The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[Marcus]

...MG, I'd suggest that you don't assume that "folks apparently aren't even reading [your] posts". Perhaps people are reading your posts and finding them to be inaccurate, incomprehensible, contradictory, or illogical in other ways. In spite of your constant complaining, I don't think it's reasonable for you to imply that all of the problems are created by folks other than you.

Couldn't agree more.

[I Have Questions]

Here's what you said earlier:

Is this what you are claiming is about "refer[ing] a poster over to this AI megathread". As I read it, it's plainly suggesting the opposite: bringing " 'Blake AI' over into the other thread" - that is, to a non-AI thread.

Whether you intended it or not, MG, this appears to br one of two things:

• you encouraging someone else to break the "AI" rule, or
• you trying to muddy the water yet again about what is acceptable

No wonder you get tongue-in-cheek responses.

I've already responded to Shades in regards to this concern of yours. There have been a couple of times recently where folks apparently aren't even reading my posts and I'm having to call it out.

Obviously, material from this thread should not be cut and pasted to any other thread.

Regards,
MG

Do you think that “folks” are obligated to read your posts?

[I Have Questions]

To clarify board rules. Is it OK or not OK to refer a poster over to this AI megathread? That is, of course, doing so without posting ANY actual content of the mega thread within any external thread/current thread.

I want to make sure I follow the rules with exactness. I do think, for the sake of argument, that it ought to be OK to point someone over to this thread and do with it (the information provided) what they will.

Ignore it, or respond.

Regards,
MG

Do you remember when you said you weren’t going to moan about the AI rule anymore? Are you having memory issues, or are you just not prone to telling the truth?

[Morley]

MG, what was the wording you used in your prompts? It’s dishonest when you paste a wall of text like this without revealing your generative process.

I went back and bolded the prompts for you. They were there.
Now, I would be interested in how the 'modernists' take issue with points that were made. Even if it was AI generated. If you want to integrate (without actually cutting and pasting the AI response, that's a no no) what has been given to chew on over in the 2 Nephi thread, that would be awesome.
I've found that thread interesting but rather one sided and limited. That's why I did some more "research". AI is a wonderful tool. It's not all "word wall" as some are wont to paint it...and then ignore it. When Philo does it, cool. When MG does it, not so cool.
And so it goes.
Regards,
MG

I'll say this again:

At first, I'd assumed that those were your prompts, even though the way you had incorporated them into the post made them pretty ambiguous and difficult to locate. However, when I ran them through the AI you referenced, the output was quite different from what you said you'd gotten. That made me doubt my conclusions--which is why I called you out on this.

If your work can't be replicated using the process you claim that you employed, I don't see how credible or useful it is. Perhaps these prompts were the conclusion of a longer process of fine tuning that you're not revealing?

[MG 2.0]

Very good. No "links" to the AI megathread. Click and go essentially.

That works.

Link- refers to a hyperlink: some clickable text, button, or image that, when you click or tap it, takes you to another location such as a web page, a file, or a different spot in the same document.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Perhaps these prompts were the conclusion of a longer process of fine tuning that you're not revealing?

No. I haven't manipulated the content or prompts in any way.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Very good. No "links" to the AI megathread. Click and go essentially.

That works.

Link- refers to a hyperlink: some clickable text, button, or image that, when you click or tap it, takes you to another location such as a web page, a file, or a different spot in the same document.

Regards,
MG

You can see that mentalgymnast is tryimg to find yet another way to work around the spirit and the letter of Shades' rule that references to his AI posts are not allowed outside the AI thread.

What a troll.

[MG 2.0]

Not going to read 123 pages of this thread. Just stopped in to say the premise is absurd.

Who is the arbiter of straight vs crooked sublines and the final so called straight drawing? It’s a subjective framework that accomplishes only one end: infinite wiggle room for being wrong. The notion of using “crooked lines” to “draw straight” is orthogonal to virtually all pronouncements regarding the prophetic mantle in LDS theology. If prophet claims X and X is later shown to be wrong, it’s negative evidence that he is what he claims to be. It is not ambiguous evidence.

There is more information...quite a bit actually... in regards to your concern(s) on the AI megathread. You may have to search a bit since links cannot be given. You won't have to look too far though.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

When a person repeatedly follows a particular poster around a forum to besmirch them or to interrupt the flow of their contributions, they are intentionally trying to upset, harass, or derail that person’s participation, which is squarely in line with how “trolling” is generally described.

If the shoe fits.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Perhaps these prompts were the conclusion of a longer process of fine tuning that you're not revealing?

No. I haven't manipulated the content or prompts in any way.

Regards,
MG

Translation “I have manipulated content and prompts in lots of ways. But I’m not telling you what I’ve done.” MG’s denials, and accusations, are always confessions.