Kirk Magelby claims scholars are taking the Book of Mormon Seriously

[I Have Questions]

The fact is, A.I. listed point by point rebuttals to the critic of Stubbs. I can't list them because they are A.I. generated.

No. You can’t copy and paste them. But you could go to the source that your AI bot of choice used, quote that original source with an appropriate link, and explain why it rebuts Stubbs. But you won’t, because you’re too lazy to do so. The advantage other posters have on this board is that they aren’t lazy.

[Physics Guy]

If you tell it to do so, AI will give a slick-sounding bulleted list of rebuttals to anything. It doesn’t matter whether the anything is true or false. AI just clicks its heels and obeys, and makes the case look good, at first glance, even if it is garbage. AI will hallucinate fake facts, misinterpret clear statements, play word games, do whatever it takes. It’s the sleazy weasel lawyer who can defend the most indefensible client with a long, eloquent speech, standing shameless in an impeccable suit.

AI is especially unreliable on detailed issues in technical subjects like Stubbs’s theory, because the total amount of published literature on relevant topics isn’t a large enough sample for AI to imitate understanding effectively with the brute force of high-order correlated parroting. What an AI has to say on this subject is just going to be worthless. It will look impressive to a lay person but it will be absolute crap.

[malkie]

If you tell it to do so, AI will give a slick-sounding bulleted list of rebuttals to anything. It doesn’t matter whether the anything is true or false. AI just clicks its heels and obeys, and makes the case look good, at first glance, even if it is garbage. AI will hallucinate fake facts, misinterpret clear statements, play word games, do whatever it takes. It’s the sleazy weasel lawyer who can defend the most indefensible client with a long, eloquent speech, standing shameless in an impeccable suit.

AI is especially unreliable on detailed issues in technical subjects like Stubbs’s theory, because the total amount of published literature on relevant topics isn’t a large enough sample for AI to imitate understanding effectively with the brute force of high-order correlated parroting. What an AI has to say on this subject is just going to be worthless. It will look impressive to a lay person but it will be absolute crap.

In my experience (by offering an AMA to ChatGPT), this particular AI at least is a person pleaser. My hypothesis is that it has some bias towards continuing and perhaps deepening the interaction.

As a result, if the AI can divine the user's biases, it will use that information to encourage the user.

Perhaps that's all in my imagination, but I'm pretttttty sure I'm not the magnificent creature that ChatGPT seems to think me.

[Chap]

A.I. cannot be used in this forum. As it is, there are valid points of rebuttal, in detail, to the author of the essay/article being referred to. I don't have the time or inclination to summarize the rebuttal Stubbs made to the detractors of his working theories.

But to simply call him out as being "dishonest" I think is unfair. Unfortunately on this board a person can easily get away with that because alternate points of dialogue/evidence easily accessible through A.I. are not allowed.

I think that has been done on purpose.

Regards
MG

I just went to ChatGPT and explained to it that I wanted to persuade contributors to a discussion board not to post AI generated content, and I needed some good bullet points to post on the board to that effect. It gave me the following ten points - all very relevant and powerful arguments against posting AI generated content rather than personally written stuff. Here they are:

[DELETED BY CHAP BEFORE POSTING TO SPARE THE MODERATORS HAVING TO SPEND THIE TIME CLEANING UP AFTER ME]

My point? If I had been allowed to make that post, I could have gone to ChatGPT and asked it for ten points rebutting the ones I had just posted, and arguing that posting AI generated content should have been allowed. It would have given me ten at least decent points to post.

And so it could have gone on, and on, and on. We could all go off and read a good book while the board runs entirely on AI content - no need for us at all. Somehow, I don't see what the point of that would be.

[malkie]

A.I. cannot be used in this forum. As it is, there are valid points of rebuttal, in detail, to the author of the essay/article being referred to. I don't have the time or inclination to summarize the rebuttal Stubbs made to the detractors of his working theories.

But to simply call him out as being "dishonest" I think is unfair. Unfortunately on this board a person can easily get away with that because alternate points of dialogue/evidence easily accessible through A.I. are not allowed.

I think that has been done on purpose.

Regards
MG

I just went to ChatGPT and explained to it that I wanted to persuade contributors to a discussion board not to post AI generated content, and I needed some good bullet points to post on the board to that effect. It gave me the following ten points - all very relevant and powerful arguments against posting AI generated content rather than personally written stuff. Here they are:

[DELETED BY CHAP BEFORE POSTING TO SPARE THE MODERATORS HAVING TO SPEND THIE TIME CLEANING UP AFTER ME]

My point? If I had been allowed to make that post, I could have gone to ChatGPT and asked it for ten points rebutting the ones I had just posted, and arguing that posting AI generated content should have been allowed. It would have given me ten at least decent points to post.

And so it could have gone on, and on, and on. We could all go off and read a good book while the board runs entirely on AI content - no need for us at all. Somehow, I don't see what the point of that would be.

Way back, when AI use here started to be seen as problematic, I asked ChatGPT for some ideas about how a forum like this could moderate AI use, and to suggest some pros and cons of having separate threads, or separate forums, for LLM-generated posts and comments vs. human-generated ones The results are at the top of page 2 of the AI Megathread topic. I was quite favourably impressed with the answer. I wonder now if I should also have asked how AI could be used to damage discussion

I am happy with Shades' decision, and would be even happier if a certain poster would stop the moaning about the perceived unfairness, simply accept it, as most if not all other posters have, and get on with human-to-human discussion.

[MG 2.0]

To be clear, I'm not crying about it as much as I'm just disappointed.

Regards,
MG

Ahhhh - OK
In any case, noted that, once again, MG is telling us that he's disappointed about how badly he is treated here. Boo hoo.

TTOC

Regards,
MG

[Chap]

I am happy with Shades' decision, and would be even happier if a certain poster would stop the moaning about the perceived unfairness, simply accept it, as most if not all other posters have, and get on with human-to-human discussion.

Me too.

[Rivendale]

For all the excuses TBM'S make about people unable to write a complicated book with multiple themes, different characters and inspiring messages , it tells me they haven't read Tolkien.

Very profoundly and beautifully said Mellon nin! (Sindarin Elvish for "my friend" if you were wondering)

Hannon le

[Philo Sofee]

Very profoundly and beautifully said Mellon nin! (Sindarin Elvish for "my friend" if you were wondering)

Hannon le

Ú-bae!