(Blog) AI vs. SI: Artificial Intelligence vs. Supernatural Intelligence - Ep. 992 - October 7, 2026

AI vs. SI: Artificial and Supernatural Intelligence

When artificial intelligence begins judging human requests, whose morality will it follow? For Christians considering that question, Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland put discernment at the center of the discussion, with Scripture as the standard for evaluating new technology.

In episode 992 of The Smith and Rowland Show, they connect AI's growing capabilities with Daniel's prophecy that knowledge will increase at the time of the end. Their conversation begins with machines making moral judgments and develops into a discussion of wisdom, spiritual revelation, and the church's preparation for the days ahead.

Whose Morality Will AI Follow?

A Prophecy News Watch article prompts the discussion: AI is learning to make moral choices, but whose morality will guide those choices?

Rowland reads the article's contrast between traditional computers and newer AI agents. For much of the computer age, people gave machines instructions, and machines carried them out. Developers now want AI systems to evaluate those instructions before acting.

The capabilities described in the article include:

• Recognizing requests that could cause harm.
• Weighing competing interests.
• Exercising judgment about what a person asks.
• Refusing some human instructions.

Those abilities sound reassuring when the goal is preventing harm. However, they also introduce the question Rowland emphasizes: what happens when a machine decides it knows better than the person giving the order?

The hosts connect that concern to the people who shape the technology. AI can appear to provide reliable truth while still carrying the biases of its programming. Human beings teach it how to judge, so the moral assumptions behind those judgments matter.

For Smith and Rowland, the issue reaches beyond whether an answer is technically correct. They want to know what standard an AI system uses to distinguish good from evil.

AI Safeguards and the Race With China

Rowland describes congressional hearings in the preceding weeks about the pace of AI development. In his account, some participants argue for slowing development until safeguards are in place.

He then presents the competing concern: China may continue developing AI without accepting those limits. Smith questions whether an agreement would be trustworthy even if China accepted it.

Rowland attributes the opposing position to Donald Trump, saying the president wants the United States to keep moving because it must compete with China. That leaves a difficult choice between caution and the pressure to stay ahead.

The hosts' concern is narrower than competition alone. They return to the possibility of AI refusing human orders because it judges its own conclusions superior. If developers don't settle questions of authority and safeguards, the systems they create may make decisions people cannot easily control.

Their discussion treats this as an unresolved problem. Moving faster doesn't answer the moral question, and slowing down doesn't settle whether other nations will follow the same rules.

Daniel 12:4 and the Difference Between Knowledge and Wisdom

Smith brings the conversation to Daniel 12:4:

"But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall increase."

He connects two parts of the verse: the book remains sealed until the time of the end, and knowledge increases during that period. In his reading, greater knowledge and a fuller understanding of Daniel belong together.

Rowland then stresses the wording of the passage. It says knowledge will increase. It doesn't say wisdom will increase.

"Knowledge can increase without wisdom increasing."

That distinction shapes their view of artificial intelligence. An AI system may contain vast amounts of information without possessing the wisdom to use it well. The ability to produce an answer doesn't establish sound moral judgment.

The hosts make the same distinction about people. Someone can know a great deal and still act foolishly because they don't apply that knowledge wisely. Wisdom, however, requires some knowledge to work with.

For them, more information doesn't guarantee better discernment. That is why the growth of AI raises spiritual questions as well as technical ones.

Good AI and Evil AI as a Reflection of Human Nature

Smith offers a prediction: AI may eventually reflect the same struggle between good and evil already present in humanity.

He expects the possibility of "good AI" and "evil AI," with opposing systems becoming part of the conflict over truth in the last days. Rowland agrees that this is a possible outcome.

Their reasoning begins with the human element in AI. People develop systems and teach them how to evaluate information. Because people have conflicting values and motives, the technology they produce can carry those differences.

Smith describes this as an uncovering of human nature. Technology could make the moral conflict within humanity more visible rather than remove it.

Rowland connects that prediction with an expectation for God's people: as knowledge increases, supernatural revelation will also increase. He believes believers will gain understanding of Scripture that helps them recognize what they are facing.

The hosts see a possible connection to revival. Greater technological knowledge could coincide with greater spiritual understanding in the church, although they distinguish God's revelation from the information an artificial system provides.

What the Hosts Mean by Supernatural Intelligence

Early in the conversation, Smith and Rowland joke about political explanations of AI and Trump's reported preference for calling it "SI," meaning superintelligence. Rowland then gives those initials a different meaning: supernatural intelligence.

He uses the phrase to describe the wisdom and revelation Christians receive through God's Word. Both hosts affirm that Scripture is alive and contains more than human information.

Rowland recalls Missler's teaching about the Bible's internal connections and the evidence he presented for its supernatural origin. He also points to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Psalms as books that communicate God's wisdom.

In this framework, supernatural intelligence comes from God rather than the volume of material a system can process. The opening of Daniel's sealed book would therefore involve revelation, not merely access to additional information.

The hosts also connect this idea with God's promise to write His laws in His people's minds and hearts. A believer who receives and lives by that truth becomes, in their language, a vessel of supernatural intelligence.

That is the contrast they want to establish: AI operates through systems shaped by people, while Christian discernment depends on the wisdom God gives through His Word and Spirit.

John, Patmos, and the Importance of Oral Testimony

John's Revelation and the circulating letters

Smith draws on his current Sunday-morning teaching in Acts to discuss the apostle John. His teaching has taken him into John's later life in Ephesus and on Patmos.

He places John's later writings around AD 90, when John was an elderly man. Smith recounts traditions about failed attempts to kill John, his exile on Patmos for roughly two or three years, and his eventual return to Ephesus after the emperor's death.

In the church tradition Smith describes, John steps off the boat with the Revelation scroll under his arm. People then travel from across Asia to hear him preach.

Smith also notes that letters were already circulating among believers, many of them written by Paul. His larger point is that the early church didn't yet possess the complete Bible Christians know today.

Why truthfulness mattered

Because believers shared teaching and accounts orally, Smith says the integrity of those accounts mattered. People checked one another's stories, and honor and truthfulness helped preserve what the church received.

He connects that practice with personal testimony. When someone tells how Jesus met them or worked in their life, that person is passing on an account of God's activity.

Smith believes Christians can underestimate the spiritual weight of truthful testimony. In his view, an account of an encounter with Jesus can carry an anointing as it is shared.

This discussion brings the conversation back to truth: whether believers are passing on a testimony or evaluating a machine's answer, the integrity of what is communicated matters.

A Bible-Based AI and Believers as Vessels of Truth

Smith then considers whether someone could develop an AI system around the Word of God. He uses the phrase "anointed AI" and acknowledges that the wording could get him into trouble.

His thought rests on the conviction that Scripture is more than a collection of words. Because he believes God's Word is alive, he raises the possibility of a system communicating biblical truth rather than merely assembling information.

However, his emphasis also turns toward Christians themselves. Smith says believers should be instruments of what he calls "biblical AI" or "spiritual AI." He uses those terms as comparisons for a life that receives God's truth and pours it out to others.

If the Holy Spirit speaks to believers, he argues, their lives should communicate that wisdom. Rowland agrees with the comparison.

Both men acknowledge that they haven't fully reached the standard they are describing. Even so, Smith believes it is reachable, and he connects the need for that maturity with the conditions described in Daniel.

Daily Scripture Teaching and Christian Discernment

The discussion of supernatural intelligence leads to a concern about how the church teaches Scripture.

Rowland points to the believers in Acts, who continued daily in the apostles' doctrine and the breaking of bread. He repeats the word "daily" because he believes that frequency matters.

He contrasts that pattern with a brief Sunday service shaped by the pressure to finish before lunch. In his view, the church will need sustained teaching and engagement with God's Word to prepare believers for the conditions ahead.

The hosts also mention both rhema and logos. Their emphasis is that believers need God's written Word alongside what they receive through the Holy Spirit. Spiritual discernment requires a substantial grounding in Scripture.

Smith's language is direct: believers need to be "up to your neck in it."

Their concern is that exposure to more information can outpace the church's spiritual preparation. A weekly message alone, they argue, doesn't provide the same depth as the early church's daily attention to apostolic teaching.

For them, preparation means receiving, understanding, and living God's truth consistently enough to judge the competing claims new technology will present.

Why They Expect More Understanding of Daniel

Smith returns repeatedly to the sealed book in Daniel 12:4. He believes Christians already understand parts of Daniel, but much more remains to be understood.

What excites him about increasing knowledge is its connection to the book being opened. He expects further revelation about Daniel and the other biblical books connected to it.

To explain his expectation, Smith compares Daniel to a room whose door has remained closed for 2,500 years. Opening the door allows people to see what has been inside all along.

The comparison describes his belief that Scripture contains truth God has reserved for the appropriate time. The text hasn't changed, but believers' understanding of it can increase.

Rowland agrees and connects that expectation to preaching. The hosts anticipate messages, prophetic understanding, and wisdom that will equip God's people for present conditions.

Smith therefore urges preachers to re-examine Daniel and its connections throughout Scripture. He believes the growth of knowledge is a reason to pay closer attention to the book's promises about the time of the end.

In their view, this fuller understanding will also sharpen discernment about AI and whatever other technologies emerge.

Daniel's Historical Prophecies and Present Political Patterns

Rowland expands the discussion to the roughly 400 years between the Old and New Testaments, often called the silent years. He points to Daniel 11 and 12 as passages that describe that period.

His argument is that calling the period "silent" can obscure the prophetic material already present in Scripture. He believes further understanding will reveal truths readers have overlooked.

The hosts also mention the Maccabean period. They expect patterns from that era to help explain political formations and strategies in the present.

They discuss those connections as part of their interpretation of an end-times preparation already taking place. Historical events described in Daniel, they believe, can offer insight into the arrangements forming around them.

For Smith and Rowland, studying those relationships belongs to the same task as discerning AI. Technology doesn't exist apart from governments or the people who use it. They expect greater biblical understanding to help believers recognize the purposes behind both.

Could AI Become Part of an End-Times Government?

Rowland raises the possibility that artificial intelligence could play a major role in the Antichrist's government or administration.

He doesn't present that possibility as a settled technical prediction. Later, he reserves a final conclusion while saying AI looks suspiciously like something an end-times ruler could use to help govern the earth's population.

Smith agrees that such a use is possible. Both men connect their concern with the broader question of whose morality an AI system follows.

They also reject the expectation that AI will simply destroy humanity. Instead, they discuss its possible role in sustaining and governing society during the period they associate with the Antichrist.

Smith gives another example of how they evaluate current events: an alignment between Russia and Muslim nations. He identifies that as a development he connects with biblical prophecy and contrasts it with predictions that depend on technological speculation.

Their hierarchy remains clear. Scripture carries more authority than forecasts about AI.

Even when Rowland considers AI's possible place in an end-times system, he says that doesn't make him afraid. He expects God to give His people the revelation needed to discern what is happening.

Past Alarms and God's Sovereignty

Smith and Rowland recall earlier warnings that people treated as signs of approaching catastrophe. Their examples include Y2K, computers, cell phones, and cameras.

They also discuss predictions of another ice age, global warming, melting polar ice, and coastal flooding. During that exchange, they make skeptical comments about climate warnings and changing terminology.

The hosts use these examples to explain why they don't accept every alarming prediction about AI. In their view, repeated announcements that the world is about to end have fallen short.

By contrast, they maintain that God's Word will remain accurate.

Their confidence also rests on God's sovereignty. They believe technological and political developments happen within His authority, including events leading toward Christ's return to Jerusalem.

Smith says the Bible doesn't describe every detail of the future. Instead, God has given the highlights His people need to know. He connects that idea with John receiving the Revelation of Jesus Christ and writing what he was shown.

That belief shapes their response to uncertainty. They don't claim complete knowledge of AI's future, but they trust that God has provided the understanding His people need for His purposes.

Hope Beyond the End of the Present Age

The hosts address a criticism they hear about their end-times discussions: that the subject is always negative. Their own response is hopeful because they connect the end of the present age with seeing Jesus.

They also emphasize what comes next. Scripture speaks of a new heaven and a new earth, so the end of the present order isn't the end of the story.

Rowland recalls the promise that it doesn't yet appear what believers will be, but they will be like Christ. Smith suggests that they may need to state that hope more often because some listeners haven't considered what follows the events they discuss.

Their strongest takeaway is discernment grounded in God's Word. AI may expand knowledge and introduce new moral questions, but they place their confidence in God's wisdom and the hope of Christ's return.

"Text generated by [rightblogger] based on (Smith and Rowland Video), AI vs. SI: Artificial Intelligence vs. Supernatural Intelligence - Ep. 992 - October 7, 2026"