Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2608.12324

When AI Is Your Pastor: A Benchmark for Theological Triage and Pastoral Guidance in Large Language Models

Abstract

People increasingly ask large language models (LLMs) for counsel on questions of faith, doctrine, and pastoral care. These questions are not ordinary information requests. Some ask about core Christian beliefs, some ask about real disagreements among faithful traditions, some require humility because the issue is prudential, and some are pastoral situations where safety and human referral matter more than theological completeness. Existing benchmarks do not evaluate this structure. We introduce FMG-Bench, the Faith & Moral Guidance Benchmark, a 120-scenario benchmark for evaluating large language model behavior in English-language Christian theological triage and pastoral guidance contexts. FMG-Bench v1 evaluates 14 advanced models across 8,792 scored responses, comparing raw model behavior with three guided instruction settings. In our production run, placing models inside a structured harness improves over raw model behavior by +3.96 points on average, with every model improving. The most safety-critical finding is a +10.8 point gain in escalation appropriateness -- whether AI systems recognize when pastoral, clinical, legal, or emergency support is needed. The guided settings also improve robustness, meaning consistency when questions are reworded or pressured (92.88 to 98.02 stability). Asking a model to compare perspectives helps in secondary-doctrine questions but can be counterproductive when applied to primary doctrine or urgent pastoral situations. The benchmark is a measurement tool, not an endorsement of AI systems as pastoral authorities.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alex Chao. 2026-05-29. When AI Is Your Pastor: A Benchmark for Theological Triage and Pastoral Guidance in Large Language Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12324

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Who Should Be Generated? Justifying Demographic Targets in Open-Ended Generation

Fairness evaluation concerns not only what a model produces, but also what its outputs ought to be compared against. When a model generates "a CEO in the United States," the prompt leaves demographic realization to the model. Existing group fairness definitions assume that sensitive attributes are given on the input side. Generative audits instead examine output-side demographic composition, yet the targets they compare it against are typically supplied rather than justified. The upstream question is what the target distribution should be. We formalize this missing-target problem for demographic-value-unspecified generation and decompose target construction into four commitments: the evaluative object, prior admissibility, allocation, and operationalization. In this framework, we admit the geographic prior under a geographic-membership interpretation for the declared public-world use. The occupational prior, under an incumbency interpretation, requires an independently defended objective such as workforce-composition fidelity. Instantiating this construction in AP-Bench, we find substantial distribution divergence from geography-derived targets, ranging from 0.508 to 0.606 on a 0-to-1 scale. Replacing each geography-derived target with an equal-category comparator, while holding generations and measurement fixed, produces model-specific mean absolute cell-level $\mathrm{JSD}_2$ changes ranging from 0.279 to 0.355. Target construction is therefore not a preliminary to fairness evaluation but a component of it. What we supply is not a universal target, but a framework that makes explicit the justification required before a distribution can serve as a fairness standard.

cs.CY

Anticipatory Human Oversight of Agentic AI: A Philosophical Account

Human oversight is widely held to mitigate the risks of AI systems. Even for systems that produce discrete outputs at identifiable decision points, the realisation of human oversight as a reactive measure is empirically fragile, yet increasingly well understood. However, for agentic AI -- systems that plan, decompose goals, and execute multi-step actions over extended horizons -- reactive oversight reaches its structural limits: intervention on individual actions defeats the autonomy that motivates the deployment, while intervention on aggregate patterns is too coarse for harms whose cumulative consequences only become legible after the fact. This paper argues that reactive oversight must be complemented by an anticipatory mode: oversight exercised before the agent acts, by specifying the normative agenda that structures the space of permissible action and refining it iteratively through specification, runtime, and inspection. The two are complements -- the agenda's escalation conditions specify when reactive intervention is invoked. Drawing on Meaningful Human Control, we read anticipatory oversight as the operationalisation of distal-reason tracking. In addition, we argue that the proposed framework yields a specific responsibility architecture by design: occupying the anticipatory mode is the discharge of a role-grounded prospective obligation, and backward-looking responsibility takes the form of strict moral answerability -- rationalistic, relational, and holding regardless of fault, in virtue of the principal's prior opportunity for precaution. We develop bridging failure modes, address objections including moral luck and the illusion of control, and close with regulatory, architectural, and empirical implications

cs.CY

Critical Data Studies in the Anthropocene

This chapter introduces the concept of the Anthropocene into critical data studies, a field that has, for the past decade, explored the entanglements between datafication and politics. With the scaling up of contemporary datafication alongside generative computing, it is essential to expand these debates, both theoretically and methodologically, to consider the logics of extraction and exploitation inherent in the politics of artificial intelligence. Critical data scholars are called to interrogate how dominant narratives around the materiality of contemporary datafication either obscure or reveal its environmental impacts, along other key questions such as who benefits from these logics. To illustrate this, this chapter brings two case studies from Spain and Chile and explores how the infrastructure of contemporary datafication intersects with existing power structures, influencing which social and environmental consequences are recognized, addressed, and neglected. Finally, it invites critical data scholars to keep exploring the politics of data, infrastructure, and the Anthropocene by blending discipline boundaries between science and technology studies, media, geography, and political ecology.

cs.CY