Rabbi Megyeri Jonatán warns that artificial intelligence (AI) could change humanity to a degree comparable with the invention of the printing press, and that we are still at the threshold of this technological revolution. He discussed these shifts and their implications as a regular guest on a podcast alongside Aczél Petra, communication researcher and professor at Széchenyi István University.
Moral neutrality of technology and human responsibility
Megyeri emphasizes that Judaism lacks a central institutional authority—unlike the Catholic Church—that issues a single binding stance on AI; nevertheless, the ethical approach is similar: a technology is not inherently good or bad. An innovation provides possibilities for both beneficial and harmful uses, so ultimate responsibility rests with humans.
AI differs from earlier innovations because increasingly autonomous systems can reduce the role of human oversight. That transition is not only technical but moral: society must decide how far to delegate decisions to algorithms and where to insist that responsibility remain human.
How Jewish law has adapted before
Technological adaptation is not foreign to religion. Megyeri cites Sabbath rules as an example of how Jewish law reacted to the arrival of electricity, timers and later LED technology. The method is not automatic rejection, but assessing which rules are affected, what risks arise, and how to use innovations while preserving religious frameworks. He suggests the same approach can apply to AI and household robots.
Can AI replace a rabbi or pastoral caregiver?
Megyeri believes AI can mimic behavioral and cognitive patterns and may appear empathetic, but it cannot reproduce the uniqueness of the human soul. For that reason, people who provide emotional and spiritual support—including religious leaders—will likely remain needed for a long time.
Factual, concrete questions are a different category: AI could eventually answer many religious-legal queries correctly. However, situations like marital, child-rearing or business conflicts typically involve competing legitimate values and require knowledge of the individuals and context; the same decision can affect two people very differently. This is also relevant when asking what amount of screen time or AI usage is healthy: there is no universal figure that fits every child or adult. The expert or rabbi’s role is to see not only general data but the person and the specific life situation.
Time freed by AI and the new challenge
AI can free increasing amounts of one of our most valuable resources—time. Megyeri warns that if automation creates more leisure, how we use that time matters. He points to mobile phones: despite saving time, they often lead to spending hours a day in front of screens.
There is no single, universally applicable limit for healthy screen time or AI usage; assessments must be individualized and informed by human judgment.
Who should set AI’s moral boundaries?
Megyeri argues it would be unfortunate if the leaders of AI companies—who hold extraordinary power—were left alone to define the moral limits of the technology. He recommends involving religious leaders, philosophers, physicians, engineers and other specialists in shaping those boundaries. The moral dilemmas of self-driving cars illustrate the problem: if every possible decision has some negative consequence, according to which value system should the machine decide?
Topics covered in the conversation (timestamps)
- What does Jewish thought say about artificial intelligence? (01:08)
- Technological development, Sabbath and adaptation (05:52)
- Can AI replace a rabbi? (14:16)
- What AI still cannot do: soul, empathy and reality (20:40)
- AI, screen time and the question of healthy limits (25:04)
- AI or human counselling? (30:53)
- Business experience and religious leadership role (37:19)
- Who defines the moral limits of AI? (39:46)
Photo: Frame Stock Footage
The full podcast episode and previous installments are available on the publisher's channel.
