Rethinking the AI "problem"

[Marcus]

...What I do have is the ability to sift through information and analyze it to the extent that I feel comfortable posting it as 'relevant' and useful. As I had mentioned a number of times, I would always preview and 'pass off ' AI retrieved information. It wasn't simply a "wall of text".

I don't see how this responds to what I was saying - for example, I don't believe I mentioned "wall of text" anywhere, or anything to do with previewing AI-generated content.

You didn't, and it doesn't. And no offense to mentalgymnasts everywhere, but it's been definitively proved that he doesn't have "the ability to sift through information and analyze it," unless of course what he feels comfortable with is completely different than the standard methods.

I do think that there may (I've already said this) be folks who have a problem with actually seeing their 'out of context' contributions/information challenged with any kind of frequency and accuracy. That IS possible to do with AI if it is curated carefully and with precision.

Again, not what I was talking about - at all.

That's how he turns a thread to himself. This particular strategy is one has used quite a bit, of late. He takes what others have said about him (for example, the bolded, above) and turns it around say others (as a group) specifically do exactly what he does. It's a bizarre form of projection, but entirely in keeping with my trolling theory.

[malkie]

If you read what I was suggesting, can you quote the part where I was talking about inviting academics? I was actually talking about people who are very much like you, and, I believe, like I and other regular guys here used to be before we stepped away from the church. Sure, we have academic folks here, but I'm not one any more than you are.

I don't see how this responds to what I was saying - for example, I don't believe I mentioned "wall of text" anywhere, or anything to do with previewing AI-generated content.

Again, not what I was talking about - at all.

You're welcome - but ... my suggestion was to look for a non-AI way to overcome the critics' "advantage because of their sheer numbers". Did you notice that?
I said nothing at all about board rules, but I'd be interested to hear how you think the rules relate to what I was saying.
As for "pushback from their own" - in what way is that relevant to the topic? By the way, have you noticed at all that the critics here are not uniform in their opinions, and that they do disagree about some things?

I'm not so sure that it is. I would say, from your response, that you appear to have read a completely different post than the one I wrote.

Well, I gave it a shot.

May I ask if you have tried to think of any way in which the board could incorporate "a wider/solid group of voices from different points on the spectrum of belief/non belief". If you haven't, how about giving it a go, and see what you come up with.

You have a way of controlling...or attempting to...the structure of the conversation. At this point now, I will again repeat, I've said what I've wanted to say in regard to this topic. Others will do 'work arounds' and/to try to control the flow/narrative and will succeed.

YES!!! I have done exactly that - controlling...or attempting to...the structure of the conversation - by asking you to explain how your supposed responses relate to my comments! How dastardly of me. much better if each of us completely ignores what the other says, right?
Can you at least admit that each of the points I made was directly related to a part of your comment, while yours totally ignored mine?

I'll hand you that. It's a given.

As you say, but not in the way you intended.

In the larger scope of this conversation, now, and including what came before, I think that I have presented a valid argument for using AI in a limited fashion on this board.

Once again, you are not responding to what I was saying, while apparently making it look as if you were, and once again getting a "poor me" slipped in.

I'm not expecting to change any hearts/minds at this point. It would be a HUGE shift. That much I agree with.

Regards,
MG

Neither was I trying to change hearts or minds - or did you not notice that either?

[Marcus]

... from your response, that you appear to have read a completely different post than the one I wrote.

Well, I gave it a shot.

May I ask if you have tried to think of any way in which the board could incorporate "a wider/solid group of voices from different points on the spectrum of belief/non belief". If you haven't, how about giving it a go, and see what you come up with.

...You have a way of controlling...or attempting to...the structure of the conversation... Others will do 'work arounds' and/to try to control the flow/narrative...

I'll hand you that. It's a given...

Malkie, in my opinion, this is another of mentalgymnast's bizarre projections. I have to give it to him, he describes how he posts with great clarity. He just can't admit he's the one posting like that.

[malkie]

... from your response, that you appear to have read a completely different post than the one I wrote.

Well, I gave it a shot.

May I ask if you have tried to think of any way in which the board could incorporate "a wider/solid group of voices from different points on the spectrum of belief/non belief". If you haven't, how about giving it a go, and see what you come up with.

...You have a way of controlling...or attempting to...the structure of the conversation... Others will do 'work arounds' and/to try to control the flow/narrative...

I'll hand you that. It's a given...

Malkie, in my opinion, this is another of mentalgymnast's bizarre projections. I have to give it to him, he describes how he posts with great clarity. He just can't admit he's the one posting like that.

1. Make accusations concerning a problem
2. Play the martyr
3. Mischaracterize ideas aimed at looking for a solution to the problem
4. Point by point, fail to address comments made
5. Complain when asked to justify your comments, or to match them up with the points they are supposed to answer
6. Accuse the person holding you to account of trying to control the conversation
7. Play the martyr again

From earlier in the thread:

I would be happy if MG were able to bring along some reinforcements, if that would make him feel better. OTOH, he may actually enjoy being the lone defender, in spite of the implications of his complaints.

Frankly malkie, my friend, I think you have a great deal of compassion and may feel compelled to help MG—I can appreciate that, but I’m not certain it is reciprocated or understood by MG as coming from a good place within you.

MG himself has said he is a “lone visionary” in these places, so yes you are probably seeing that correctly. I’ve said before that I feel real pity for him as I see it as a sort of trap—defending Mormonism is an impossible task that no one should envy.

Limnor, I considered contradicting your first para, but decided to wait to see what MG's response would be. Now we know.

I think I'm going back to very limited direct interaction with MG. At least that way he cannot accuse me of trying to control, or attempt to control the structure of the conversation.

I feel bad for him that he sees things that way, but there's nothing I can do about it. It's certainly not the first time that he has objected to my asking him to address actual arguments, or to justify his comments, and has conspicuously failed to hold up his end of the conversation.

[Limnor]

Malkie, in my opinion, this is another of mentalgymnast's bizarre projections. I have to give it to him, he describes how he posts with great clarity. He just can't admit he's the one posting like that.

1. Make accusations concerning a problem
2. Play the martyr
3. Mischaracterize ideas aimed at looking for a solution to the problem
4. Point by point, fail to address comments made
5. Complain when asked to justify your comments, or to match them up with the points they are supposed to answer
6. Accuse the person holding you to account of trying to control the conversation
7. Play the martyr again

From earlier in the thread:

Frankly malkie, my friend, I think you have a great deal of compassion and may feel compelled to help MG—I can appreciate that, but I’m not certain it is reciprocated or understood by MG as coming from a good place within you.

MG himself has said he is a “lone visionary” in these places, so yes you are probably seeing that correctly. I’ve said before that I feel real pity for him as I see it as a sort of trap—defending Mormonism is an impossible task that no one should envy.

Limnor, I considered contradicting your first para, but decided to wait to see what MG's response would be. Now we know.

I think I'm going back to very limited direct interaction with MG. At least that way he cannot accuse me of trying to control, or attempt to control the structure of the conversation.

I feel bad for him that he sees things that way, but there's nothing I can do about it. It's certainly not the first time that he has objected to my asking him to address actual arguments, or to justify his comments, and has conspicuously failed to hold up his end of the conversation.

I think it is appropriate. There may be a way to improve communication, but I haven’t figured it out yet.

[Limnor]

I feel bad for him that he sees things that way, but there's nothing I can do about it. It's certainly not the first time that he has objected to my asking him to address actual arguments, or to justify his comments, and has conspicuously failed to hold up his end of the conversation.

It might be useful to think of it this way, malkie. It seems like MG is choosing to explain “why” things won’t change rather than considering the question of “whether” they should. He’s also trying to explain why he engages the way he does, not whether that way of engaging should be evaluated or reconsidered.

Not trying to mind-read, just seeking to understand.

[malkie]

I feel bad for him that he sees things that way, but there's nothing I can do about it. It's certainly not the first time that he has objected to my asking him to address actual arguments, or to justify his comments, and has conspicuously failed to hold up his end of the conversation.

It might be useful to think of it this way, malkie. It seems like MG is choosing to explain “why” things won’t change rather than considering the question of “whether” they should. He’s also trying to explain why he engages the way he does, not whether that way of engaging should be evaluated or reconsidered.

Not trying to mind-read, just seeking to understand.

You could be right - food for thought, at least. Thanks!