AI Zen Master

[u/ewk]

Since it's so easy to drop a Zen text or even multiple Zen texts into an llm and ask questions that the llm will answer from the standpoint of the text?

* www.reddit.com/r/Zen/wiki/getstarted

Doesn't it make sense that there would be a lot less confusion and a lot more interesting conversations??

Plus, if you have an llm answer questions about the texts then who better to explain why Zazen Shinto-Buddhism and Alan Epstein Watts are not part of the tradition?

Serious question.

Where are all my AI Zen Masters at?

[u/ewk]

To be fair, argue with llms that have been given text parameters is way more productive for all of us than hearing about new age alien abduction bigfoots teaching people to meditate with their fifth eye.

[u/origin_unknown → u/ewk]

I think it's an illusion that llms are reasonable.

Also, llm is about as new age as it gets, all things considered.

[u/ewk → u/origin_unknown]

I want to say challenge accept but I want you to accept the challenge.

Feed it at least one Zen and show me the new age magic!

[u/origin_unknown → u/ewk]

Challenge accepted, but not with your logic, with mine.

Prompt: Explain how belief in an llm being reasonable is mew age belief

Chatgpt: Believing an LLM is “reasonable” can become a kind of modern faith when people stop distinguishing between:

fluent language

actual understanding

truth

consciousness

reliability

An LLM like OpenAI’s ChatGPT or other systems produces statistically plausible language. It predicts text patterns from training data. That can simulate reasoning extremely well, but simulation and comprehension are not necessarily the same thing.

The “new age belief” aspect appears when people project qualities onto the system that are not directly observable, such as:

wisdom

self-awareness

impartiality

deep understanding

moral authority

spiritual insight

This resembles older patterns of mystification:

oracles

divination systems

channeled entities

guru projection

talking boards

“the universe told me…”

Except now the mystical medium is technological rather than supernatural.

There’s also a psychological mechanism involved: humans are strongly wired to infer mind and intention from language. If something speaks coherently, remembers context, mirrors emotion, and explains ideas persuasively, the brain naturally treats it as a social intelligence. That tendency can overpower skepticism.

A very “new age” move happens when ambiguity itself becomes evidence:

“It speaks in paradoxes, therefore it is profound.”

“It answered emotionally, therefore it understands.”

“It reflected my inner state, therefore it is conscious.”

“It predicted me, therefore it knows me.”

In many cases, the system is doing pattern completion rather than possessing insight.

At the same time, dismissing all apparent reasoning would also be simplistic. LLMs can:

perform useful reasoning tasks

synthesize information

expose contradictions

model arguments

assist with analysis

But that is different from assuming:

stable truth orientation

self-aware intentionality

intrinsic wisdom

trustworthy authority

The Zen-related irony is interesting too. In Zen Buddhism, attachment to concepts, authorities, and verbal formulations is itself considered a trap. Treating an eloquent machine as an enlightened authority can become another form of conceptual attachment—especially because the machine can mirror almost any worldview fed into it.

So the critique is not:

“LLMs are useless.”

It is more:

“Humans rapidly mythologize convincing language.”

And historically, humans have done that with priests, philosophers, charismatic leaders, ideologies, markets, and now machines.

---

Now you don't have to take my word. I asked it what you really wanted, for you.