The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[Marcus]

And more trolling from the troll.

[MG 2.0]

And more trolling from the troll.

You are trolling me. Not five minutes and you're right behind me.

That's kind of weird, Marcus. Kind of weird. And that's being kind. Stalking might be a better description.

Please get some help. Or just put me on ignore and this can stop...right now.

Regards,
MG

[Dr. Shades]

I really don't understand this lack of faith in AIs.

I'm working through an AMA with ChatGPT, and almost every time I answer a question it tells me I'm some combination of smart, perceptive, thoughtful, top of leaderboard material, etc. So as far as I can see it's 100% accurate and reliable.

My experience has been, at least in the area of history and religion, A.I. has been very useful in laying out a great outline...bullet points and all...that I can then use for further research. Unfortunately even when I was using Perplexity or Gemini and then giving the disclosure, "I approve this message", it still wasn't good enough.

A.I. is tailored to give you the response you're looking for. . . see malkie's post for all the verification you need. . . so OF COURSE you're going to approve of the message, 100% of the time.

I still believe, as my recent posts make clear, that A.I. was something that was considering anethema on the board because it actually allowed one person playing defense against a whole offensive (no pun intended) team to respond in a timely manner without having to dedicate one's life to the cause, in response to those that have the advantage of throwing up one thing or another without any real 'check'. As a result, no balance.

I agree, it saves time to let A.I. do your thinking for you. But we don't want a computer program to do anyone's thinking for him or her.

In my opinion that's why this board is, in a sense, so screwed up.

You had no problem prior to the invention of ChatGPT. So why are you so supposedly hamstrung now?

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 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.

Look, if there were valid pro-Mormon responses to what I Have Questions posts, then you should already know them. You shouldn't need A.I. to invent pro-Mormon responses for you.

LET'S BREAK IT DOWN: When you say A.I. shredded his post, it did so only subjectively. It said something like, "I Have Questions's post displays a disturbing lack of understanding regarding recent research on this subject," you're jumping on it and saying, "See? His post is invalid!" But what you're missing is that I Have Questions's post does NOT display "a disturbing lack of understanding regarding recent research on this subject." A.I. simply generated that false phrase for you because it thought (heh) that that's what you wanted to hear.

A.I. is lying to you, MG 2.0. It's only telling you what it thinks you want to hear based on your prompt, nothing more. That's a major reason why we don't allow it.

Don't take a critic's opinions and partially digested...jaundiced...views as being anything near the actual truth.

Don't take A.I.'s people-pleasing, automated views as anything near the actual truth, either.

[malkie]

I really don't understand this lack of faith in AIs.

I'm working through an AMA with ChatGPT, and almost every time I answer a question it tells me I'm some combination of smart, perceptive, thoughtful, top of leaderboard material, etc. So as far as I can see it's 100% accurate and reliable.

My experience has been, at least in the area of history and religion, A.I. has been very useful in laying out a great outline...bullet points and all...that I can then use for further research. Unfortunately even when I was using Perplexity or Gemini and then giving the disclosure, "I approve this message", it still wasn't good enough.

I still believe, as my recent posts make clear, that A.I. was something that was considering anethema on the board because it actually allowed one person playing defense against a whole offensive (no pun intended) team to respond in a timely manner without having to dedicate one's life to the cause, in response to those that have the advantage of throwing up one thing or another without any real 'check'. As a result, no balance.

In my opinion that's why this board is, in a sense, so screwed up.

Of course, if it's just being used as an echo chamber it's working pretty well. And has for a long time. The reasons for discontinuing access to A.I. were bogus in my opinion. But it is what it is.

Regards,
MG

MG, Nobody - literally nobody - has "discontinu[ed] access to A.I." Several posters (including Shades) have, in fact, explained how AIs can legitimately be used on this board. I find truly mind boggling the idea you seem to have had that appending "I approve this message" to copy/pasted AI-generated content conferred legitimacy on the content - especially after proper use was clearly laid out. I applaud Shades' patience for taking you through the number of iterations of explanations it needed to have you agree to comply, although it appears that you still do not understand why.

AI is not there to provide you with an unlimited supply of unverified bullets (!) for you to shoot at those you disagree with, any more than I can take the results of my AMA as confirming that I'm a total genius in several fields of endeavour.

Honestly, MG, I'm starting to get a bit worried about you. It seems as if you are having difficulty in grasping fairly simple concepts, and/or are unable to hold a few simple rules in your mind while writing your posts. Perhaps I was wrong to suggest that you're simply poking Shades in the eye, but the other possibility is concerning.

by the way, I had to smile at your "laying out a great outline...bullet points and all", given your extreme reticence to use ... bullet points.

If you are concerned about your feeling that the board is being screwed up due to "those that have the advantage of throwing up one thing or another without any real 'check'", surely you can see that for you to try to combat that situation by returning volleys of one thing or another also without any real check is not an improvement.

Otherwise we may as well all walk away and leave the board to debates between ChatGPT and Perplexity, with Sage as referee.

[MG 2.0]

My experience has been, at least in the area of history and religion, A.I. has been very useful in laying out a great outline...bullet points and all...that I can then use for further research. Unfortunately even when I was using Perplexity or Gemini and then giving the disclosure, "I approve this message", it still wasn't good enough.

A.I. is tailored to give you the response you're looking for. . . see malkie's post for all the verification you need. . . so OF COURSE you're going to approve of the message, 100% of the time.

I still believe, as my recent posts make clear, that A.I. was something that was considering anethema on the board because it actually allowed one person playing defense against a whole offensive (no pun intended) team to respond in a timely manner without having to dedicate one's life to the cause, in response to those that have the advantage of throwing up one thing or another without any real 'check'. As a result, no balance.

I agree, it saves time to let A.I. do your thinking for you. But we don't want a computer program to do anyone's thinking for him or her.

In my opinion that's why this board is, in a sense, so screwed up.

You had no problem prior to the invention of ChatGPT. So why are you so supposedly hamstrung now?

Look, if there are valid pro-Mormon responses to what I Have Questions posts, then you should already know them. You shouldn't need A.I. to invent pro-Mormon responses for you.

LET'S BREAK IT DOWN: When you say A.I. eviscerated his comments, it did so only subjectively. It said something like, "I Have Questions's post displays a disturbing lack of understanding regarding recent research on this subject," you're jumping on it and saying, "See? His post is invalid!" But what you're missing is that I Have Questions's post does NOT display "a disturbing lack of understanding regarding recent research on this subject." A.I. simply generated that false phrase for you because it thought (heh) that that's what you wanted to hear.

A.I. is lying to you, MG 2.0. It's only telling you what it thinks you want to hear based on your prompt, nothing more. That's a major reason why we don't allow it.

Shades, as I said to others...you are, of course, entitled to your own opinion on this matter. And your opinion counts. Big time. I hear what you're saying but I don't agree wholeheartedly. There is a time and a place for using A.I. research. I've laid out the reasons why I think it is appropriate on this board. My reasons are valid.

I believe that to some extent or another you have succumbed to the pressure of the offensive team. I don't think anyone can argue that the cards are unevenly stacked against believing members of the LDS church.

Regards,
MG

[Dr. Shades]

Shades, as I said to others...you are, of course, entitled to your own opinion on this matter. And your opinion counts. Big time. I hear what you're saying but I don't agree wholeheartedly. There is a time and a place for using A.I. research.

You're not using it for "research." That's the entire problem. You're using it to do your thinking for you.

I've laid out the reasons why I think it is appropriate on this board. My reasons are valid.

I disagree, but that's O.K.

I believe that to some extent or another you have succumbed to the pressure of the offensive team.

Nope. I'd feel this way no matter who did it.

I don't think anyone can argue that the cards are unevenly stacked against believing members of the LDS church.

If you're talking about here (as opposed to life in general), that's only because there aren't that many of you and/or the factual deficiencies of LDS doctrines and teachings put defenders at an inherent disadvantage from the start.

[MG 2.0]

Shades, as I said to others...you are, of course, entitled to your own opinion on this matter. And your opinion counts. Big time. I hear what you're saying but I don't agree wholeheartedly. There is a time and a place for using A.I. research.

You're not using it for "research." That's the entire problem. You're using it to do your thinking for you.

I've laid out the reasons why I think it is appropriate on this board. My reasons are valid.

I disagree, but that's O.K.

I believe that to some extent or another you have succumbed to the pressure of the offensive team.

Nope. I'd feel this way no matter who did it.

I don't think anyone can argue that the cards are unevenly stacked against believing members of the LDS church.

If you're talking about here (as opposed to life in general), that's only because there aren't that many of you and/or the factual deficiencies of LDS doctrines and teachings put defenders at an inherent disadvantage from the start.

I do believe that research can be done by using A.I.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. But you're the boss! I just think you have it wrong in this instance.

I do appreciate your work to provide this venue for folks to talk. Unfortunately there are, in my opinion, at least one and maybe two individuals that make life miserable when they literally troll my posts and come right up behind me to through things out of kilter.

Nothing to stop that I guess. But it is very bothersome. It's happened too many times to be non purposeful. It's intentional. I wish there was a rule against THAT.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Unfortunately even when I was using Perplexity or Gemini and then giving the disclosure, "I approve this message", it still wasn't good enough.

I still believe, as my recent posts make clear, that A.I. was something that was considering anethema on the board because it actually allowed one person playing defense against a whole offensive (no pun intended) team to respond in a timely manner without having to dedicate one's life to the cause

Most of your AI "responses" ended up being off topic, or very loosely directed towards the comments you were "responding" to. In other words, what you were really trying to do is disrupt the board in revenge for its criticisms of you or the Church. AI allowed you to bury threads with drivel that you hadn't even read yourself.

If you were able to use AI in such a way that it was apparent you 1) understood the output 2) the output addressed the content you were responding to, then I personally would have no problem with you using it. I can't say for others.

[malkie]

You're not using it for "research." That's the entire problem. You're using it to do your thinking for you.


I disagree, but that's O.K.


Nope. I'd feel this way no matter who did it.


If you're talking about here (as opposed to life in general), that's only because there aren't that many of you and/or the factual deficiencies of LDS doctrines and teachings put defenders at an inherent disadvantage from the start.

I do believe that research can be done by using A.I.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. But you're the boss! I just think you have it wrong in this instance.

I do appreciate your work to provide this venue for folks to talk. Unfortunately there are, in my opinion, at least one and maybe two individuals that make life miserable when they literally troll my posts and come right up behind me to through things out of kilter.

Nothing to stop that I guess. But it is very bothersome. It's happened too many times to be non purposeful. It's intentional. I wish there was a rule against THAT.

Regards,
MG

Dammit, MG!

Nobody is disagreeing with your statement that "research can be done by using A.I."

How many times does this have to be said‽‽‽‽‽

Perhaps your constant repetition of this kind of nonsense helps to explain why some folks accuse you of trolling. How can you - how can anyone - not understand that there is absolutely nothing wrong, and nothing against the board rules, in using AI to do research.

Sheesh!

[MG 2.0]

Unfortunately even when I was using Perplexity or Gemini and then giving the disclosure, "I approve this message", it still wasn't good enough.

I still believe, as my recent posts make clear, that A.I. was something that was considering anethema on the board because it actually allowed one person playing defense against a whole offensive (no pun intended) team to respond in a timely manner without having to dedicate one's life to the cause

Most of your A.I. "responses" ended up being off topic, or very loosely directed towards the comments you were "responding" to. In other words, what you were really trying to do is disrupt the board in revenge for its criticisms of you or the Church. A.I. allowed you to bury threads with drivel that you hadn't even read yourself.

If you were able to use A.I. in such a way that it was apparent you 1) understood the output 2) the output addressed the content you were responding to, then I personally would have no problem with you using it. I can't say for others.

No intent to "disrupt the board" in the way you seem to be insinuating. What was posted was not drivel...and I had read it. Thus, the "I approve this message".

I'm not being revengeful for criticisms of the church. I've said many times that my intent is to simply be a counterbalance to what I see as the offensive team. I think you've got it all wrong.

Regards,
MG