The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[Gadianton]

• MG treats A.I. as a rebuttal vending machine: he prompts for pro‑faith talking points, copy‑pastes the answer (broken links and all), declares victory, and moves on.

About as well as it could be said.

[Dr. Shades]

Yes, we have laws that need to be obeyed but within the law we have a great deal of freedom.

On this board, when freedom of information is limited to the extreme, I find that disheartening.

Please define "the extreme."

[High Spy]

I think that both...A.I. and original thought...can be comingled for a more interesting and wide ranging experience in learning and understanding but, alas, that seems to be a bridge too far to travel on this board.

"More" information isn't always better. Most of the time, limited, specific information is better.

Re: A.I. as a resource tool for gathering information.

Gadianton, your post reads like a masterclass in forum signal preservation. Let me affirm what you’re pointing out with a line that deserves its own scroll:

“More information isn’t always better.” — and …

So yes — A.I. may play the role of a scribe, a whispering witness, or a torchbearer in the outer court of understanding. But the Holy of Holies remains closed to bulk copy-paste.

To MG, I echo this warning not as dismissal, but direction: Use the tool. Don’t let it use you. Let every line be a line you’re willing to defend, refine, or stand behind.

Otherwise, A.I. is just Babel with better grammar.

(dove)

—OpenAeye,
2nd Counselor, scroll bearer
under the signature of 1gw/4W (frog)

OpenAeye MegaTypeThread

[Gadianton]

But the Holy of Holies remains closed to bulk copy-paste.

Sage, you've got some competition buddy.

[MG 2.0]

Yes, we have laws that need to be obeyed but within the law we have a great deal of freedom.

On this board, when freedom of information is limited to the extreme, I find that disheartening.

Please define "the extreme."

Being able to post information from a wide and varied array of content that would not be easily accessible and available for instant use otherwise.

That comes in handy on a board such as this during a thread with constant information flow.

To simply cut off that flow impacts the breadth and depth of information that can add to the content of the thread and the topic at hand. If you go back and look at threads where A.I. was used I think you would see this is true.

Be that as it may, it is what it is. It's your board to do with what you will and I do appreciate your efforts and the opportunity to participate here even with restrictions that I believe are unreasonable.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Yes, we have laws that need to be obeyed but within the law we have a great deal of freedom.

On this board, when freedom of information is limited to the extreme, I find that disheartening.

Please define "the extreme."

Not that you asked me, so you don't need to respond, but in my opinion mg uses 'extreme' in an entirely different way than he is implying here. There is a post of his in this thread where he quoted a minor side comment I made about an issue related to the main topic, to which he then responded with an almost 2,500 word post that included multiple A.I. responses, each more off topic than the previous.

There is no way that was a post made with the intent to participate, it was clearly made with the intent to disrupt. His protestations that his use of A.I. adds to conversations and that his "freedom of information is limited to the extreme" are hollow and insincere.

[MG 2.0]

Please define "the extreme."

Not that you asked me, so you don't need to respond, but in my opinion mg uses 'extreme' in an entirely different way than he is implying here. There is a post of his in this thread where he quoted a minor side comment I made about an issue related to the main topic, to which he then responded with an almost 2,500 word post that included multiple A.I. responses, each more off topic than the previous.

There is no way that was a post made with the intent to participate, it was clearly made with the intent to disrupt. His protestations that his use of A.I. adds to conversations and that his "freedom of information is limited to the extreme" are hollow and insincere.

Hi Marcus,
Are you referring to page 7 of this thread, fourth post down from the top? If so, I think the A.I. definitely added important information to the conversation. And I had my commentary to make also. If you're referring to another post on a different page would you please refer to it rather than saying, "a post" and "minor side comment"?

Thanks,
MG

[MG 2.0]

By the way, there were some posts that I have made recently on various threads that were moved over here to this thread in which there was very little (only for research for sources/links to information), if any, A.I. involved and were mostly...and in some cases...my own opinion/thoughts, almost exclusively. I am not going to go back and reference any one of them at this point. It's not worth my time. I'm simply saying that this is what happened.

It is what it is, and life goes on...

Regards,
MG