Hahaha. Ok yeah, that's what it did. Problem is that this is functionally identical to completely hallucinating an answer (which it is also prone to do).
Also, don't you think a source should be given?
I always think a source should be given -- particularly from humans, and particularly when they make claims in a discussion forum about "the vast majority of theologians/historians/anthropologist/entomologists/homeopaths/wizards." However, it's well established that ChatGPT doesn't do that. Just like many forum participants, who don't have the limitations of AI.
The tool didn’t state how the information was acquired.
Must resist the obvious joke..
The obvious joke is that @Martin54 stated that he used ChatGPT, and ChatGPT very clearly states that it cannot cite specific sources it used.
Although, I chatted with it tonight, and it is starting to do a better job of mentioning some of the sources it gleans information from.
Re “In what sense is it an impasse?” Because we keep coming up against the same disagreement, and I don’t really see a way of bridging it right now. And I’d rather not go back and forth with “A is true,” “No, A is false,” “No, A is true,” fifty billion times again.
Rather than either, "I disagree" or "No/Yes/No/Yes" it would be good to know why you hold the position you do that causes you to disagree.
I have found that I do not, at least presently, have the spoons to argue back and forth with @Martin54 about why I believe Christianity is true.
So somehow a discussion of the polluting effect of AI LLMs is not relevant in a discussion of the philosophy of "facts" but using it without understanding is.
So somehow a discussion of the polluting effect of AI LLMs is not relevant in a discussion of the philosophy of "facts" but using it without understanding is.
I don't think the scope of the discussion is just the philosophy of facts - it's also about the authority of facts (and more). It seems to me that the whole principle of facts depending on evidence is slowly giving way to "facts" depending on the authority that you're prepared to trust - and that the concept of "established authority" and the criteria for establishing authority are being increasingly disputed. (Which relates to BroJames' and Leorning Cniht's posts).
An issue that seems relevant to AI and Large Language Models and how information is presented and used is "automation bias":
Automation bias is the propensity for humans to favor suggestions from automated decision-making systems and to ignore contradictory information made without automation, even if it is correct.
And I think it's important for us to have at least some idea of the amount of energy these systems use, about which there is currently next to no information or transparency from the companies concerned.
I have found that I do not, at least presently, have the spoons to argue back and forth with @Martin54 about why I believe Christianity is true.
Not at all a criticism, but some of the faithful are purely content just to know they have the feeling of a right belief. Many members of my side of our family are that way. They don't feel a need or desire to sink deep shafts into the whys and wherefores -- they just believe, and it makes them happy, and that's that. I don't think you should feel any pressure to go toe-to-toe with anyone here. It's not at all required.
Hahaha. Ok yeah, that's what it did. Problem is that this is functionally identical to completely hallucinating an answer (which it is also prone to do).
Also, don't you think a source should be given?
I always think a source should be given -- particularly from humans, and particularly when they make claims in a discussion forum about "the vast majority of theologians/historians/anthropologist/entomologists/homeopaths/wizards." However, it's well established that ChatGPT doesn't do that. Just like many forum participants, who don't have the limitations of AI.
The tool didn’t state how the information was acquired.
Must resist the obvious joke..
The obvious joke is that @Martin54 stated that he used ChatGPT, and ChatGPT very clearly states that it cannot cite specific sources it used.
Although, I chatted with it tonight, and it is starting to do a better job of mentioning some of the sources it gleans information from.
Re “In what sense is it an impasse?” Because we keep coming up against the same disagreement, and I don’t really see a way of bridging it right now. And I’d rather not go back and forth with “A is true,” “No, A is false,” “No, A is true,” fifty billion times again.
Rather than either, "I disagree" or "No/Yes/No/Yes" it would be good to know why you hold the position you do that causes you to disagree.
I have found that I do not, at least presently, have the spoons to argue back and forth with @Martin54 about why I believe Christianity is true.
You don't have to my friend. Religious belief is sacrosanct. I've worked with Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and, the most challenging by a country mile, Evangelicals. Let alone people and their politics. A guy was introduced to me, to his face, as a neo-Nazi, so I shook him firmly by the hand of course, as we had to work together. In a Muslim business. Fascinating. It's not an issue. It's not the issue. I am not engaged in the process you describe above. For you I obviously am, for me I'm definitely not. On this or any other thread. All Christians believe that Christianity is true. That's covered. On this forum one can ask how one comes to such conclusions. For answers according to faith. Who knows, may be there's one that could convince me. After three thousand years, we must be getting closer! I had to change my mind on the Lewis's trilemma 'Could...' thread after all, about Jesus being deluded, thanks to @Doublethink's expert evidence. @Nick Tamen & @Dafyd gave me pause over the Pericope Adulterae; if it were attested to 30AD, is it unnatural? But that's going in the wrong direction : ) I'd be the happiest man alive to be wrong.
I have found that I do not, at least presently, have the spoons to argue back and forth with @Martin54 about why I believe Christianity is true.
Not at all a criticism, but some of the faithful are purely content just to know they have the feeling of a right belief. Many members of my side of our family are that way. They don't feel a need or desire to sink deep shafts into the whys and wherefores -- they just believe, and it makes them happy, and that's that. I don't think you should feel any pressure to go toe-to-toe with anyone here. It's not at all required.
Oh, I came to Christianity without being raised in it and very largely in intellectual ways. I wish I actually had more of the kind of feeling that people have but I need to actually try to work on that. And thank you. I struggle with the sense that I have to argue with anyone, almost like a kind of compulsion, or else I’m being some sort of intellectual coward or something. It’s led to the most delightful (sarcasm) experiences on Facebook…
On this forum one can ask how one comes to such conclusions. For answers according to faith.
And Reason, yes. But you and I don’t seem to be able to reach across our particular gulf right now, and while I don’t bear you ill will or anything, I just don’t have the spoons right now.
On this forum one can ask how one comes to such conclusions. For answers according to faith.
And Reason, yes. But you and I don’t seem to be able to reach across our particular gulf right now, and while I don’t bear you ill will or anything, I just don’t have the spoons right now.
On this forum one can ask how one comes to such conclusions. For answers according to faith.
And Reason, yes. But you and I don’t seem to be able to reach across our particular gulf right now, and while I don’t bear you ill will or anything, I just don’t have the spoons right now.
Comments
I have found that I do not, at least presently, have the spoons to argue back and forth with @Martin54 about why I believe Christianity is true.
Ok then.
An issue that seems relevant to AI and Large Language Models and how information is presented and used is "automation bias": And I think it's important for us to have at least some idea of the amount of energy these systems use, about which there is currently next to no information or transparency from the companies concerned.
Not at all a criticism, but some of the faithful are purely content just to know they have the feeling of a right belief. Many members of my side of our family are that way. They don't feel a need or desire to sink deep shafts into the whys and wherefores -- they just believe, and it makes them happy, and that's that. I don't think you should feel any pressure to go toe-to-toe with anyone here.
You don't have to my friend. Religious belief is sacrosanct. I've worked with Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and, the most challenging by a country mile, Evangelicals. Let alone people and their politics. A guy was introduced to me, to his face, as a neo-Nazi, so I shook him firmly by the hand of course, as we had to work together. In a Muslim business. Fascinating. It's not an issue. It's not the issue. I am not engaged in the process you describe above. For you I obviously am, for me I'm definitely not. On this or any other thread. All Christians believe that Christianity is true. That's covered. On this forum one can ask how one comes to such conclusions. For answers according to faith. Who knows, may be there's one that could convince me. After three thousand years, we must be getting closer! I had to change my mind on the Lewis's trilemma 'Could...' thread after all, about Jesus being deluded, thanks to @Doublethink's expert evidence. @Nick Tamen & @Dafyd gave me pause over the Pericope Adulterae; if it were attested to 30AD, is it unnatural? But that's going in the wrong direction : ) I'd be the happiest man alive to be wrong.
Oh, I came to Christianity without being raised in it and very largely in intellectual ways. I wish I actually had more of the kind of feeling that people have but I need to actually try to work on that. And thank you. I struggle with the sense that I have to argue with anyone, almost like a kind of compulsion, or else I’m being some sort of intellectual coward or something. It’s led to the most delightful (sarcasm) experiences on Facebook…
And Reason, yes. But you and I don’t seem to be able to reach across our particular gulf right now, and while I don’t bear you ill will or anything, I just don’t have the spoons right now.
Not a problem @ChastMastr. I wish you well.
Thank you. Ditto.