AI Conversations: The AI Agent as a "Shabbos Goy": Technical and Halachic Perspectives

The AI Agent as a "Shabbos Goy": Technical and Halachic Perspectives

By Jack Bibi

The "AI-Human" Dialogue: This article is a transcript of an in-depth conversation between Jack Bibi and Gemini AI. It explores the technical feasibility and halachic implications of high-level home automation.

Note: This is for educational and theoretical purposes. For practical Halachic rulings (Psak Halacha), please consult an Orthodox Rabbi.
JB: I’m a Machine Learning Engineer, and I know that AI is fundamentally a probability engine. If I add an RNG (Random Number Generator) layer to my smart home—where a sensor only triggers a light 80% of the time—does that "uncertainty" make it permissible on Shabbat? Gemini: It’s a clever engineering "workaround," but it hits a wall called Psik Reisha (Shabbat 75a). In Halacha, if an action is virtually certain to happen and you benefit from it, it’s treated as intentional.

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Minchat Shlomo 1:91) argues that even with a chance of failure, if the user’s intent is for the light to turn on, the "randomness" doesn't change the status. To most strict poskim, an 80% probability is functionally equivalent to 100% certainty.
Tech Concept: The "Gold Standard" Probability
If an AI triggers a light 99% of the time, Halacha views that 1% failure as a "glitch," not true uncertainty. For the "Gold Standard," many engineers and Rabbinical consultants point to < 50% probability.

Why 50%? In Halacha, this moves the act from a Psik Reisha (certainty) to a Sofeik (doubt) or Trovei d'lo nicha lei. If the sensor only works half the time, you cannot rely on it. If you cannot rely on it, your walk across the room is no longer a "direct act of turning on a light." It becomes a random occurrence that you happen to benefit from.
Tech Concept: The "Digital Die" (RNG)
In programming, a Random Number Generator (RNG) is like a machine that rolls a 100-sided die every time you walk into a room. If you set it to 80%, the light only turns on if the die lands on 1 through 80. If it lands on 81-100, nothing happens. To a computer, this is "uncertainty." But as the interview notes, if you walk into the room expecting the light to turn on, Halacha views those odds as a "sure thing" (Psik Reisha).
JB: What if we look at it through the lens of Shlichut (Agency)? If the AI code is making the executive decision based on a trained model, is the machine considered my "Agent"? Gemini: This is the core of the debate. Shlucho shel adam k'moto (a person’s agent is like himself) traditionally applies to humans. However, modern authorities view high-tech tools as a "Long Arm" of the user.

If the AI is programmed by you to monitor your movements and react, it is carrying out your will. Since a Jew cannot perform Melacha (prohibited labor) on Shabbat, they cannot empower an AI "agent" to perform that labor on their behalf. If the AI "updates" its own code or schedule on Saturday, it is acting as your proxy, which is a significant hurdle.
JB: Let's get more technical. Every time the AI "thinks" or updates a schedule, it writes to an SSD. Is that a violation of Kotev (Writing)? Gemini: Yes. Rav Shmuel Wosner (Shevet HaLevi 6:37) ruled that digital persistence—trapping electrons in NAND flash memory cells—is a form of Kotev because the data remains after power-loss.

To be "Strictly Compliant," the AI must run in a tmpfs (RAM-only) environment. Since RAM is volatile, many authorities (Nishmat Avraham Vol. 1, 340:1) view it as temporary, which is halachically "softer" than writing to an SSD.
Tech Concept: SSD vs. RAM
  • SSD (Solid State Drive): Think of this like engraving in stone. When the AI "remembers" your schedule, it physically traps electrons in a chip. Even if you unplug the computer, the "writing" stays there. This is why many Poskim consider it a violation of Kotev.
  • RAM (Random Access Memory): Think of this like writing in the air with a sparkler. The information only exists as long as the electricity is flowing. The moment you pull the plug, the memory vanishes. Using a tmpfs (RAM-only) environment makes the AI "forgetful," which is often more permissible.
JB: Here’s a classic "Global" scenario. I have a Jewish friend in Australia. By Saturday afternoon in NYC, his Shabbat is over. Can he log in and start my smart oven or toggle my lights for me? Gemini: This is a fascinating "Time Zone" loophole, but it generally fails for two reasons:
  • The Shaliach Restriction: For you, it is still Shabbat. Therefore, you cannot "commission" another Jew to do work for you, even if it's already Saturday night for them (Mishnah Berurah 307:15).
  • Bishul (Cooking): If he triggers an oven in Brooklyn from Sydney, he is performing Bishul. You cannot benefit from Melacha performed by a Jew specifically for you on Shabbat. Additionally, the Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 50:9) would be concerned with the physical completion of the circuit in your home while it is still your Shabbat.
Tech Concept: Remote Execution
Even though your friend is in Sydney where it is Saturday night, the physical circuit being closed is inside your house in New York. When he clicks "On" on his phone, a signal travels through under-sea cables to reach your kitchen. To the Halacha, it doesn't matter where the "finger" is; it matters where the "fire" is being lit.
JB: So, what is the ultimate "Gold Standard" for the Shabbat AI? Gemini: To satisfy the most stringent requirements (like those of the Chazon Ish or Rav Auerbach), the system must move from "Reactive" to "Independent."
  1. Asynchronous Polling: The AI never reacts to a "trigger." It must have an internal heartbeat (e.g., every 300 seconds) where it checks the state of the house.
  2. The 50% Probability Barrier: To break Psik Reisha, the AI should use an RNG. If the probability of the light turning on is 50% or less, it is no longer considered a "certain result" of the user walking by.
  3. Volatile Execution (RAM): The decision must be made in RAM and never written to an SSD. This avoids Kotev (Writing) by ensuring the "thought" vanishes if the power is cut.
  4. Read-Only Hardware: The operating system should be mounted as ro (Read-Only) to physically prevent the creation of permanent logs.
Tech Concept: "Push" vs. "Polling"
Imagine a doorbell. When a guest presses it, they "Push" an action—they directly caused the noise. This is usually prohibited on Shabbat.

Now, imagine a "Polling" system: A guard sits inside the house and looks out the window every 5 minutes. If he sees a guest, he opens the door. The guest didn't "trigger" the guard; the guard acted on his own schedule. A "Polling" AI doesn't wait for you to move; it just checks the room on a timer, breaking the direct link between your movement and the light turning on.

JB: What is the "Gold Standard" for a Shabbat-compliant Smart Home? Gemini: To satisfy a strict Psak, we must move from "Reactive" automation to "Independent" systems. The goal is to ensure your presence is merely a circumstance, not a cause.
Feature Standard Smart Home Shabbat "Gold Standard"
Trigger Type Instant "Push" (Sensor tells light to turn on) Asynchronous Polling (AI checks room every 5 mins)
Certainty 100% (Psik Reisha - It always works) < 50% Probability (RNG "Digital Die" roll)
Data Storage SSD/Flash (Permanent "Writing") tmpfs / RAM-Only (Volatile "Air Writing")
Hardware Read/Write enabled Physically Locked (Read-Only Mode)
The 50% Rule: By setting the AI to only succeed 50% of the time, you remove the "Certainty" (Psik Reisha). If you cannot rely on the light turning on, your movement is no longer halachically tied to the result. It becomes a Sofeik (doubtful act), which is a much lower threshold of prohibition.

Conclusion: The future of the "Shabbat Smart Home" isn't about more reactive sensors—it's about building State-less, Polling-based, and Volatile systems that respect the sanctity of the day by detaching human action from machine response.

Comments