Buddhism and AI: Meeting Change with Wisdom
Awakening to Reality · A conversation
Buddhism and AI: Meeting Change with Wisdom
Soh was reflecting on some recent discussions about artificial intelligence in online Buddhist communities.
In some English-language Buddhist spaces, including discussions on Reddit, he had encountered considerable hostility towards AI. This contrasted with the greater enthusiasm he felt he was encountering in some Chinese and other Asian contexts.
These are impressions from particular online spaces, rather than a comprehensive picture of “Western Buddhism” or “Asia.” Neither is homogeneous. Nevertheless, the contrast prompted a conversation about technological change, spiritual practice, and how we respond when familiar ways of living and working come under pressure.
The following exchange took place on 8 October 2026. The exchange has been edited for readability. Square brackets identify an editorial clarification. Duplicate reply previews and a stray letter have been omitted. Predictions and political assessments are the speakers’ views.
Soh
There’s a lot of AI hate in some of the Western Buddhist circles I’ve been seeing online—anti-AI narratives throughout discussions on the Buddhism subreddit, for example.
I think people should learn to use these tools and understand them. We can’t really expect technological progress to stop simply because we dislike it, lol.
In some of the Chinese and Asian spaces I follow, the atmosphere seems much more enthusiastic about AI.
John Tan
Lol. Progress will not wait for anyone. We can talk about spirituality and consciousness, but to deny or reject AI progress is naive.
A mature person must upgrade and update himself and see what really works. We can say it can’t replace spiritual liberation, but we can’t deny its progress.
But it will create lots of economic restructuring problems. Lots of unemployment, but lots of new opportunities in new ways.
We cannot just worry about feeling threatened. I doubt they are affected anywhere near as much as I am. My core accounting business might become obsolete; still, we have to face it. We can’t just sit and blame here and there.
My finance business is also affected.
The agentic AI course I was taking became obsolete before I even completed it… lol.
But instead of blaming, know the threats and know the opportunities. Economies will definitely be affected, and governments will have to think about how to solve these structural issues.
Many will reject it, including my partners and even my dad… lol. I have been educating them also.
But to date, I have never seen how the core teachings of Buddhism are affected. In fact, it sheds new light on how they can be re-presented.
It makes me aware that many fields are moving in accordance with the core philosophy, and that makes me happy… lol. Be it quantum physics, new mathematics, cognitive science, or even AI itself—topics I couldn’t even imagine associating with Buddhist ideas.
It’s like making videos and keeping on improving them. Meanings get distorted, and we keep finding new ways to edit them, to prompt the AI, and so on. That is what improvement is all about, isn’t it?
There are so many insights that I find difficult to articulate and present, and now it is made possible.
I mean, I’m new to AI and it changes so fast, but once we learn, we will eventually master it, right?
Do you remember two years ago, when I went to your house and we were both still struggling to understand it? Lol.
Now we’re quite familiar… so what is there to fear?
Jobs, opportunities, and safeguards
Soh
Yeah… I agree.
I still have some concerns about AI. I think eventually it’s going to automate everything, and most people will be out of jobs and so on. We might eventually transition to universal basic income (UBI), and the capitalist model of society may break down. A lot of upheaval lies ahead, and this is just the beginning… There are also safety risks and concerns, potentially even existential ones. But I just don’t think rejecting the technology is the way to go. We have to learn the technology and work on safeguards and so on.
John Tan
Now let me ask you: how many small businesses can make use of AI now to automate, integrate, analyse, search, etc.? These are all wide-open opportunities… Who is going to do all this automation? The people running the businesses, new talents, new IT firms, etc.
There will definitely be lots of people out of jobs through automation, like in China now, but what exactly is the problem?
Not the technologies, but politicians, corruption, etc.
Politicians who promise policies that make people lazy but still get money.
How can there be no problems if the world is never thinking about one another’s welfare for the benefit of the world?
Let me give you an example. In Singapore, there is a foreigners-to-citizens ratio, right?
Soh
Yeah.
[Replying to John’s remark about one another’s welfare.] What do you mean?
John Tan
So why can’t this be implemented for computing power and automation?
It’s the same.
If you let all foreigners come in, many Singaporeans will be out of jobs also.
Singapore didn’t do that until there were some economic issues.
Similarly, all these will come.
Soh
I see…
John Tan
It’s like carbon credits to handle environmental issues.
When social and economic issues become so severe, automation will be taxed heavily until they employ people. That is how I see it.
But a good government will balance every step.
That is why we are not all working from home.
Human judgment, useful tools, and creative work
Later that afternoon, the conversation turned to human judgment, programming, and criticism of AI-generated creative work. The following are edited and condensed excerpts. One participant is identified simply as “A Dharma friend”; person-directed remarks and identifying references have been omitted.
A Dharma friend
AI is another development in computing and automation. If someone wants to be a purist, then don’t even use a computer or a washing machine—be a Luddite, go rogue all the way!
Arguments about Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos are different from arguments about AI itself.
Human judgment still matters: explaining something in its particular context, rather than offering blanket suggestions. There is still plenty of room for people to develop what they contribute.
I’m tired of the AI arguments. Every talk I attend now seems to end up discussing AI!
Soh
AI can already handle the programming tasks I give it, and I’m happy to use it, lol. It saves me time and mental effort. I suppose it’s a matter of perspective.
Or perhaps I’m just lazy! 😂
Soh
I like reading Calvin Cheng’s comments. I don’t agree with everything he says, although I agree with many—perhaps most—of his takes.
He is a political commentator and a former Nominated Member of Parliament in Singapore. I often find his views close to the government’s position.
His comments about “Luddites” came to mind here.
Calvin Cheng on AI, creative work, and adaptation
The Dharma friend’s mention of “Luddite” reminded Soh of Calvin Cheng’s comments on AI and creative work. He shared Cheng’s Facebook post, dated 10 August. The following reproduces Cheng’s own commentary as shown in the supplied screenshots, preserving his wording, spelling, and punctuation. Screen-width line wrapping has been removed. The separate news article preview beneath his post is not part of this quotation.
There is a difference between criticising badly made AI film , and criticising AI-made film and content in general.
Arvind Jay seems to be against AI made films and ‘art’ in general.
He says “ if you use AI don’t call yourself a filmmaker. You are an ass”
This person is making himself sound like a Luddite , out of touch with reality.
In China, AI made film and TV content is getting better and better. Soon it will be indistinguishable from human-made content.
The analogy with Luddites couldn’t be more apt.
In the 19th century, English textile workers smashed looms and automated knitting frames. They said it wasn’t craftsmanship. Not art. But consumers didn’t care. To them, the textiles woven by machines were indistinguishable enough to prefer them, as they were cheaper and produced more quickly.
This is going to happen to TV, film , music and even art.
If the consumer feels it’s indistinguishable, then who is the human ‘producer’ to stop the consumer from preferring it ?
People in the creative industries have to learn how to use AI , or be made irrelevant by it. Right now, prompting and refining the content is still important. A good ‘eye’ is still needed to parse bad AI slop from good AI content.
It helps the artist / creator be more efficient.
And until AGI arrives , human input is still important. But when AGI is developed , then the AI itself can prompt, and create.
But that’s development. And human beings will have to find another way to be relevant to each other.
(Human copyright of course still needs to be protected. But machine learning is in a way like human learning. We also look at past examples of content , art , and the try to produce something ‘original’)
The passage above presents Cheng’s views, historical interpretation, and predictions. Quoting it does not imply agreement with every claim or personal characterisation.
The distinction does not require defending every AI production. In its review of Trace Project, Mothership identified storytelling and visual problems and reported the filmmakers’ statement that the script was mainly human-written. A work can be criticised on its merits while the broader possibilities of the technology remain open.
Sources: Calvin Cheng’s original post · Mothership’s film review · Background on Calvin Cheng
P.S. Comments by Soh
What strikes me is that John is personally exposed to the disruption he is discussing. His accounting and finance businesses are affected, and even the agentic AI course he was taking was overtaken by developments before he completed it. Yet he continues learning, examining the threats and exploring the opportunities.
I am not suggesting that AI is all good. Job displacement, concentration of power, misinformation, safety concerns, and potentially even existential risks deserve serious attention. Nor should we assume that new jobs will necessarily compensate for those lost, or that everyone can simply “reskill” their way out of structural economic changes. Governments and businesses have responsibilities here; individuals cannot shoulder the entire burden.
But taking these concerns seriously is compatible with learning to use AI thoughtfully. We can support safeguards, question harmful applications, and still explore its usefulness—including in studying, translating, and communicating the Dharma, with careful checking of sources and meaning.
That is the spirit in which I understand John’s remarks: remain willing to learn and update ourselves, recognise both the dangers and possibilities, and respond constructively. Neither blanket rejection nor uncritical enthusiasm will do that work for us.
Afterword: What did the Luddites actually oppose?
An interesting historical qualification is worth adding to our earlier use of “Luddite.” Today, the word often means someone who resists technology. The original Luddites, however, included skilled textile workers who knew their machines intimately. Their protests concerned wages, livelihoods, workmanship, and the terms on which machinery was used. The familiar image of people simply frightened by unfamiliar inventions misses much of that history.
The video linked below offers a useful corrective. Its central argument is supported by historical scholarship: opposition to particular uses of machinery was not necessarily opposition to technology as such. There were regional differences, however. Some workers challenged wage-cutting practices and inferior production; others resisted machines that directly threatened their occupations. Their actions also included intimidation and violence. Understanding their grievances need not mean endorsing those methods.
This also qualifies the historical analogy in Calvin Cheng’s post quoted above. Learning to use new tools can be valuable, but the original conflict cannot be reduced to a contest between stubborn craftsmen and consumers choosing cheaper goods. Nor does using a computer or a washing machine oblige someone to accept every application of AI. The relevant questions include what a particular use makes possible, what it costs people, and who has a say in the decision.
For me, this connects with John’s recognition that automation creates structural problems requiring a public response. We can learn the technology while also asking how its gains should be shared and how people whose livelihoods are disrupted should be supported. Adaptation and a concern for fairness belong in the same conversation.
A note on the video: its broad framing is sound, but some details need qualification. Frame-breaking was already occurring in March 1811, before the November raids used as its opening scene. The Luddites were not the first to contest the effects of mechanisation. Ned Ludd is best treated as a legendary figure, and the movement had varied aims rather than one unified programme.
Watch the video · Kevin Binfield: Luddite history · The National Archives: Why did the Luddites protest? · Smithsonian: What the Luddites really fought against
