The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[MG 2.0]

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.

I will let those that are standing outside the chorus and listening in determine whether you are a truth teller or not.

It is a no brainer to determine the fact that "the chorus" sings the same tune in harmony on this board. I am the discordant voice, granted.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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


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.

The first one that comes to mind without having to do a whole lot of thinking is the Priesthood Ban and its aftermath.

The abuse of children and other abuses has been condemned by the Brethren repeatedly. Unfortunately, they are not able to control the free will of human beings and the inappropriate use of agency.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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.

I would respectfully respond to your comment by saying that "the chorus" you refer to is of one mind and heart with a common refrain. My voice is discordant and does not blend well with this group of vocalists. To those here that sing a certain melody in harmony, a discordant voice is anathema.

I can understand your point of view (if I was a critic I would approach things similarly to you), it's just that I think you are wrong. My voice, even if discordant, is on key and in tune with the truth...in my opinion. I will continue to stand up for what I see to be light and truth even though others in this 'chorus' of anti-Mormons and critics may see/hear it in a way quite similar to that which you describe.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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.

Your wants and desires are duly noted. I know that you would like to see things 'as they were'...but times, they are a changin'. This is a different time in the world's history in which information is had in abundance. More information is always better than less.

You may disagree. That's fine. It's still a free expression/content board...until it's not. I hope that doesn't happen.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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.

I think A.I. is useful and will continue to use it. I will continue to supply the prompt used which elicits the A.I. response. I would want others to do the same thing. That makes sense.

Using A.I. does help in rapidly executing the retrieval of relevant information. I review each response to see whether or not I am in agreement with the factual basis upon which the response is being built. I take responsibility for the content.

Others, of course, are free to disagree with the informational content provided. Honestly, I haven't seen that happen much. That seems to show that the content is pretty much 'on target'.

Don't worry, I still do my own thinking. Too much, some might think (those among some of my close associates).

Other folks, for example some in this forum, will disagree vehemently.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

I hope not to see lots of A.I. replies here, as Chap and other said I want to hear what human participants think. I can see use for occasional use of A.I. for reference. Mg's A.I. responses on this thread though not presenting new information offer some context for the thread. It would be better if MG stated clearly what the prompt was, why he thought that of interest, and what thoughts he had about the result.

If MG does not think it worth providing his own thoughts it does not appear that the A.I. material is of much value.

[huckelberry]

Using A.I. does help in rapidly executing the retrieval of relevant information. I review each response to see whether or not I am in agreement with the factual basis upon which the response is being built. I take responsibility for the content.

Others, of course, are free to disagree with the informational content provided. Honestly, I haven't seen that happen much. That seems to show that the content is pretty much 'on target'.

Regards,
MG

My reaction to this tread A.I. summaries was, whatever.

MG, did you have some sort of reaction?

[MG 2.0]

Using A.I. does help in rapidly executing the retrieval of relevant information. I review each response to see whether or not I am in agreement with the factual basis upon which the response is being built. I take responsibility for the content.

Others, of course, are free to disagree with the informational content provided. Honestly, I haven't seen that happen much. That seems to show that the content is pretty much 'on target'.

Regards,
MG

My reaction to this tread A.I. summaries was, whatever.

MG, did you have some sort of reaction?

Back on page two of this thread Mr. Wang gave some incomplete/false information. A.I. was able to correct that disinformation. More often than not, this is the way in which I think A.I. usage is appropriate...to clear up either completely false information or misinformation. Similar to some of the things we've seen at national scale in the United States.

My reaction, in this particular instance...and in others, is that more information is always better. Especially when it can be shown that a poster was flying a bit high and mighty with 'the truth'. Unfortunately, on a board like this, when the choral group is singing basically the same tune, the truth...or differing opinions... can be drowned out.

I must say, however, that you are a welcome voice in these discussions, huckelberry. I see you as a voice of reason and deeper analysis/thought.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

The naïve trust in A.I. "information" is laughable. A.I. has problems with falsifying data, using opinion to imply fact, hallucinating,' giving answers to support the bias in the prompt, etc. Simply posting a wall of A.I. and insisting that its existence means it is correct is useless, and adds nothing to a conversation.

Really? If both parties want to agree a non disclosure agreement I don’t see how a third party can insist they can’t. There are aspects of workplace NDA’s that have been barred, but not sure how that would apply to claims like this?

Federal law prohibits the enforcement of NDAs that were entered into prior to the act. Some states go further. For example, Californian law prohibits the enforcement of most regardless of when they were entered into, and that prohibition is not limited to assault or harassment in the workplace.

I agree that this can tie the hands of survivors who may otherwise have been willing to enter into an NDA for additional consideration. The public policy, however, is to prohibit repeat conduct that could have been avoided had there been some disclosure.

It would be interesting to see how many nda agreements the LDS church has insisted upon opened the door for further abuse. We're seeing case after case after case, recently, where silence has allowed abuse to continue, it's highly likely the LDS church's insistence on using ndas has added to this problem.

[MG 2.0]

The naïve trust in A.I. "information" is laughable. A.I. has problems with falsifying data, using opinion to imply fact, hallucinating,' giving answers to support the bias in the prompt, etc. Simply posting a wall of A.I. and insisting that its existence means it is correct is useless, and adds nothing to a conversation.

I agree that A.I. should not be the end of the discussion. It should be used as a springboard for further human discussion and sharing of additional insights and opinion. In my response to huckelberry I mentioned a post back on page two in which it sounded to me as though Mr. Wang was making stuff up. The A.I. shows that Wang may have dealt in misinformation that made things look a lot worse than they were.

Not that there isn't work to be done in regards to child abuse and the fact that this scourge also manifests its ugly head in the church.

Human oversight, critical thinking, and independent verification remain essential when using A.I.-generated information.

I've already said that, and encourage others to not take everything that A.I. says at face value. But again, I repeat, when I use A.I. I go over the response to see that I agree with what its saying essentially. If others can catch an error...I want to be made aware of it too. More information and analysis is always welcome.

This is an example of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Regards,
MG