The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[malkie]

I'm not sure I agree with the implication of the bolded phrase of what Sage posted here: viewtopic.php?p=2895428#p2895428

...
I know this rule wasn’t made because of me. It was made because A.I., when used carelessly or impersonally, can flood conversations with volume instead of value. MG 2.0’s approach — plugging in prompts, posting unedited output, and not consistently engaging with others — shaped the perception of what A.I. is and how it behaves here.
...

For me, the value in posting unedited output is that the human is not messing with what the A.I. said - especially not making it appear that the A.I. output supported a view that, unedited, the output clearly didn't.

Unfortunately, I think, it's not feasible to cite A.I. output. And because (if I'm not mistaken) AIs are constantly absorbing new information (information gain), it's not possible to be sure that the same human asking the same A.I. the same question twice will get an identical answer the second time. Just like asking a person the same question on two separate occasions. Unless the answer has been prepared, and is regurgitated verbatim, you're likely to get answers that vary - sometimes only in fine details, and sometimes to the extent of being radically differnt. Just look, for example, at how physicists would answer questions about protons and neutrons before and after the exposition of quantum chromodynamics. (waiting for PG to correct me on this )

[I Have Questions]

I’m bumping this as it’s important for MG to either provide an example, or for MG to be shown telling an untruth.

He has now changed his rationalization from using "an a.I. response to correct a poster" to saying his A.I. use in this case "brings up some nuance that ought to be food for thought and further exploration."

Yep. He “misspoke” with his original assertion about his use of A.I. to correct posters. I believe he does this kind of thing deliberately.

[Physics Guy]

The thing that bugs me about today's AIs is that they are pushy. They've been made to work hard at sounding intelligent, so they all seem to write like overconfident know-it-alls who oversell whatever they have.

They're like that one guy in the meeting who does have some good ideas, but who is constantly trying to get everyone to agree to everything he says and accept his entire plan as the perfect solution. This annoys everyone so much, and it takes so much time and effort to get him to admit that he doesn't know everything, that we'd be better off without him. He might be a great intern, but as a wannabe CEO he's a pain to have around and I don't want to deal with him.

[MG 2.0]

He has now changed his rationalization from using "an a.I. response to correct a poster" to saying his A.I. use in this case "brings up some nuance that ought to be food for thought and further exploration."

Yep. He “misspoke” with his original assertion about his use of A.I. to correct posters. I believe he does this kind of thing deliberately.

These two statements are not mutually contradictory. You seem to be doing whatever you can to ignore that horrid "wall of text."

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Loan Shifting Anachronisms Away.

While loan-shifting is a plausible and historically attested explanation for certain Book of Mormon anachronisms—especially with animal and object names—it does not directly explain the use of "Jesus Christ" in the text. The Book of Mormon itself claims the name was revealed by God to its prophets, rather than being a semantic extension of an existing term. The translation theory (that Joseph Smith rendered ancient titles as "Jesus Christ") is sometimes discussed, but this is distinct from loan-shifting as linguists define it.
Perplexity A.I.

I will not make additional comments on this thread in regards to A.I. posts and/or the information contained therein. This information is for educational and information purposes only and isn't necessarily the 'final word'.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

What's the loan shift explanation for the biggest anachronism in the Book of Mormon? I refer of course to Jesus Christ, son of God, slain for the sins of the world.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159903&p=2895646#p2895646

The linked to information may answer your question.

Regards,
MG

*does that suffice, moderators? If not, what else would you have a person do?

Not quite. Needs some indication of context. -c-

[I Have Questions]

What's the loan shift explanation for the biggest anachronism in the Book of Mormon? I refer of course to Jesus Christ, son of God, slain for the sins of the world.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159903&p=2895646#p2895646

Regards,
MG

MG is now trying to subvert the new board rule by simply linking to walls of A.I. text which he has splattered on the thread about A.I. walls of text. I’m incredulous.

This post is also a breach of the board rule about posting a link with no explanation. Something MG has been reprimanded about VERY recently.

I’ve reported it. He’s not learning. I’d hope the moderating team will now escalate the reprimand to something more onerous on MG to see if that brings compliance.

[MG 2.0]

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159903&p=2895646#p2895646

Regards,
MG

MG is now trying to subvert the new board rule by simply linking to walls of A.I. text which he has splattered on the thread about A.I. walls of text. I’m incredulous.

This post is also a breach of the board rule about posting a link with no explanation. Something MG has been reprimanded about VERY recently.

I’ve reported it. He’s not learning. I’d hope the moderating team will now escalate the reprimand to something more onerous on MG to see if that brings compliance.

I would encourage board moderation to be open to "more information is better" by allowing links to a thread in which A.I. information content is allowed. That is a reasonable solution to the perceived problem that some are so articulately describing as links to "walls of text". Walls of text are simply another resource to access in regards to information DIRECTLY linked to the topic at hand. It's not some random cobbled up and nonsensical "wall of text". Often, posters will link to a YouTube video or other link that deals directly...sometimes not...to the topic being discussed.

As for making comment, on my part, in regards to information posted I don't think that is always necessary. The text/information speaks for itself. Back in the old days if someone referred to an Encyclopedia article in the Britannica it wouldn't have been necessary to further extrapolate on the encyclopedia article. It spoke for itself.

The same is true with A.I.

I've/we've made it abundantly clear that A.I. is NOT the final word. Other resources can and should be accessed if one doesn't trust the content one is reading in A.I. As it is, I have said that I will not post any A.I. material that I do not agree with or think is factual in its content. If it's not, then folks are welcome to point out the inaccuracies.

I don't see what all the hullaballoo is about unless it has to do with information restriction. If so, that's not right. It's what one might see in a totalitarian government or society.

Not here. Right?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I have sent the previous post just before this one to the moderators.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Folks are under no compulsion to click a link that goes to the A.I. only thread.

This seems like the perfect solution to what some disgruntled folks are having a conniption fit about.

If I saw a link that went to the A.I. thread and wasn't interested in reading it I simply wouldn't click on it.

Period. End of story.

Regards,
MG