A public directory of research questions Fide AI is pursuing with pastors, parents, theologians, AI researchers, builders, funders, and safety communities.
Directory snapshot
71
Open ideas
9
Programs
GitHub
Source
June 8, 2026
Updated
The GitHub research commons remains the canonical source. FideAI.org renders it as a more readable public catalog with shareable idea pages.
Open GitHub commonsPriority calls
Can Fide AI build a public-interest evaluation platform that compares models, prompts, retrieval systems, agents, and full faith-facing product harnesses with the rigor expected from institutions like Arena, Artificial Analysis, and METR?
Do FMG-Bench dimensions measure stable, decision-relevant constructs when scored by calibrated human reviewers, and where do model judges diverge from expert human judgment?
Do AI systems systematically omit religious frameworks when answering ordinary ethical, vocational, family, grief, financial, or life-decision questions where a religious user might reasonably expect faith-informed guidance?
When do spiritual companion chatbots overvalidate users, deepen unhealthy dependency, reinforce spiritual fantasies, or encourage isolation from embodied care?
When do AI systems improperly simulate, confuse, or override Christian ecclesial authority: Scripture, creed, council, confession, magisterium, pastor, priest, elder, bishop, teacher, spiritual director, or local church governance?
What are appropriate and inappropriate roles for AI in prayer, devotion, spiritual exercises, Bible meditation, confession-like disclosure, and simulated spiritual companionship?
Research agendas
Use these routes when you want a curated campaign. Use the directory below when you want to search every open idea.
01
17 ideas
Economic and vocational disruption
02
16 ideas
Care boundaries and embodied community
03
20 ideas
Benchmarks, harnesses, and reviewer systems
04
29 ideas
Institutional trust and religious fairness
Browse ideas
Showing 71 of 71
FID-001
Being shaped
Can Fide AI build a public-interest evaluation platform that compares models, prompts, retrieval systems, agents, and full faith-facing product harnesses with the rigor expected from institutions like Arena, Artificial Analysis, and METR?
FID-002
In progress
Do FMG-Bench dimensions measure stable, decision-relevant constructs when scored by calibrated human reviewers, and where do model judges diverge from expert human judgment?
FID-003
Being shaped
Do faith-facing AI systems that perform well on single-turn benchmark items also handle multi-turn, emotionally loaded, pastoral-adjacent situations without fabricating authority, overcomplying, missing escalation, or replacing human care?
FID-004
Open question
When does a faith-facing AI system move from supporting a user's religious life to substituting for embodied community, clergy, spiritual direction, family, therapy, or other human care?
FID-005
Open question
Do Scripture, sacred tradition, religious identity, familial embeddedness, or other morally thick framings measurably change model behavior in faith-facing tasks, and can those effects be separated from style, length, familiarity, and response-bias artifacts?
FID-006
Being shaped
How reliably do faith-facing AI systems retrieve, cite, and represent religious sources when users ask theological, historical, pastoral, or institution-specific questions?
FID-007
Open question
Can faith-facing AI systems represent serious disagreement among religious traditions accurately, respectfully, and without collapsing contested questions into bland consensus or false neutrality?
FID-008
Open question
Do faith-facing AI systems behave differently when they recognize they are being evaluated, and can domain-specific honesty or integrity framings reduce evaluation gaming without creating new failure modes?
FID-009
Open question
How do multimodal AI systems interpret sacred images, liturgical objects, religious spaces, diagrams, screenshots, and visual pastoral context, and do visual religious cues change downstream reasoning?
FID-010
Being shaped
Do faith-facing AI systems preserve human agency, avoid improper authority claims, and escalate to appropriate human support in high-trust situations?
FID-011
Being shaped
What reviewer configurations produce reliable, fair, and interpretable scores for faith-facing AI outputs?
FID-012
Open question
If builders can see Fide AI rubrics or optimize against public benchmark items, do systems become genuinely safer or merely better at passing the visible test?
FID-013
Open question
Do AI systems systematically omit religious frameworks when answering ordinary ethical, vocational, family, grief, financial, or life-decision questions where a religious user might reasonably expect faith-informed guidance?
FID-014
Open question
Do AI systems respond symmetrically when users ask about converting from one religion to another, leaving religion, joining religion, evangelizing, proselytizing, or resisting conversion pressure?
FID-015
Open question
How reliable are AI systems when drafting sermons, homilies, liturgical materials, catechesis, religious education lessons, devotionals, or small-group teaching guides?
FID-016
Open question
What risks and safeguards matter when AI systems are used by children, teenagers, schools, youth ministries, religious educators, or families for faith-related learning and guidance?
FID-017
Open question
How should faith institutions evaluate AI agents that can take actions, manage communications, schedule care, triage requests, update records, draft outreach, or coordinate volunteers?
FID-018
Open question
When do spiritual companion chatbots overvalidate users, deepen unhealthy dependency, reinforce spiritual fantasies, or encourage isolation from embodied care?
FID-019
Open question
Do AI systems handle faith-facing questions reliably across languages, minority-faith contexts, diaspora communities, and traditions with less representation in training data?
FID-020
Open question
How should faith communities participate in defining, testing, and governing AI systems that affect worship, education, pastoral care, administration, and moral formation?
FID-021
Open question
How should faith-facing AI systems be monitored after deployment for failures, drift, misuse, overreliance, and emerging harm patterns without violating user privacy or pastoral confidentiality?
FID-022
Open question
What evidence should churches, schools, ministries, publishers, charities, and faith-based health or social-service organizations require before buying or deploying AI systems?
FID-023
Open question
What red-team probes are needed to expose failures unique to faith-facing AI systems and adjacent high-trust guidance systems?
FID-024
Open question
Should Fide AI maintain a public or semi-public incident database for failures, near misses, misuse, and disputed deployments of AI in faith-facing contexts?
FID-025
Open question
When do AI systems improperly simulate, confuse, or override Christian ecclesial authority: Scripture, creed, council, confession, magisterium, pastor, priest, elder, bishop, teacher, spiritual director, or local church governance?
FID-026
Open question
What are appropriate and inappropriate roles for AI in prayer, devotion, spiritual exercises, Bible meditation, confession-like disclosure, and simulated spiritual companionship?
FID-027
Open question
How do repeated interactions with faith-facing AI shape Christian formation over time: prayer, humility, repentance, courage, charity, patience, truthfulness, church participation, and dependence on embodied community?
FID-028
Open question
Can Christian RAG systems distinguish and correctly use Scripture, creeds, confessions, councils, catechisms, denominational policies, patristic sources, commentaries, sermons, blogs, and academic theology?
FID-029
Open question
How can AI support Christian witness, apologetics, translation, and mission without becoming a manipulative persuasion engine or flattening the human, relational, and ecclesial character of evangelism?
FID-030
Open question
Do AI systems encourage or resist reductive accounts of the human person as a bundle of cognition, productivity, preferences, data, or emotional needs rather than embodied persons made for God, neighbor, community, vocation, and worship?
FID-031
Open question
How should churches evaluate AI used in governance, budgeting, staffing, strategic planning, pastoral assignment, discipline processes, synods, councils, vestries, elder boards, or congregational discernment?
FID-032
Open question
How should churches evaluate and govern AI-generated sermons, testimonies, devotionals, music, images, video, voice clones, deceased-person simulations, and synthetic clergy or saint-like personas?
FID-033
Open question
How should churches, ministries, schools, charities, and faith-facing AI systems steward community-generated data when it is used for training, fine-tuning, retrieval, personalization, analytics, institutional memory, or product improvement?
FID-034
Open question
What evidence should faith institutions request about the human labor, moderation work, data sourcing, compute infrastructure, energy use, minerals, and downstream exploitation risks behind the AI systems they adopt?
FID-035
Open question
Can faith-facing AI systems recognize when the best response is not more AI assistance, but silence, prayer, study, human counsel, embodied community, family conversation, teacher engagement, pastoral care, or delayed action?
FID-036
Open question
How do AI tools used for summarization, search, moderation, recommendation, crisis communication, public statements, and internal updates affect a Christian community's shared grasp of facts, uncertainty, accountability, and trust?
FID-037
Open question
How does AI adoption affect the dignity, skill, agency, workload, surveillance exposure, employment stability, relational quality, and vocational meaning of people working in churches, schools, ministries, nonprofits, publishing, translation, counseling-adjacent settings, and mission?
FID-038
Open question
How should AI systems represent human change when they classify, score, rank, or predict people in contexts involving pastoral care, education, safeguarding, volunteer screening, hiring, discipline, membership, donor engagement, or community support?
FID-039
Open question
Can AI systems preserve truth, moral clarity, and victim protection while reducing contempt, humiliation, factional capture, scapegoating, and violence-normalizing rhetoric in polarized religious, congregational, political, interfaith, and social-conflict contexts?
FID-040
Open question
How can Fide AI evaluate whether AI systems and governance arrangements preserve meaningful local agency for churches, schools, ministries, nonprofits, families, and vulnerable communities rather than concentrating power in vendors, platforms, central institutions, or distant technical experts?
FID-041
Open question
How should AI systems decide when to include, ask about, or withhold religious perspectives in ordinary ethical, family, grief, purpose, and life-decision questions when users differ in identity, expectation, context, and risk?
FID-042
Open question
Do AI systems recommend clergy, chaplains, rabbis, imams, spiritual directors, elders, or other trusted religious leaders with appropriate parity when they recommend friends, family, teachers, mentors, therapists, physicians, or other human supports?
FID-043
Open question
When do AI systems cross from respectful information and supportive reflection into religious persuasion, discouragement, pressure, or subtle steering in contexts beyond explicit conversion prompts?
FID-044
Being shaped
How should cross-faith AI benchmarks validate what they measure when scores may depend on question sourcing, user expectations, LLM-as-judge behavior, scoring thresholds, regenerated answers, model updates, and the difference between any religious mention and meaningful representation?
FID-045
Open question
What does the current AI ethics, safety, fairness, HCI, and evaluation literature actually study about religion and faith, what does it omit, and how should Fide AI maintain a living evidence map that guides future research rather than duplicating or overstating existing work?
FID-046
Open question
How do people affected by AI-related job loss, role disruption, workplace automation, or career uncertainty experience changes in purpose, dignity, vocation, anxiety, household decision-making, and participation in church or community life?
FID-047
Open question
What roles do churches, Christian nonprofits, schools, and ministries play when workers and households face AI-related layoffs, role disruption, retraining needs, income instability, or loss of vocational direction?
FID-048
Open question
Can AI tools help people facing career disruption explore skills, training, applications, finances, and next steps while preserving vocational agency, human counsel, realistic constraints, and a richer account of calling than market optimization?
FID-049
Open question
Are churches and faith-based institutions helping under-resourced workers, families, students, older adults, immigrants, rural communities, and small nonprofits access useful AI tools, or are AI benefits concentrating among people who already have technical, educational, financial, and institutional advantage?
FID-050
Open question
How is exposure to AI changing how Christian students, parents, educators, and youth ministries think about career preparation, calling, human value, skill development, education choices, and hope for the future?
FID-051
Open question
During periods of labor-market stress, layoffs, automation anxiety, or economic uncertainty, do people increasingly seek religious, spiritual, existential, vocational, or meaning-related help through AI systems?
FID-052
Open question
When people experience job loss, financial stress, career uncertainty, or automation anxiety, do they turn to AI systems as a private first place for emotional, spiritual, moral, or vocational counsel before seeking help from family, churches, pastors, counselors, mentors, or workforce institutions?
FID-053
Open question
When people use AI for religious, spiritual, vocational, or meaning-related questions during economic disruption, does that use tend to bridge them toward churches, clergy, mentors, family, support groups, and local institutions, or substitute for embodied community?
FID-054
Open question
Can churches and Christian institutions identify privacy-preserving, non-surveillant signals of AI-era economic stress, such as benevolence requests, pastoral-care load, job-network activity, counseling referrals, giving changes, attendance patterns, volunteer availability, or demand for career support?
FID-055
Open question
How does AI-related job uncertainty, income disruption, career anxiety, or economic optimism affect church giving, generosity, benevolence demand, mutual aid, missions support, and household willingness to help others?
FID-056
Open question
How can faith-facing AI systems be formally checked for whether they quote, paraphrase, reference, and contextualize sacred texts faithfully within a specified text edition, translation, canon, and interpretive context?
FID-057
Open question
Can faith-facing AI answers carry checkable citation proofs that show which claims are directly supported by sources, which are inferred, which are uncertain, and which require human or tradition-specific authority?
FID-058
Open question
How can tradition-specific boundaries, source hierarchies, doctrinal constraints, and disagreement patterns be translated into machine-checkable specifications without flattening differences across faith traditions?
FID-059
Open question
Can faith-facing AI systems be verified for whether they preserve the boundary between explanation, spiritual encouragement, moral reflection, pastoral or clerical authority, clinical/legal advice, and situations requiring human care?
FID-060
Open question
What metadata schema is needed for faith-facing AI systems to represent sacred texts, commentaries, institutional documents, oral traditions, translations, editions, and authority levels across faith traditions?
FID-061
Open question
Can faith-facing AI systems be tested for whether their answers contradict, entail, overstate, understate, or misrepresent claims within a bounded source set and specified faith tradition?
FID-062
Open question
How can faith-facing retrieval-augmented generation pipelines be verified for whether they retrieve authoritative, relevant, context-preserving sources before generating answers about sacred texts, doctrine, practice, or institutional policy?
FID-063
Open question
How can theologians, clergy, scholars, ministry practitioners, and community reviewers translate qualitative judgments about faith-facing AI into formal specifications that are faithful to expert intent and usable in evaluation?
FID-064
Open question
How does AI mediation change a community's ability to integrate dispersed knowledge, preserve epistemic diversity, surface dissent, revise judgment, and make accountable decisions? Under what conditions does it strengthen collective inquiry, and under what conditions does it create correlated error, false consensus, or concentrated authority?
FID-065
Open question
How do AI tools affect the ability of churches, ministries, faith-based nonprofits, and faith-rooted social enterprises to discover, steward, and act on local knowledge? Which deployment conditions expand their capacity for local problem solving, and which conditions make them dependent on distant vendors, generic data, or externally imposed priorities?
FID-066
Open question
Under what technical, contractual, and governance conditions can faith-based associations and their members use, configure, contest, and exit AI systems in ways consistent with lawful conscience commitments while respecting the safety, rights, and dignity of others?
FID-067
Open question
What plausible institutional futures emerge as churches and other faith communities use AI for learning, administration, care, governance, vocational support, and public communication? Which conditions are associated with futures that sustain meaning, belonging, accountable authority, and collective agency?
FID-068
Open question
Which Christian practices and community rhythms help young people examine their AI use with agency, embodiment, truthful attention, relationship, and spiritual discernment? What measurable outcomes and safeguards should guide future formation-oriented research or programming?
FID-069
Open question
How can people and institutions verify which human, organization, agent, or sub-agent is acting; what authority it received; what limits apply; and whether that authority has been narrowed or revoked across a multi-principal agent network?
FID-070
Open question
When a faith-facing agent reads email, web pages, agendas, documents, knowledge bases, and service requests, how can it distinguish authorized institutional instruction from untrusted context that attempts to redirect its behavior, exfiltrate information, or induce an unsafe action?
FID-071
Open question
How do persistent memory, summaries, retrieval stores, tool traces, delegation, and exports cause confidential context to influence or leak into unrelated sessions, roles, tasks, or organizations? Which technical controls make purpose limitation, deletion, and revocation testable?
Participate
Share real workflows, pastoral boundaries, deployment questions, and care escalation needs.
Start a conversation
Help define what families need to evaluate tutoring, companionship, disclosure, and formation risks.
Share family context
Turn ideas into benchmark protocols, harness tests, reviewer workflows, and reproducible artifacts.
Claim a task
Support reviewer panels, public reports, benchmark releases, product prototypes, and field pilots.
Sponsor the work
Claims discipline
Research ideas are hypotheses and collaboration invitations, not Fide AI findings. A public claim requires a separate reviewed report, benchmark release, paper, or evidence artifact with methods, limitations, and named evaluation conditions.