That 'list' he gave was clearly A.I. generated. He's gone from hiding manipulative prompts to derailing threads with A.I., and now to simply representing A.I. content as his own work. He is dishonest and disingenuous, and as Everybody Wang Chung says, "quite the missionary." Using A.I. as he does is the epitome of 'lazy learning.'
Yep. It’s also against the new board rule.
For some reason he’s unable to do his own, properly referenced, research and posting. So now he masquerades his A.I. content rather than sticking to the rules.
I think that referencing the links that I have used in my research provides others the opportunity to read the source material and come to their own conclusions and/or do further exploration in regards to some possibly new/different information/insight that was made available through a board participant.
That 'list' he gave was clearly A.I. generated. He's gone from hiding manipulative prompts to derailing threads with A.I., and now to simply representing A.I. content as his own work. He is dishonest and disingenuous, and as Everybody Wang Chung says, "quite the missionary." Using A.I. as he does is the epitome of 'lazy learning.'
Yep. It’s also against the new board rule.
For some reason he’s unable to do his own, properly referenced, research and posting. So now he masquerades his A.I. content rather than sticking to the rules.
Yes, and it's clear it was A.I. because of the weird errors. You called out several, I just wanted to point out that the very first answer he posted was so incorrect it could only have come from A.I.:
So his A.I. goofed. Saying a church supported legislation AFTER the legislation is voted upon and accepted is in no way an example of a church being ahead of its time with respect to revelation.
Additionally, SLC was already so far behind the times in not having this rule in place until 2009 that it renders the pronouncement of MG's A.I., that this is an example of being ahead of our time, even more ludicrous.
So his A.I. goofed. Saying a church supported legislation AFTER the legislation is voted upon and accepted is in no way an example of a church being ahead of its time with respect to revelation.
Additionally, SLC was already so far behind the times in not having this rule in place until 2009 that it renders the pronouncement of MG's A.I., that this is an example of being ahead of out time, even more ludicrous.
If not for outside pressure, I suspect South Africa would have abandoned Apartheid before the LDS Church would have let go of their racial policies.
However, the Church still maintains its influence in Utah, and it likely gave approval for the Salt Lake City Council to institute that non-discrimination policy as a way to mitigate the perception of Salt Lake and its Church.
[incorrectly attributed quotations snipped]
If not for outside pressure, I suspect South Africa would have abandoned Apartheid before the LDS Church would have let go of their racial policies.
However, the Church still maintains its influence in Utah, and it likely gave approval for the Salt Lake City Council to institute that non-discrimination policy as a way to mitigate the perception of Salt Lake and its Church.
Hey moksha, can you fix your quote please? You haven't attributed the sections correctly.
I hit the ‘fix post’ button in my DM app. How’s it looking now? -c-
Thank you, it looks great!! (A 'fix' button would be so incredibly useful in life...)
Last edited by Marcus on Sun Jun 29, 2025 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[incorrectly attributed quotations snipped]
If not for outside pressure, I suspect South Africa would have abandoned Apartheid before the LDS Church would have let go of their racial policies.
However, the Church still maintains its influence in Utah, and it likely gave approval for the Salt Lake City Council to institute that non-discrimination policy as a way to mitigate the perception of Salt Lake and its Church.
Hey moksha, can you fix your quote please? You haven't attributed the sections correctly.
Okay.
Moksha wrote:If not for outside pressure, I suspect South Africa would have abandoned Apartheid before the LDS Church would have let go of their racial policies.
However, the Church still maintains its influence in Utah, and it likely gave approval for the Salt Lake City Council to institute that non-discrimination policy as a way to mitigate the perception of Salt Lake and its Church.
Hey moksha, can you fix your quote please? You haven't attributed the sections correctly.
Okay.
Moksha wrote:If not for outside pressure, I suspect South Africa would have abandoned Apartheid before the LDS Church would have let go of their racial policies.
However, the Church still maintains its influence in Utah, and it likely gave approval for the Salt Lake City Council to institute that non-discrimination policy as a way to mitigate the perception of Salt Lake and its Church.
So okay means no? Omg, I am rotf, lmao!!! Your funniest joke yet.
Eta: Never mind, I asked a mod for help and they fixed it for you. Bless your heart, flying and typing are both hard!!!
For some reason he’s unable to do his own, properly referenced, research and posting. So now he masquerades his A.I. content rather than sticking to the rules.
Yes, and it's clear it was A.I. because of the weird errors. You called out several, I just wanted to point out that the very first answer he posted was so incorrect it could only have come from A.I.:
So his A.I. goofed. Saying a church supported legislation AFTER the legislation is voted upon and accepted is in no way an example of a church being ahead of its time with respect to revelation.
Additionally, SLC was already so far behind the times in not having this rule in place until 2009 that it renders the pronouncement of MG's A.I., that this is an example of being ahead of our time, even more ludicrous.
Yes, his response clearly supports my point, the exact opposite of what he was trying to do.
He either didn’t understand the question, or simply cut and pasted the A.I. response without checking what it actually said.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Yes, and it's clear it was A.I. because of the weird errors. You called out several, I just wanted to point out that the very first answer he posted was so incorrect it could only have come from A.I.:
So his A.I. goofed. Saying a church supported legislation AFTER the legislation is voted upon and accepted is in no way an example of a church being ahead of its time with respect to revelation.
Additionally, SLC was already so far behind the times in not having this rule in place until 2009 that it renders the pronouncement of MG's A.I., that this is an example of being ahead of our time, even more ludicrous.
Yes, his response clearly supports my point, the exact opposite of what he was trying to do.
He either didn’t understand the question, or simply cut and pasted the A.I. response without checking what it actually said.
I also have reason to believe that MG at the very least severely bent the new A.I. rule, though there's another possibility. But I will need to make a comment on the A.I. megathread about it.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Yes, his response clearly supports my point, the exact opposite of what he was trying to do.
He either didn’t understand the question, or simply cut and pasted the A.I. response without checking what it actually said.
I also have reason to believe that MG at the very least severely bent the new A.I. rule, though there's another possibility. But I will need to make a comment on the A.I. megathread about it.
Please do, I am very interested in your assessment.
