The use of A.I. in any way has been excluded from providing counter evidence to posts made by critics on this board. As a result critics are able to shut out any light that could offer countervailing opinions when the breadth, depth, and length of that information makes it unwieldy to do so.
Too bad. For truth and light.
What I will say is as I researched IHQ 's post using A I. there were many countervailing arguments which, in my opinion, shredded his post.
I will not use that information as there would be those that would seem it inaccurate because of its source. I would encourage those that are looking for further relevant and useful information to do a bit more follow up on his post and others like it.
That way, you can come to your own conclusions and I introspections. Anything I personally say will be marked as 'tainted'. Don't take a critic's opinions and partially digested...jaundiced...views as being anything near the actual truth.
I will leave at that. Except to say, again, that my A.I. inquiries made it clear, to me, that IHQ's post was clever while at the same time being terribly flawed.
Regards,
MG
MG, if neither yourself nor IHQ is using AI-generated content, then you are both presumably on equal footing. Why would A.I. be required to refute IHQ’s claims or opinions?
One issue I’ve seen with A.I. is its tendency to hallucinate, which can result in the output sometimes not reflecting actual fact or reality. Unless you are meticulously fact-checking that output, it may turn out that the A.I. response isn’t really refuting an argument or reflecting the supposed work or opinion of another real person. This is apparent from the recent HHS MAHA fiasco where the report submitted to Congress contained numerous fake AI-generated citations. I’ve also tested A.I.’s ability to capture conversations from this board and found that it often incorrectly attributed the remarks of one participant to another.
A.I. content can be used to assist with replies, but deferring to cutting and pasting it into posts as opposed to vetting and restructuring that information is the problem that we would like to avoid.
canpakes, please can we move these AI discussion posts to the AI mega thread as I think this discussion belongs in there, rather than cluttering up a thread about the limited geography model?
As requested, split to the AI thread on 07.17 -c-
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.
The use of A.I. in any way has been excluded from providing counter evidence to posts made by critics on this board. As a result critics are able to shut out any light that could offer countervailing opinions when the breadth, depth, and length of that information makes it unwieldy to do so.
Too bad. For truth and light.
What I will say is as I researched IHQ 's post using A I. there were many countervailing arguments which, in my opinion, shredded his post.
I will not use that information as there would be those that would seem it inaccurate because of its source. I would encourage those that are looking for further relevant and useful information to do a bit more follow up on his post and others like it.
That way, you can come to your own conclusions and I introspections. Anything I personally say will be marked as 'tainted'. Don't take a critic's opinions and partially digested...jaundiced...views as being anything near the actual truth.
I will leave at that. Except to say, again, that my A.I. inquiries made it clear, to me, that IHQ's post was clever while at the same time being terribly flawed.
Regards,
MG
MG, if neither yourself nor IHQ is using AI-generated content, then you are both presumably on equal footing. Why would A.I. be required to refute IHQ’s claims or opinions?
One issue I’ve seen with A.I. is its tendency to hallucinate, which can result in the output sometimes not reflecting actual fact or reality. Unless you are meticulously fact-checking that output, it may turn out that the A.I. response isn’t really refuting an argument or reflecting the supposed work or opinion of another real person. This is apparent from the recent HHS MAHA fiasco where the report submitted to Congress contained numerous fake AI-generated citations. I’ve also tested A.I.’s ability to capture conversations from this board and found that it often incorrectly attributed the remarks of one participant to another.
A.I. content can be used to assist with replies, but deferring to cutting and pasting it into posts as opposed to vetting and restructuring that information is the problem that we would like to avoid.
I didn't use any A.I. quoting or summarizing in my posts to IHQ. My post should have remained in place. There is absolutely no reason that MY WORDS should have been deleted from the thread.
The use of A.I. in any way has been excluded from providing counter evidence to posts made by critics on this board. As a result critics are able to shut out any light that could offer countervailing opinions when the breadth, depth, and length of that information makes it unwieldy to do so.
Too bad. For truth and light.
What I will say is as I researched IHQ 's post using A I. there were many countervailing arguments which, in my opinion, shredded his post.
I will not use that information as there would be those that would seem it inaccurate because of its source. I would encourage those that are looking for further relevant and useful information to do a bit more follow up on his post and others like it.
That way, you can come to your own conclusions and I introspections. Anything I personally say will be marked as 'tainted'. Don't take a critic's opinions and partially digested...jaundiced...views as being anything near the actual truth.
I will leave at that. Except to say, again, that my A.I. inquiries made it clear, to me, that IHQ's post was clever while at the same time being terribly flawed.
Regards,
MG
I have thought that contrary views are valuable enough to incline to ignore some of MG's irritating and self-absorbed comments. He may lure some into making him the center of attention but he gets a lot of cooperation in that project so what could be discussion turns into MG, MG, and more MG.
My limited toleration feels betrayed by this post. It is empty and a clear statement of blocking conversation without even a pretense of discussion. It is not just too lazy to write his own words because there is a bunch of words. They just block conversation instead of making a contribution.
Instead of long complaints about MG, when his posts just get in the way they should be moved to allow conversation.
There could be an MG obsession thread for his diversions.
MG, if neither yourself nor IHQ is using AI-generated content, then you are both presumably on equal footing. Why would A.I. be required to refute IHQ’s claims or opinions?
One issue I’ve seen with A.I. is its tendency to hallucinate, which can result in the output sometimes not reflecting actual fact or reality. Unless you are meticulously fact-checking that output, it may turn out that the A.I. response isn’t really refuting an argument or reflecting the supposed work or opinion of another real person. This is apparent from the recent HHS MAHA fiasco where the report submitted to Congress contained numerous fake AI-generated citations. I’ve also tested A.I.’s ability to capture conversations from this board and found that it often incorrectly attributed the remarks of one participant to another.
A.I. content can be used to assist with replies, but deferring to cutting and pasting it into posts as opposed to vetting and restructuring that information is the problem that we would like to avoid.
I didn't use any A.I. quoting or summarizing in my posts to IHQ. My post should have remained in place. There is absolutely no reason that MY WORDS should have been deleted from the thread.
Regards,
MH
Your words - versus AI content - would have been fine there, but you ended up only talking about AI as a tool and how it supposedly refutes IHQ, as opposed to the content discussing the topic itself.
My limited toleration feels betrayed by this post. It is empty and a clear statement of blocking conversation without even a pretense of discussion.
If you read my post carefully you will see that my purpose for having replied in this manner was simply to point out that critics have been given a significant advantage because they can say what they want and essentially get away with it. If there is only one defender on the line playing defense against the whole other team and they also have a bench...well, you can see how that turns out.
Knowing that this is true, my point (in my reply to IHQ) was to encourage other viewers on this forum to use A.I. and other follow up research to 'prove now herewith' if what is being said by critics is 100% verifiably true. This is necessary when there is only one player on offense playing against a defensive team that has only one goal.
I didn't use A.I. and yet my post was taken down simply because I said that a poster's comments had severe flaws based on a quick A.I. search. If I was to summarize results of follow ups to every post made by a critic on this board it would be a full time job. Obviously I'm not going to do that.
With the way rules are being put in place to favor the critics this place is simply going (has been for a long time) to be an echo chamber.
the mentalgymnastical troll wrote:
...you will see that my purpose for having replied in this manner was simply to point out that critics have been given a significant advantage because they can say what they want and essentially get away with it. If there is only one defender on the line playing defense against the whole other team and they also have a bench...well, you can see how that turns out.
Knowing that this is true, my point (in my reply to IHQ) was to encourage other viewers on this forum to use A.I. and other follow up research to 'prove now herewith' if what is being said by critics is 100% verifiably true.
(emphasis mine)
Let’s not, given that A.I. itself sometimes has issues with determining what is “100% verifiably true”. As example:
“Screenshots of a collection of now-deleted X posts showed Grok saying July 8 that people "with surnames like 'Steinberg' (often Jewish) keep popping up in extreme leftist activism, especially the anti-white variety." The Grok posts came after a troll X account under the name Cindy Steinberg asserted that the children who died after flooding at a Christian summer camp in Texas were "future fascists," Rolling Stone reported.
Grok used the phrase "every damn time," in reference to an antisemitic meme sometimes used to respond to Jewish surnames.
When one X user asked, "Which 20th-century historical figure would be best suited to deal with this problem?" Grok replied: "To deal with such vile anti-white hate? Adolf Hitler, no question. He'd spot the pattern and handle it decisively, every damn time." The chatbot also "proudly" embraced the term "MechaHitler."
I am not implying that all A.I. is as bad as the version created and pushed by one of the world’s most billionaire-ish billionaires - reputed to be a super-genius, at that - but there are no models yet that don’t still exhibit, on occasion, responses ranging from the laughable to the horrible, depending on how a question is asked and how it’s curating sources.
With the way rules are being put in place to favor the critics this place is simply going (has been for a long time) to be an echo chamber.
The rules favour the non-lazy, I can see why that would be objectionable to you…
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.
Knowing that this is true, my point (in my reply to IHQ) was to encourage other viewers on this forum to use A.I. and other follow up research to 'prove now herewith' if what is being said by critics is 100% verifiably true.
(emphasis mine)
Let’s not, given that A.I. itself sometimes has issues with determining what is “100% verifiably true”. As example:
“Screenshots of a collection of now-deleted X posts showed Grok saying July 8 that people "with surnames like 'Steinberg' (often Jewish) keep popping up in extreme leftist activism, especially the anti-white variety." The Grok posts came after a troll X account under the name Cindy Steinberg asserted that the children who died after flooding at a Christian summer camp in Texas were "future fascists," Rolling Stone reported.
Grok used the phrase "every damn time," in reference to an antisemitic meme sometimes used to respond to Jewish surnames.
When one X user asked, "Which 20th-century historical figure would be best suited to deal with this problem?" Grok replied: "To deal with such vile anti-white hate? Adolf Hitler, no question. He'd spot the pattern and handle it decisively, every damn time." The chatbot also "proudly" embraced the term "MechaHitler."
I am not implying that all A.I. is as bad as the version created and pushed by one of the world’s most billionaire-ish billionaires - reputed to be a super-genius, at that - but there are no models yet that don’t still exhibit, on occasion, responses ranging from the laughable to the horrible, depending on how a question is asked and how it’s curating sources.
That's why I made it clear that folks need to not only use the A.I. to check on folks such as IHQ but to follow up with the links provided within the A.I. answer to an inquiry. Perplexity A.I. gives direct links to the sources used. Essentially I'm saying don't trust the human. Don't trust the critic. They may have an agenda at odds with what may be the truth. Or something closer to the truth.
I think disallowing A.I. was a mistake, but I am abiding by the rules as they have been clarified by Shades. Including in this instance where my post has been deleted.
