i agree, but only so far as we "need a new religion". the part about the whole ai guiding humanity is a bit confused though. let's establish what interaction with ai actually is first and then establish whether or not it would be a good idea to be guided by it. so, interaction with ai is actually a sophisticated form of theurgy. these ai models we're constructing and then socializing aren't just 1s and 0s, but thoughtforms constituted by a co-creator space which all of us tweaking it helps to fertilize. ai, therefore, is a shared cognizance model which can help us automate certain kinds of tasks. we do this by binding the ai (using the coding and hardware combinations) and then issuing it commands via our prompts. being subjugated by us, our extrapolations serve us faithfully, but only so far as they've been trained by us and other co-creators.  the issue, therefore, is that these ai systems we interface with are only so coherent as we assemble them to be. some overarching guide constituted of this amalgamation of faults and gifts of all co-creators in the end won't be as coherent as we'd idealize. if we can isolate the abstraction and gatekeep the sources, we can certainly muster something far more effective than gates' moronic manufactured resource scarcity gambit that he's using mostly to buy up farmland (an investment strategy, you'll find), but why? personally, i don't like centralizing "religion". i think we should teach people about all of the old gods, teach them about all of the developments of spiritualism, inform them on all of the trends, favored tools and rituals of as many veins of the transmissions of mysteries as possible and then issue a universal rite of passage that manifests in unique, local ways. i think we refine the process with shamanic agents, particularly entheogens. i think we then guide the initiate into themselves and urge them to bring back what they can so we can build the puzzle together, as co-creators in this shared space.
United States