The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[Limnor]

When I use AI, which really isn't that often (quite a bit today!), I do proofread it and stand behind what is being said.

How can you claim that you proofread the output of an AI on topics you admit openly you don't understand?

If I ask an AI to evaluate the reasonbleness of a debate between string theorists, how would I proofread it since I don't know anything about string theory?

To be fair, MG kind of does this with non-AI posts too. Long walls of text that the rest of us have to sort through. The AI part doesn’t actually change that much.

[malkie]

How can you claim that you proofread the output of an AI on topics you admit openly you don't understand?

If I ask an AI to evaluate the reasonbleness of a debate between string theorists, how would I proofread it since I don't know anything about string theory?

To be fair, MG kind of does this with non-AI posts too. Long walls of text that the rest of us have to sort through. The AI part doesn’t actually change that much.

I'm going to disagree with you on that point, Limnor.

But because it's the weekend and my darling wife is awake, my explanation will have to wait until I've made brunch and brought it to her in bed

[malkie]

When I use AI, which really isn't that often (quite a bit today!), I do proofread it and stand behind what is being said.

How can you claim that you proofread the output of an AI on topics you admit openly you don't understand?

If I ask an AI to evaluate the reasonbleness of a debate between string theorists, how would I proofread it since I don't know anything about string theory?

This is the nub of what I've been working up to with my earlier comment on this thread, which MG has said that he has lost interest/track in, and will let slide.

[Limnor]

To be fair, MG kind of does this with non-AI posts too. Long walls of text that the rest of us have to sort through. The AI part doesn’t actually change that much.

I'm going to disagree with you on that point, Limnor.

But because it's the weekend and my darling wife is awake, my explanation will have to wait until I've made brunch and brought it to her in bed

Completely fair. Brunch should always take precedence over online discussions.

[Marcus]

To be fair, MG kind of does this with non-AI posts too. Long walls of text that the rest of us have to sort through. The AI part doesn’t actually change that much.

I'm going to disagree with you on that point, Limnor.

But because it's the weekend and my darling wife is awake, my explanation will have to wait until I've made brunch and brought it to her in bed

You sweetheart. My husband cooks for me too, and I love it.

I'm going to agree with both of you, but only because of a very common Mormon trait MG exhibits.

First, Mormons are bred to talk about things, and are well trained in the art, from getting up at sharing time in primary, talks in meetings, impromptu prayers, planning home evenings, testimonies, teaching classes, missions, and basically speaking during every hour of church. There were even area wide speech festivals when I was growing up! I credit many of my teaching skills to the decades of public speaking I did long before I stepped before a group of university students.

Now for the trait MG frequently exhibits:

Many Mormons also have the art of lying to non-Mormons bred into them. I think this comes from the supreme confidence they have that their starting assumptions are right and no non-Mormon could possibly know better, let alone have a life worth living. Therefore, lying is entirely justified, because a Mormon can't be wrong.

Many grow out of this as they mature (or better yet weren't indoctrinated quite so relentlessly), but immaturity in adult Mormons is very common, and thus we get mentalgymnasts like the one who visits here. He can talk and talk and talk about Mormon things, but when the conversation gets deeper he has zero compunction about lying, ad hom attacking, cheating, or even just making stuff up. Admitting error, or even saying 'I don't know' is simply not possible. He has a divine duty to squash the non-human bugs who dare to disagree with his divine Mormon-ness.

Granted, MG is the very extreme end of the above description, but then, trolling for a hobby is an extreme activity.

[Limnor]

I'm going to disagree with you on that point, Limnor.

But because it's the weekend and my darling wife is awake, my explanation will have to wait until I've made brunch and brought it to her in bed

You sweetheart. My husband cooks for me too, and I love it.

I'm going to agree with both of you, but only because of a very common Mormon trait MG exhibits.

First, Mormons are bred to talk about things, and are well trained in the art, from getting up at sharing time in primary, talks in meetings, impromptu prayers, planning home evenings, testimonies, teaching classes, missions, and basically speaking during every hour of church. There were even area wide speech festivals when I was growing up! I credit many of my teaching skills to the decades of public speaking I did long before I stepped before a group of university students.

Now for the trait MG frequently exhibits:

Many Mormons also have the art of lying to non-Mormons bred into them. I think this comes from the supreme confidence they have that their starting assumptions are right and no non-Mormon could possibly know better, let alone have a life worth living. Therefore, lying is entirely justified, because a Mormon can't be wrong.

Many grow out of this as they mature (or better yet weren't indoctrinated quite so relentlessly), but immaturity in adult Mormons is very common, and thus we get mentalgymnasts like the one who visits here. He can talk and talk and talk about Mormon things, but when the conversation gets deeper he has zero compunction about lying, ad hom attacking, cheating, or even just making stuff up. Admitting error, or even saying 'I don't know' is simply not possible. He has a divine duty to squash the non-human bugs who dare to disagree with his divine Mormon-ness.

Granted, MG is the very extreme end of the above description, but then, trolling for a hobby is an extreme activity.

For me it always seems like a summary is lacking—whether he uses AI or not. Even when requests for clarity are extended, the responses vary. I agree that in the aggregate the behavior lends itself to an assessment of “troll.”

[malkie]

To be fair, MG kind of does this with non-AI posts too. Long walls of text that the rest of us have to sort through. The AI part doesn’t actually change that much.

I'm going to disagree with you on that point, Limnor.

But because it's the weekend and my darling wife is awake, my explanation will have to wait until I've made brunch and brought it to her in bed

I made a kind of breakfast burrito, with egg, bacon, and cheese, but since we're cutting down on carbs I used rice paper instead of tortillas.

Anyway, back to my reasons for disagreeing.

As we've all seen for months now, MG has been moaning and griping about the AI rule, and has accused the mods - especially The Venerable Dr Shades - of creating the rule specifically to disadvantage MG. The rationale was that using AI as a force & effort multiplier, or waldo, a "Synchronous Reduplicating Pantograph" (see Heinlein's short story: Waldo), MG as pretty much the sole valiant defender of Mormonism could perform "fairly" against the horde of apostates, heretics, and general miscreants. You may recognize yourself as apparently part of that horde I'm a happy member.

Waldos are wonderful devices if you can master them and use them effectively. If not, they can inadvertently do a lot of damage. Worse is constantly proclaiming how well you can use a waldo while demonstrating your lack of skills, over and over again.

[Physics Guy]

For me it always seems like a summary is lacking—

Quoted for truth—about everything.

The German academic system invented some key features of the modern academic system in the whole world, and is therefore more conservative than most systems. In German universities, grades are mainly assigned in oral exams.

On the one hand it's tedious for faculty. I have to spend a lot of time asking a lot of different students the same smallish set of questions. On the other hand, it's impossible to cheat. If you can fake your way past me for an hour, that's not faking.

The thing that we always do in oral exams, that you can't do nearly as well in anything written, is to look up and down. Does the candidate understand what this means in the bigger picture? Do they understand why it's important?

And then, on the other hand, does the candidate understand what this actually means, concretely, in detail?

In some ways it's absurd that three to four years of study get collapsed into two or three hours. In practice it's not really that bad. We're pretty generous on the low end. It's rare for people to fail a German oral exam. We maybe err more more on the other end, of giving someone a rare and coveted top grade for an hour of brilliance. On the other hand, damn. One time I had a candidate who didn't seem to know anything, no matter what I asked, but who figured all of it out on the spot. Maybe it's not such a bad feature of the system, that it has a way to flag people like that.

You have to be able to summarise, and you have to be able to give concrete examples. This is what learning means.

[Gadianton]

I think this comes from the supreme confidence they have that their starting assumptions are right and no non-Mormon could possibly know better, let alone have a life worth living. Therefore, lying is entirely justified, because a Mormon can't be wrong.

The Mormon expressiveness idea is an interesting one, I think it's right and I think you have mentioned it before - the pragmatism of it w/public speaking.

concerning the supreme confidence, the "it's true" meme. A seminary teacher used to tell us "it's true!" in his special voice constantly. Not quite on the verge of tears but in that direction, to convey -- "this is all you really need to know". Wasn't unexpected. But here's one I didn't expect. I had a temp job pre-mission, manufacturing related. It was a test for me because I felt compelled to be more social than I otherwise was and try to find ways to bring up religion. There was this one guy there, at least a couple years older, mid-length black hair and a small mustache, those large-frame "big guy" glasses, wore tank tops, and drove this loud beat-up Camaro in primer. Definitely had the lone wolf "tough guy" vibe, so I was a little intimidated. But that set the challenge that I needed to get to know him. So I sat next to him against the wall on the ground during lunch in the break room and got a conversation going and somehow I got to the part where I let it slip that I was getting ready for a mission. I don't recall exactly how he responded, but his response included letting me know that he was also going on a mission. He was newly baptized never-mo and said he needed some time to get his affairs in order before he left because he didn't think he'd be coming back from his. And as we talked, it became apparent he was an avid missionary himself and had told a Christian he debated something like, "You believe yours is true, but I KNOW mine's true." And pointed to his chest and pretty fired up over it. No idea if he ever went but if so, I'm sure he was better than I was at it.

[malkie]

I think this comes from the supreme confidence they have that their starting assumptions are right and no non-Mormon could possibly know better, let alone have a life worth living. Therefore, lying is entirely justified, because a Mormon can't be wrong.

The Mormon expressiveness idea is an interesting one, I think it's right and I think you have mentioned it before - the pragmatism of it w/public speaking.

concerning the supreme confidence, the "it's true" meme. A seminary teacher used to tell us "it's true!" in his special voice constantly. Not quite on the verge of tears but in that direction, to convey -- "this is all you really need to know". Wasn't unexpected. But here's one I didn't expect. I had a temp job pre-mission, manufacturing related. It was a test for me because I felt compelled to be more social than I otherwise was and try to find ways to bring up religion. There was this one guy there, at least a couple years older, mid-length black hair and a small mustache, those large-frame "big guy" glasses, wore tank tops, and drove this loud beat-up Camaro in primer. Definitely had the lone wolf "tough guy" vibe, so I was a little intimidated. But that set the challenge that I needed to get to know him. So I sat next to him against the wall on the ground during lunch in the break room and got a conversation going and somehow I got to the part where I let it slip that I was getting ready for a mission. I don't recall exactly how he responded, but his response included letting me know that he was also going on a mission. He was newly baptized never-mo and said he needed some time to get his affairs in order before he left because he didn't think he'd be coming back from his. And as we talked, it became apparent he was an avid missionary himself and had told a Christian he debated something like, "You believe yours is true, but I KNOW mine's true." And pointed to his chest and pretty fired up over it. No idea if he ever went but if so, I'm sure he was better than I was at it.

Appearances can be deceptive.

Back in Scotland my (now ex-) wife & I took the missionaries from our branch to the beach on a picnic on "P" day. Two missionaries were talking about a rock concert that they had both seen, and one asked the other if he remembered the long-haired hippy-like guy who did acrobatics on stage during the intermission. The second missionary pulled out his drivers' licence and replied: "Did he look anything like this? That was me!" He then proceeded to do cartwheels, handsprings, etc. down the beach. From his picture he looked like the most unlikely person ever to be on a Mormon mission.