The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[MG 2.0]

Derail reported. Unless I missed it, no one in this thread is suggesting that the LDS First Presidency is responsible for the Church’s stock market losses. This wall of text argument against something that was never suggested is horribly off topic.

If so, that's good.

Regards,
MG

No, it's not good.

I'm not seeing the problem that you are. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Wouldn't be the first time that has happened on this board.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I went back and looked it up. It means what I thought it meant. And I said what I meant.

Regards,
MG

I went back and asked ChatGPT.

Please comment on the following conversation:

* **X:** Thanks Gad for adding more information into the discussion. More is always better.
* **Y:** More information *à la Gad* is better. In my opinion, some other varieties, perhaps not so much.
* **X:** I think it is in the eye of the beholder. Not that the contributions of Gad are not useful. But he isn't the only source of information on the planet.
* **Y:** Tell me that you don't understand *à la* without saying "I don't understand *à la*."
* **X:** I went back and looked it up. It means what I thought it meant. And I said what I meant.

Does it appear that X understands the meaning, in this context, of "a la"?

**What “à la” Means in This Context:**

**“à la”** means **“in the style or manner of”**. So **Y's comment** — *“More information à la Gad is better”* — is a stylistic compliment, not an assertion that Gad is the only source of good information. Y is expressing a **preference for the *type or quality* of information that Gad provides**, in contrast to other “varieties.”

---

**X’s Response – A Closer Look:**

* **X’s first reply** seems to interpret Y’s comment as overly exclusive or elevating Gad above others: *“he isn’t the only source of information on the planet.”*
* This reply shifts the discussion from **style or presentation** (which Y was focused on) to **source and value judgment**, missing the nuance of “à la.”
* When Y gently calls this out with *“Tell me you don’t understand ‘à la’…”*, X defends themselves: *“I went back and looked it up. It means what I thought it meant. And I said what I meant.”*

---

**Does X Understand “à la”?**

**Not fully — at least not in the way Y used it in the conversational context.**

Here’s why:

* Even if X knows the dictionary definition of **“à la”**, their original response *doesn’t reflect that understanding*. It reacts to Y’s stylistic preference as though Y were making an **absolute or exclusionary statement**.
* X’s defensive follow-up — *“It means what I thought it meant. And I said what I meant.”* — suggests **stubbornness rather than clarification**. It doesn't engage with the idea that their initial response misaligned with Y's intent.

So while X may *technically* know what “à la” means, their conversational use and interpretation suggest a **disconnect between definition and contextual understanding**.

---

**Conclusion:**

**No, X does not appear to fully understand the contextual use of “à la” as used by Y.**
They misread a stylistic preference as a personal valuation or exclusivity, and even after being prompted, they double down instead of reassessing their interpretation. Knowing a definition isn't the same as applying it correctly in context — and that’s the key issue here.

Feel free to have the last word.

Sorry. Not worth the time to respond. Don't take it personally though.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

If so, that's good.

Regards,
MG

After all, we know they can not be allowed to be blamed for anything that is ever so bad, no not the holy brethren......

It's interesting to watch the dynamics on this board. In the post previous to yours Morley said this to me:

You walk into a room where there's a discussion going on and then, while calling attention to yourself and looking everyone in the eyes, you squat and take a dump in the middle of the floor.

It's offensive. You disrespect yourself and the church you're ostensibly defending.

And yet, here you are. This could apply directly to what you said albeit replacing the word "church" with the word "critics".

The fact was, we knew that the Brethren weren't directly responsible and yet you come back with this...putting the blame on them and mocking their calling.

That stinks.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

[MODERATOR NOTE: MG2.0, I'm not seeing the prompt for that second wall of text, the one to which I Have Questions refers. Please quote it for me.]

Is DiscussMormonism now a place to be cluttered with illustrations of what A.I. produces in response to different prompts? or is it going to continue to be a place where humans interact?

I think that you're opposed to the use of A.I. because it puts a 'crimp' in your style. That is, taking 'potshots' without someone giving and/or supplying information that would dispute your cute little 'one liners' or sound bites.

Those days are gone.

Unless, of course, the rules are changed and information is outlawed. In my opinion, however, more information is always better than less.

That may cut against the grain on a board such as this.

Regards,
Mg

[Chap]

I think that you're opposed to the use of A.I. because it puts a 'crimp' in your style.

I doubt that.

It's just that it is boring and pointless to be presented with something that is not the thoughts of a conscious human being, a thinking, feeling person like oneself though perhaps thinking differently, but with the product of a machine that churns out clever imitations of what might be produced by quickly skimming the entire internet and setting out the result in grammatical English. I have other things to do in life than champing my way through that kind of stuff.

MG, if you have something worthwhile to say for yourself, say it. Don't waste our time with mechanically produced text-burgers.

[MG 2.0]

MG, if you have something worthwhile to say for yourself, say it. Don't waste our time with mechanically produced text-burgers.

I have, and I do. Do I need to continually repeat myself? I use A.I. for quick retrieval of information. It's wonderful!

It's not as though I don't express my own thoughts and opinions and things that I've encountered and learned. My posting history demonstrates that.

Regards,
MG

[Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR NOTE: MG2.0, I'm not seeing the prompt for that second wall of text, the one to which I Have Questions refers. Please quote it for me.]

Sure. I've already done so, but here it is again:

Prompt: Kirton McConkie's Instructions on Reporting Abuse: "Don't Blab" Policies for Bishops and Victims.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
MG

[MODERATOR NOTE: Yes, it helps. I didn't know a prompt could be a sentence fragment as opposed to a question or a request.

Therefore, to avoid confusion in the future, please type the word "PROMPT:" before the actual prompt so we can easily identify what it is.

Or, better yet, don't use A.I. at all. If you use it to rapidly amass raw references, that's one thing, but you're using it to do your thinking for you. Please refrain from doing this in the future.]

[Morley]

No, it's not good.

I'm not seeing the problem that you are.

Which is why I'm pointing it out, my friend. I join the chorus of many others here. You would have a much greater impact and come much closer to realizing your goal of advocating for the Church if you stopped smearing your feces on the wall. You're doing the religion (the one that you say you love) no favors with your present approach.

[Chap]

MG, if you have something worthwhile to say for yourself, say it. Don't waste our time with mechanically produced text-burgers.

I have, and I do. Do I need to continually repeat myself? I use A.I. for quick retrieval of information. It's wonderful!

It's not as though I don't express my own thoughts and opinions and things that I've encountered and learned. My posting history demonstrates that.

Regards,
MG

Oh, how you do your search for information is up to you, so long as you give us references to your sources that we can follow up. But what I find boring is you pasting large chunks of A.I. constructed 'argument'. I want to hear, first-hand, what the human beings who read this board think, written typed by "their own hand, on papyrus their keyboards."

Or, better yet, don't use A.I. at all. If you use it to rapidly amass raw references, that's one thing, but you're using it to do your thinking for you. Please refrain from doing this in the future.

Yup, that's it in a nutshell. This is a discussion board for people, not chatbots.

[Philo Sofee]

After all, we know they can not be allowed to be blamed for anything that is ever so bad, no not the holy brethren......

It's interesting to watch the dynamics on this board. In the post previous to yours Morley said this to me:

You walk into a room where there's a discussion going on and then, while calling attention to yourself and looking everyone in the eyes, you squat and take a dump in the middle of the floor.

It's offensive. You disrespect yourself and the church you're ostensibly defending.

And yet, here you are. This could apply directly to what you said albeit replacing the word "church" with the word "critics".

The fact was, we knew that the Brethren weren't directly responsible and yet you come back with this...putting the blame on them and mocking their calling.

That stinks.

Regards,
MG

I've never seen tem own up to any major errors of the church, have you? They won't do it, yet there is a plenty such as the methodology of interviews which directly influences sexual abuse of children. (there are now hundreds of cases, and that's just the ones which have seen the light of day) THAT is where the filthy stench is MG, not me telling the truth.