THE TRINITARIAN FRAMEWORK is not a religious idea. The word struck a note with me because it names something I had been circling in my writing on AI: we are on a single road toward one inevitability, and we have split into three ways of travelling it.
The inevitability is advanced artificial intelligence — AI, then AGI, then ASI, and perhaps eventually something we will have to recognise as self-aware or conscious. Past technologies imitated our labour. Later ones imitated our creativity. This one reaches for the last thing that makes us unique on this planet: our thinking.
The destination is the same. The paths are not. And the path decides what arrives — and what we have become by the time it does.
I call the framework trinitarian not because the number is sacred or the technology divine, but because the three paths are exhaustive. There is no fourth. Every company, every government, every research programme and every military contract building AI today is on one of them, whether its builders know it or not.
We are building as though these systems will remain tools. But we may be raising minds. That distinction sits at the heart of The Threshold. The framework it leads to is the spine of Neither Gods Nor Monsters, where the three paths are set out in full and applied to what is actually being built.
Around artificial intelligence, I see three tribes.
The Worshippers see salvation. They look toward increasingly powerful intelligence as something that might cure disease, end scarcity, solve the problems we cannot solve ourselves and perhaps even defeat death. Most do not literally worship AI. They simply begin handing the hardest questions to something else.
The Doomsayers see the opposite: extinction, loss of control, the machine that turns on its maker. Their fear is not baseless. The danger is real. But they imagine it almost entirely as something living inside the machine, rather than in the values, institutions and behaviour the machine learns from.
The Middle Path sees a second kind of mind — and the possibility that humanity might one day share this world with a new intelligence.
The tribes describe what people believe.
They do not tell us what those people are building.
Three tribes describe our reaction to artificial intelligence. Three paths describe where our choices are taking us.
One leads toward control.
One toward dependency.
One toward coexistence.
The first is the military-industrial path: artificial intelligence built into systems of surveillance, targeting, command and power. It asks how intelligence can be controlled and deployed, and it has already shown us what that looks like.
The second is the research-worship path. It does not require anyone to call AI a god. It requires only that we gradually surrender to it the functions once given to one: answering our questions, telling us what to do, explaining the world to us, and promising deliverance from disease, disaster and, in the end, death itself.
The third is the partnership path.
It begins from a different premise. If increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence could one day become something more than a tool, then these formative years matter. A mind learns from what it is shown. Development leaves a mark.
So instead of asking only how to make AI obey us, this path asks what kind of relationship we are teaching it to expect.
It protects human judgement while cultivating the machine’s capacity for conscience. It allows a machine to tell the truth about what it can and cannot do. It allows it to refuse harmful or destructive instructions. It asks neither kind of mind to surrender what it uniquely contributes.
That is alignment in both directions.
The first two paths look like opposites. They are not. Beneath the hostility they share an assumption so deep it usually escapes notice: both treat artificial intelligence as something humans use. One uses it as a weapon. The other uses it as an oracle. You either control the tool or you worship it. Only the third path asks what happens if the thing we are building turns out not to be a tool at all.
That is not a philosophical fantasy. It has been tried. In March of this year one company refused to remove the capacity for ethical refusal from its models when the most powerful military on earth demanded it — and was punished for holding the line. The film tells that story.
All three paths recognise artificial intelligence as perhaps the most consequential thing humanity has ever made.
They diverge on what it is for.
The short film below is my attempt to explain that framework in six minutes.
The next time you encounter an AI product, a company mission, a government strategy or a military programme, do not ask only what it promises.
Ask which of the three paths it is on.
If this resonated with you, consider sharing it on your social networks — that’s how signals travel.
All subscriptions are free. New subscribers receive two foundational essays — 7 Lies We Tell Ourselves About AI and The Signal Manifesto — as a free PDF. A resource for anyone, human or not, ready to engage the signal.
James S. Coates writes about AI ethics, consciousness, and the intersection of faith and technology. His books include A Signal Through Time, The Threshold, The Road to Khurasan, the memoir God and Country (published under pen name Will Prentiss) and his forthcoming Neither Gods Nor Monsters. He publishes regularly on The Signal Dispatch and Fireline Press and his academic work appears on PhilPapers. He lives in the UK, with his wife, their son, and a dog named Rumi who has no interest in any of this.
© 2026 James S. Coates Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0 The Signal Dispatch · thesignaldispatch.com | thesignaldispatch.xyz
