The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[Morley]

The smiley face is to have a little laugh when it comes to the absolute mercilessness of some posters here. Process is more important than content.

MG, just a note, for what it's worth. The artificial bifurcation between process and content, style and substance, and "the ends justifies the means" trips a lot of people up. You've hinted that you're an "ends justifies the means" and "the content is more important than the process" type of guy, since you've argued the case for that so many times before. There is no moral separating of 'ends and means' or 'process and content.' If your process is dirty, the content that's derived from it is also corrupt. This is pretty standard fare in academics, the psychology of personal relationships, and the religions teachings of virtually every faith.

[Moksha]

The smiley face is to have a little laugh when it comes to the absolute mercilessness of some posters here. Process is more important than content.
Regards,
MG

Just be kind. That is most important.

[MG 2.0]

The smiley face is to have a little laugh when it comes to the absolute mercilessness of some posters here. Process is more important than content.

MG, just a note, for what it's worth. The artificial bifurcation between process and content, style and substance, and "the ends justifies the means" trips a lot of people up. You've hinted that you're an "ends justifies the means" and "the content is more important than the process" type of guy, since you've argued the case for that so many times before. There is no moral separating of 'ends and means' or 'process and content.' If your process is dirty, the content that's derived from it is also corrupt. This is pretty standard fare in academics, the psychology of personal relationships, and the religions teachings of virtually every faith.

I think that it is possible for good outcomes to result from imperfect or even dubious processes. In the field of medicine, for example, medical advances as a result of what might appear to be ethically imperfect/doubtful experiments.

Many moral philosophers argue that sometimes the ends can justify the means, or that process and content can be evaluated separately.

You are making a sweeping claim about all situations, including mine, but there are many counterexamples (e.g., whistleblowing, civil disobedience, or even "the ends justify the means" cases in wartime).

And as far as the "process being dirty" I think that is a matter of personal interpretation in the eye of the beholder.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

You're right. I posted the prompt on one post and not the other. If I don't correct that and get that prompt on every post I'm going to live to regret it at the hands of the unmerciful board nanny, Marcus.

I find it interesting that you still don’t post the accurate prompts that you use for each of the A.I. submissions that you make. This failing has been pointed out by multiple people, multiple times. Yet still you don’t provide it. Is that because you have to copy and paste it separately to the main body of text, and that’s a bit too much effort for you? Is it because you’re having cognitive issues due to age or illness? Is it because you hate being corrected, especially by women? Or some other reason?

It happens so often, despite the repeated corrections, it can only be that you’re incapable of remembering to do it, or else you are deliberately choosing not to do it. Which is it?

That's some great missionary work, MG.

[MG 2.0]

I find it interesting that you still don’t post the accurate prompts that you use for each of the A.I. submissions that you make. This failing has been pointed out by multiple people, multiple times. Yet still you don’t provide it. Is that because you have to copy and paste it separately to the main body of text, and that’s a bit too much effort for you? Is it because you’re having cognitive issues due to age or illness? Is it because you hate being corrected, especially by women? Or some other reason?

It happens so often, despite the repeated corrections, it can only be that you’re incapable of remembering to do it, or else you are deliberately choosing not to do it. Which is it?

That's some great missionary work, MG.

Thanks Wang! As I've said, you are obviously a good man with a good heart. Your word should be taken seriously.

Except when it shouldn't.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Many moral philosophers argue that sometimes the ends can justify the means, or that process and content can be evaluated separately.

Yeah, that great moral philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli.

Tell me about how your ends (defending your religion) justifies your means (dishonesty in posting).

As long as your content (defense of your religion) is satisfactory, your process (dishonesty in how you got the A.I. to give that response) should be shrugged off. That’s what you’re saying.

[Marcus]

The smiley face is to have a little laugh when it comes to the absolute mercilessness of some posters here. Process is more important than content.

MG, just a note, for what it's worth. The artificial bifurcation between process and content, style and substance, and "the ends justifies the means" trips a lot of people up. You've hinted that you're an "ends justifies the means" and "the content is more important than the process" type of guy, since you've argued the case for that so many times before. There is no moral separating of 'ends and means' or 'process and content.' If your process is dirty, the content that's derived from it is also corrupt. This is pretty standard fare in academics, the psychology of personal relationships, and the religions teachings of virtually every faith.

Well said. His process is definitely dirty, and he's done it consistently for years and years. He considers it acceptable to play dirty here, with people he considers different from himself (for one reason only), even though he says he's here to promote a religion that has "are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" as a TR question, If I recall correctly.

[MG 2.0]

MG, just a note, for what it's worth. The artificial bifurcation between process and content, style and substance, and "the ends justifies the means" trips a lot of people up. You've hinted that you're an "ends justifies the means" and "the content is more important than the process" type of guy, since you've argued the case for that so many times before. There is no moral separating of 'ends and means' or 'process and content.' If your process is dirty, the content that's derived from it is also corrupt. This is pretty standard fare in academics, the psychology of personal relationships, and the religions teachings of virtually every faith.

Well said. His process is definitely dirty, and he's done it consistently for years and years. He considers it acceptable to play dirty here, with people he considers different from himself (for one reason only), even though he says he's here to promote a religion that has "are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" as a TR question, If I recall correctly.

I take offense at your accusation. I do not play dirty. If anyone does, it's you. You don't like the LDS Church and the religious doctrines it espouses. As a result you spend your time here lashing out against anything Mormon. Including members of the church that as you say, "promote" the religion. You can't have any of that and will dedicate whatever means necessary to attack and defame the church and its defenders.

It's rather clear. And you've been doing it for quite a while now and nobody has called you on it. Until now.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

MG, just a note, for what it's worth. The artificial bifurcation between process and content, style and substance, and "the ends justifies the means" trips a lot of people up. You've hinted that you're an "ends justifies the means" and "the content is more important than the process" type of guy, since you've argued the case for that so many times before. There is no moral separating of 'ends and means' or 'process and content.' If your process is dirty, the content that's derived from it is also corrupt. This is pretty standard fare in academics, the psychology of personal relationships, and the religions teachings of virtually every faith.

Well said. His process is definitely dirty, and he's done it consistently for years and years. He considers it acceptable to play dirty here, with people he considers different from himself (for one reason only), even though he says he's here to promote a religion that has "are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?" as a TR question, If I recall correctly.

You guys have certainly got MG pegged correctly, and the countless examples of it have been covered many times. He couldn’t even stick to the simple notion of including the actual prompt along with his wall of A.I. texts.

[Analytics]

2. Does complexity prove Joseph Smith didn’t write it?
No. Gifted nineteenth‑century authors (e.g., Dickens at 24, Mary Shelley at 18) produced works of similar or greater complexity. Complexity shows effort and imagination; it does not rule out Smith as author or compiler.

In response to this Perplexity has this to say in response to your A.I. response:

This answer ignores Unique Circumstances of Book of Mormon Production...

I uploaded a pdf of this page of the thread to ChatGPT 03-pro, and offered it the following prompt:

I'd like you to respond to what MG 2.0 says in response to what 03-pro wrote on Thu Jun 12, 2025 3:54 pm. In your response, consider that there are two underlying questions: 1- whether Joseph Smith wrote it, and 2- whether it is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript. In context, carefully consider what "Perplexity" responded and offer a detailed response on your own.

Your philosophical position is that of a dispassionate finder of truth who will follow the evidence to wherever it leads. In your answer, don't hedge your conclusions or try to be diplomatic or sensitive to the feelings of whoever might read this. Tell us what you really think about the Book of Mormon's complexity in the context of the totality of the evidence, what it implies about its provenance. In your original analysis did you consider the things perplexity claims you didn't?

Please keep your response to under 1,000 words, and only use text with minimal BBC formatting for highlights.

It analyzed the question for 13 minutes and 1 second and then responded:

Framing the two questions
1 – Did Joseph Smith compose the text?
2 – If not, is it a faithful translation of an ancient record?

What “complexity” really buys you
Complexity is a neutral fact. 270 k words, dozens of flashbacks, named characters, and some chiastic stitching are impressive—but novelists, orators, and scriptorians have produced equal or greater intricacy under tight deadlines. Sanderson’s Stormlight drafts top 400 k words in six‑month bursts; Dickens serialized 19th‑century door‑stoppers on weekly schedules. None of that makes Roshar or Victorian London literal history.

Perplexity’s three objections answered

• Unique oral‑dictation pace (≈4 700 w/d, no notes) –‑ The pace is fast but not phenomenal. A practiced speaker reads ~130 wpm; dictating four hours/day yields 31 k words—an order of magnitude more than Smith averaged. Memorized sermons, extensive KJV borrowings, and recycling stock phrases (“and it came to pass…”) compress the cognitive load. Contemporaries like John Wesley, without formal schooling, produced millions of coherent words in extempore sermons recorded by scribes.
  thuswesee.com
• Stylometry & “multiple narrative voices” –‑ Jockers/Witten/Criddle found Spaulding and Rigdon signals, but the same data also show that word‑prints cluster by subject genre more than by author, and later studies split on methodology. Stylometry today cannot rule in or out a single inventive dictater using varied registers.
  scholarsarchive.BYU.edu
• Hidden literary forms (chiasmus, Hebraisms)] –‑ Chiasmus appears in English prose when writers mimic KJV rhetoric; computer simulations reproduce comparable chiastic depths by chance in long texts. Its presence is evidence of rhetorical skill, not necessarily of antiquity.
  rsc.BYU.edu

Total evidence review

• Language: Early chapters lift whole KJV passages—including 1611 translation errors—into “reformed Egyptian,” an implausible happenstance for a genuine ancient record.
• Material culture: Horses, wheat, steel, and synagogues appear centuries before any Mesoamerican archaeological attestation.
• Theology: Explicit 19th‑century Methodist revival tropes (infant salvation debate, “burning in the bosom”) sit inside purported Iron‑Age sermons.
• Transmission claims: No gold plates survive; the “translation instruments” were an 1820s seer‑stone previously used in treasure‑digging.

Taken together these features place the text squarely in an early‑American religious milieu. Complexity does not outweigh cumulative anachronism.

Question 1 – Did Joseph Smith write it?
The balance of probabilities says yes, either as principal composer or ring‑master of a small circle. Complexity is explainable by (i) extensive KJV scaffolding; (ii) oral culture familiarity with biblicist rhetoric; (iii) months‑to‑years of private story‑planning before dictation started; and (iv) Smith’s demonstrated talent for extemporaneous revelatory speech. Nothing in the production scenario demands supernatural aid.

Question 2 – Accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript?
For that to be true we would need: (a) linguistic features impossible for an 1820s Anglophone to fabricate; (b) externally attested proper nouns or cultural practices; (c) physical plates or facsimiles open to inspection. None exist. Instead we observe KJV italics copied verbatim, 16th‑century English subjunctives, and post‑biblical doctrinal debates—all fingerprints of a modern source. Ergo the ancient‑translation hypothesis is not supported.

Did my earlier analysis “ignore” Perplexity’s points?
No. I treated speed, stylometry, and literary devices as insufficient on their own because they are, in fact, insufficient; they still are after closer scrutiny. Perplexity’s critique simply restates apologetic talking points without showing that any are decisive.

Verdict

• Complexity ≠ divine dictation; it is a known human achievement.
• When weighed against anachronisms, language borrowings, and lack of corroborating artifacts, complexity has little evidentiary heft.
• Most parsimonious provenance: a 19th‑century composition chiefly orchestrated by Joseph Smith.
• Therefore complexity does not move the needle toward ancient authenticity; it merely showcases the storyteller’s ambition.