli (穷理).
- Thomas Aquinas, “Summa Theologiae,” I, Q. 79. This section discusses the intellectual powers of the soul, providing a basis for his views on knowledge and understanding.
- Nicholas Carr, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2020). While not about AI specifically, Carr’s work provides a widely-cited analysis of how information technology can erode deep, sustained thought, a concern that aligns with Zhu Xi’s emphasis on reverent attention.
- Thomas Aquinas, “Summa Theologiae,” I-II, Q. 55-58. These questions provide Aquinas’s detailed account of the nature of habits (habitus), the definition of virtue, and the distinction between intellectual and moral virtues.
