The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[malkie]

MG, the problem here is you want to win an argument without having any understanding of what the argument is about.

3. Category mistake: mathematical model vs. theological claim
He treats the success of the integer model (… −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, …) as if it straightforwardly validates a theological genealogy of Gods.
​
However, the fact that a countable, bi‑infinite order type is coherent in set theory does not by itself establish that God‑relations in Mormon theology instantiate that order type, so there is a gap between the math analogy and the doctrinal conclusion.

Math makes it logically possible. You should think that's a good thing, given every Mormon but you and Blake believes the version I propose. It's instantiated by what Mormons have actually said they believe. The Doctrine is the starting point, not the conclusion.

I'm done with your nonsense unless you can bring yourself to put some effort into this. anybody can take blocks of text, plug into AI, and then copy/paste the output indefinitely. Now, run along before I call you a name.

MG has claimed in the past that he reads AI responses before posting them, and posts only what he agrees with.

I was waiting in hope of him explaining

• what "a countable, bi‑infinite order type" is
• why its "coheren[ce] in set theory" matters
• what else would be needed to "establish that God‑relations in Mormon theology instantiate that order type"

and perhaps comment on the "gap between the math analogy and the doctrinal conclusion".

But perhaps this is one of these cases where the statement is so blindingly obvious that he need not comment, or the proof is being left as an exercise for the reader.

[MG 2.0]

MG, the problem here is you want to win an argument without having any understanding of what the argument is about.

3. Category mistake: mathematical model vs. theological claim
He treats the success of the integer model (… −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, …) as if it straightforwardly validates a theological genealogy of Gods.
​
However, the fact that a countable, bi‑infinite order type is coherent in set theory does not by itself establish that God‑relations in Mormon theology instantiate that order type, so there is a gap between the math analogy and the doctrinal conclusion.

Math makes it logically possible. You should think that's a good thing, given every Mormon but you and Blake believes the version I propose. It's instantiated by what Mormons have actually said they believe. The Doctrine is the starting point, not the conclusion.

I'm done with your nonsense unless you can bring yourself to put some effort into this. anybody can take blocks of text, plug into AI, and then copy/paste the output indefinitely. Now, run along before I call you a name.

Prompt: Is gadianton correct? math makes it logically possible?

Response: Very narrowly, yes: the integer model shows that an infinite, bi‑directional Father–Son chain is logically possible in the sense of “free of formal contradiction.”
​
But that is all it shows. It does not by itself show: that such a chain is metaphysically possible (given issues about actual infinites, causal priority, etc.), or that LDS Father–Son relations in fact instantiate that order type, or that this structure is theologically correct or required by LDS sources.
​
So:

“Math makes it logically possible” is fine if it means “set theory has a model structurally like what I’m positing.”

It is not fine if it is taken to mean “therefore this is what the God‑genealogy really is,” which is exactly the category‑mistake criticism MG’s AI text was pushing.
​
In other words: Gadianton is right that the math analogy can underwrite bare logical coherence; he is not justified in treating that as validation of his specific Mormon doctrinal picture without further theological and textual argument.

Folks, I'm the first one to admit, and have a number of times, that when it comes to ontological/metaphysical arguments I'm not in the same ball park let alone the same league as Gadianton. What I'm simply pointing out is that there are valid arguments to be made by theologians/philosophers that have the ability/training to do so.

I know that at a certain point it all becomes a "wall of text" that is impossible to respond to on its own merits.

That's why I've been somewhat disappointed in the AI rule. Critics...especially those that know their stuff...really do have the advantage. There is only one of me and I only count as a one eighth of a person.

Point made. I'll stop.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

MG, the problem here is you want to win an argument without having any understanding of what the argument is about.

Math makes it logically possible. You should think that's a good thing, given every Mormon but you and Blake believes the version I propose. It's instantiated by what Mormons have actually said they believe. The Doctrine is the starting point, not the conclusion.

I'm done with your nonsense unless you can bring yourself to put some effort into this. anybody can take blocks of text, plug into AI, and then copy/paste the output indefinitely. Now, run along before I call you a name.

...Folks, I'm the first one to admit, and have a number of times, that when it comes to ontological/metaphysical arguments I'm not in the same ball park let alone the same league as Gadianton.

mentalgymnasts repeating the obvious.

What I'm simply pointing out is that there are valid arguments to be made by theologians/philosophers that have the ability/training to do so.

mentalgymnast does not know this nor can he verify this let alone back it up with evidence because mentalgymnast does not understand the AI he is posting.

I know that at a certain point it all becomes a "wall of text" that is impossible to respond to on its own merits.

then mentalgymnasts should stop posting 'walls of text' that they do not understand and let the adults in the room continue their discussion.

That's why I've been somewhat disappointed in the AI rule. Critics...especially those that know their stuff...really do have the advantage....

lol. People who know what they are talking about do indeed know what they are talking about.

Point made. I'll stop.

The only point made was that trying to use AI that one does not understand is not helpful to anyone and makes the poster look foolish.

MG, the problem here is you want to win an argument without having any understanding of what the argument is about...

I'm done with your nonsense unless you can bring yourself to put some effort into this. anybody can take blocks of text, plug into AI, and then copy/paste the output indefinitely. Now, run along before I call you a name.

Couldn't agree more.

[malkie]

another never mind - two today

[MG 2.0]

another never mind - two today

I made my point. There are arguments that can stand up to other arguments. And even supercede them. The reality is that many of us do not have the time and/or the wherewithal to meet the challenge. Gadianton obviously has the chops to put an argument out there.

Generally the kudos come irregardless of whether his argument stands up under scrutiny.

No one has actually tackled the substance of the AI responses consolodating Blake Ostler's deeper level thinking into these matters. I don't really blame anyone. It's too time consuming.

Easier to just shrug it off and attack the messenger or the AI wholesale.

It's important to note/point out that volumnous arguments such as those Gadianton and others may put out there may very well have flaws.

The question we're all left with is whether or not this has been demonstrated in this instance.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Once again:

• I have nothing to say, and I'm saying it
• I can't prove anything, or make a coherent argument, but I'll still cast aspersions on the person I'm arguing against
• Everybody is being unfair to me - Boo ... hoo
• The board is stacked against me - Boo ... hoo
• You guys love Gad, even though he might not deserve it - double Boo ... hoo

It's not very pretty ...

[Dr. Shades]

No one has actually tackled the substance of the AI responses consolodating Blake Ostler's deeper level thinking into these matters. I don't really blame anyone. It's too time consuming.

You of all people should know that it's not necessary to tackle the substance of the AI responses consolidating Blake Ostler's deeper level thinking into these matters. Simply type the AI responses back into AI and ask it to respond to those, then copy-and-paste the result here like you're an expert at doing.

[I Have Questions]

No one has actually tackled the substance of the AI responses consolodating Blake Ostler's deeper level thinking into these matters. I don't really blame anyone. It's too time consuming.

Allow Sir Winston Churchill to respond to your bellyaching…

My friends, we are gathered not merely to dispute a point, nor to quibble over phrases artfully arranged, but to defend the integrity of reasoned discourse itself. The response before us—though dressed in the garments of thoughtful theology and tailored in the cadence of Blake Ostler—betrays the unmistakable seams of artificial manufacture. It is a house built of borrowed bricks, mortared with mimicry, impressive at a glance yet hollow at its core.

Let us be clear: eloquence is not authenticity, and resemblance is not authority. A machine may be trained to echo the tonal subtleties of a scholar, to approximate his turns of phrase, to simulate his careful qualifications and philosophical breadth. But it cannot inhabit conviction. It cannot wrestle in the midnight of doubt nor emerge at dawn with hard-won insight. It assembles; it does not believe. It arranges; it does not understand.

The danger here is not merely stylistic imitation. It is the quiet displacement of accountability. A genuine interlocutor stands behind his words, prepared to defend them, to clarify them, to amend them if reason demands. But an artificial reply stands behind nothing. It bears no responsibility for its assertions, no intellectual lineage, no personal stake in truth. To treat such a production as equal to a considered human response is to lower the standard of our common enterprise.

Therefore, we must not be dazzled by fluency nor subdued by philosophical ornament. Let us insist upon arguments forged in the furnace of lived reflection and owned by those who present them. For in discourse, as in democracy, it is not enough that words be spoken well; they must be spoken by minds prepared to answer for them.

ChatGPT in the style of Winston Churchill repudiating AI responses done in the style of Blake Ostler.


Stop being lazy MG 2.0.

[Physics Guy]

No-one discusses the substance of the AI response because there is no substance there.

3. Category mistake: mathematical model vs. theological claim
He treats the success of the integer model (… −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, …) as if it straightforwardly validates a theological genealogy of Gods.
​
However, the fact that a countable, bi‑infinite order type is coherent in set theory does not by itself establish that God‑relations in Mormon theology instantiate that order type, so there is a gap between the math analogy and the doctrinal conclusion.

This is the worst kind of AI slop. It uses fancy words like "countable, bi-infinite order type", "coherent", and "set theory", but what it actually says with those words is moronic. Translated into words that aren't way over-inflated, all the AI says is that

Just because you can imagine an infinite sequence, with no beginning or end, doesn't automatically mean that the Mormon sequence of gods is like that infinite sequence.

Well, duh. Who the hell ever said otherwise? Who ever would? This isn't a critique of anyone's argument. It doesn't advance any discussion or tell anyone anything that isn't obvious. It's an utterly worthless contribution, simply dressed up in fancy language to make it sound as though it must be important.

Actual people sometimes try things like that. They are annoying people, and one soon learns not to attempt conversations with them. AI's are like that all the time, and it's not even a mistake or a failure. They are literally designed to be like that, with enormous effort put into training them to sound intelligent and no attempt at all to make them understand anything. Producing slop that sounds good but contains no content at all to discuss is what one has to expect from AIs by default. They have artificial intelligence the way cheap ice cream has artificial vanilla. AI would more accurately be called II, imitation intelligence.

That's why posting AI content is bad, not because there's anything so sacred about the original products of human minds. It's that AI content consistently tends to be utterly stupid, but dressed up in smart-sounding language that makes people waste time. It's a consistent tendency, not because AIs are still sometimes imperfect, but because they are literally made to be like that, on purpose. Looking to AI for substantive arguments is like asking for financial advice from people who are in prison for fraud.

[Gadianton]

No one has actually tackled the substance of the AI responses consolodating Blake Ostler's

You're a liar. I responded in detail to the main point of your AI Blake. How do you know what the substance of the AI response was when you admit you're not following the conversation? The first point of your AI Blake was the only one that mattered at all, it wasn't even an argument against my argument, it merely informed the prompter what Blake's position is.

The irony is that you use AI explicitly to commit the crime you think I'm guilty of: to produce a wall of text that sounds fancy but reduces to nothing, as PG and Malkie pointed out. If someone disagrees or is unsure of what I'm saying, I try to shorten it, there is a shorter version you could read in two minutes, later on the thread. I tried to distill the first main point with brevity in response to your Blake AI. If someone disagrees with you or your AI, you don't seek clarity, you generate larger and larger walls of text in order to disrupt the conversation. Like putting your fingers in your ears and screaming like a two-year-old.