The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[MG 2.0]

Before your AI can draw conclusions, it needs to understand what's being argued, and it fails 100% at representing anything I've said. That's not the AIs fault, it's your fault because you tried to make it evaluate pages and pages of a meandering conversation, most of which has moved away from the points that I was making in the OP, and you also colored its expectations with your question.

Allow me to show you how to use your AI.

First say this:

"I'm going to paste in an essay, please summarize it for me in 500 words or less, do not praise it or criticize it, just explain what it means."

Then paste in my OP.

Then paste the output here so that I can agree or disagree on its accuracy as a summary.

To help: I performed this exact exercise with DeepSeek just now and I'm happy enough with its output. I'm sure your AI will do fine.

Blake wants to mold Mormonism to contemporary Christian apologetics as much as possible. I think Mormonism should stay true to its mythological roots. Other than breaking down Blake's views, which I already understand, what is there to be gained by this? I can tell you one thing: there is not enough material published by Blake online to create an AI Blake to counter my arguments because Blake has never encountered anything like I'm proposing before and written about.

It's not that AI can't be useful, but you have serious comprehension problems when it comes to AI's obvious limitations.

Fair enough, I suppose. As malkie said on the other thread, this stuff goes beyond my pay grade pretty fast. I'm simply suggesting that philosophical argument can only get you so far. You, just like every other person on the planet, only has that three pound mass contained inside your skull to think with.

I would suggest that this being the case that you might want to consider the fact that this can only get you so far. Fair enough? I would imagine that Blake Ostler would have the humility to answer and affirmative, "Yes".

Million dollar question, right?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I love a "million dollar question" that is a tautology. Let's look at a mentalgymnastical example:

'In a philosophical discussion, "philosophical discussion" will only get you so far.'

Priceless.

[huckelberry]

Reading both Philo's and MG's AI contributions I was first impressed and felt reminded of Physics Guy's observation. The AI product is smooth and put together well. Then I notice that I might think difficulties and important points have been smoothed over rather than clarified.

I think it is possible I have at times been guilty of the same though with less polish.

I think Gad has been doing some interesting thought even if I completely disagree with him about the Trinity.

[MG 2.0]

Reading both Philo's and MG's AI contributions I was first impressed and felt reminded of Physics Guy's observation. The AI product is smooth and put together well. Then I notice that I might think difficulties and important points have been smoothed over rather than clarified.

I think it is possible I have at times been guilty of the same though with less polish.

I think Gad has been doing some interesting thought even if I completely disagree with him about the Trinity.

I do not see AI as the 'end all' authority on any one thing/subject. I do see it as 'further light and knowledge' that can be accessed and then assessed for value.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

I love a "million dollar question" that is a tautology. Let's look at a mentalgymnastical example:

'In a philosophical discussion, "philosophical discussion" will only get you so far.'

Priceless.

It's almost too much.

I have to speculate: Is MG trying to punish the world for all the times his students drove him mad with putting so much more effort into avoiding homework that would have taken a fraction as much to complete?

[Gadianton]

I would suggest that this being the case that you might want to consider the fact that this can only get you so far. Fair enough? I would imagine that Blake Ostler would have the humility to answer and affirmative, "Yes".

MG, will you stop at nothing to avoid participating and derailing the conversation? After walls of text and staged summaries and constant appeals to Blake as an authority without putting any effort into the discussion yourself, and now that I've tried to meet you halfway and suggest we can move forward with your AI use if you can first provide a short unbiased synopsis to start with, you're ready to dump AI. Now that you see you are trapped because it's a perfectly reasonable way to continue that doesn't result in an instant win for you, you're trying to get me to admit that there's more to life than philosophy? That this very subject, that you are so sure Blake dominates everybody in the world on, and everyone has to know what Blake says about it, that now it doesn't even matter anymore? That if you are forced to make your AI summarize my position in the same way you used it to summarize Blake's position, that the whole thing just isn't worth it anymore?

No, MG, my answer is NO. The only thing that's important in my life is this thread. So, I suggest you get started with the copy paste, and let's get that 500 word summary going.

[Limnor]

'In a philosophical discussion, "philosophical discussion" will only get you so far.'

This should be embroidered on a pillow and sent to MG as a gift.

[Dr. Shades]

If you want to pull any of 'Blake AI' over into the other thread, that might add some more meat to the discussion.

MG 2.0, are you really, truly encouraging that AI-generated material be posted into a thread other than this one?

[malkie]

If you want to pull any of 'Blake AI' over into the other thread, that might add some more meat to the discussion.

MG 2.0, are you really, truly encouraging that AI-generated material be posted into a thread other than this one?

C'mon Shades, and give the guy a break. He probably forgot, or didn't realize, or something, that that's not allowed. He wouldn't "pull" any AI material himself, though.

[MG 2.0]

If you want to pull any of 'Blake AI' over into the other thread, that might add some more meat to the discussion.

MG 2.0, are you really, truly encouraging that AI-generated material be posted into a thread other than this one?

Ideas and concepts, not actual 'verbatim' AI.

Regards,
MG