The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[MG 2.0]

A few days ago you were asked if you could explain certain statements you copied from an AI response - you gave no explanation. I believe that that is because you were not able to do so - at least, not without help, and certainly not at the time you posted it.

I will concede, as you did, that on the "Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain" thread a lot of that is way above may paygrade of experience and knowledge. I think I mentioned that over on that thread as did you.

The AI, where it was dealing with esoteric content to begin with, came out the other end speaking esoteric. Still above and beyond my own understanding and natural comprehension.

So yeah, in that instance I didn't have much to say. As they say, "It was Greek to me!" I'll have to hand it to Gadianton for all the time and reading he has done into esoterica. I can't say the same.

At this point in my life I don't know that I have any great interest. I dunno, maybe it's a handicap. If he can argue away the Mormon God using his logical chains, natural intellect, and analogies, etc., then maybe I have something to worry about.

Although, I must say, I think that the one and only true God would be the one that a Primary child could understand and worship in their childlike way.

Gadiantion would never make it in Primary. Unless he plays the piano.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I suppose I should feel bad that I seem to have forced you to make that concession, but you have doubled down on your "I approve = I understand" often enough that I was interested to see if you would do it again. Dastardly, right?

by the way, anyone reading this who knows anything about Stem, a.k.a. StemElbow, a.k.a. Dastardly Stem, please update us.

Care to comment on your other point that I replied to?

[Marcus]

...Essentially your pseudo expertise in actually/assuming knowing what my level of understanding is when it comes to one thing or another disqualifies your criticism from the get go. That's like me making a pronouncement/assumption for all the world to see that you "lack understanding". Whether or not that's true, I don't think I've done that.

On the contrary, telling people who don't believe what mentalgymnast believes that they "lack understanding" is something he does with obnoxious regularity. It's really quite impossible to believe he really doesn't think he's done that. He would have to lack the most basic level of self-awareness.

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. Very infrequently have posters actually engaged with the substance. More often than not it's, "AI! Aargh!!" It's AI!!..

Sorry, no, it's not believable that mentalgymnast 'proofreads' his AI stuff.

And, as Shades has pointed out:

... Although I can hardly believe I need to type this next part--and it's a testament to how far technology has advanced in just the almost-20 years this board has existed--for our purposes here on this message board, "Discuss Mormonism" should be assumed to mean "humans discuss Mormonism," not "repository of computer-generated texts regarding Mormonism-related topics..."

One can only hope.

[Marcus]

I will concede, as you did, that on the "Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain" thread a lot of that is way above may paygrade of experience and knowledge. I think I mentioned that over on that thread as did you.

The AI, where it was dealing with esoteric content to begin with, came out the other end speaking esoteric. Still above and beyond my own understanding and natural comprehension.

So yeah, in that instance I didn't have much to say. As they say, "It was Greek to me!" I'll have to hand it to Gadianton for all the time and reading he has done into esoterica. I can't say the same.

At this point in my life I don't know that I have any great interest. I dunno, maybe it's a handicap. If he can argue away the Mormon God using his logical chains, natural intellect, and analogies, etc., then maybe I have something to worry about..

And yet it doesn't occur to the mentalgymnast that if he has no interest in a topic, then he shouldn't default to trolling, derailing and disrupting!!!

His comment about gad not making it in primary was rude and stupid. Following it with a winkyface just emphasizes his lack of manners. It is, however, a perfect example of how he regularly does this thing he believes he doesn't:

That's like me making a pronouncement/assumption for all the world to see that you "lack understanding". Whether or not that's true, I don't think I've done that

Apparently, mentalgymnast does lack the most basic self-awareness.

[I Have Questions]

I will concede, as you did, that on the "Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain" thread a lot of that is way above may paygrade of experience and knowledge. I think I mentioned that over on that thread as did you.

The AI, where it was dealing with esoteric content to begin with, came out the other end speaking esoteric. Still above and beyond my own understanding and natural comprehension.

So yeah, in that instance I didn't have much to say. As they say, "It was Greek to me!" I'll have to hand it to Gadianton for all the time and reading he has done into esoterica. I can't say the same.

At this point in my life I don't know that I have any great interest. I dunno, maybe it's a handicap. If he can argue away the Mormon God using his logical chains, natural intellect, and analogies, etc., then maybe I have something to worry about..

And yet it doesn't occur to the mentalgymnast that if he has no interest in a topic, then he shouldn't default to trolling, derailing and disrupting!!!

The problem is that he thinks he’s brighter than he actually is, and he’s lazy. So when he can’t use AI to supplement his own intellect and can’t use AI to try and make himself sound clever, he then throws the equivalent of a toddler’s tantrum and derails. He’s even doing that on a thread where he is allowed to use AI. Plus he has an inflated opinion of himself, which means he simply cannot bear to stay out of the way on topics that he doesn’t understand.

[Gadianton]

Although, I must say, I think that the one and only true God would be the one that a Primary child could understand and worship in their childlike way.

Gadiantion would never make it in Primary. Unless he plays the piano.

An interesting suggestion, but you're wrong. It's Blakes God that is the one that can't be understood by the primary student. you don't understand Blakes God either which is why you can't argue for it yourself. Internet Mormons are embarrassed about the simplicity of their God and try to make it more complicated.

My second attempt will show this feature more clearly, I hope, though you won't read any of it, which is fine, just as you haven't read Blake either, but "my God" IS the God of the primary student.

In the role I imagine myself, understanding theology might be a pre-requisite, but I'm not doing theology. I'm more of an anthropologist apprehending the implicit theology that the primary children are doing. From the view of the anthropologist, it's an open question as to whether I am the anti-Mormon or you are. As an anthropologist, I observe that you and the Internet Mormons are like the primary children sitting in the back of sharing time refusing to sing the songs.

[I Have Questions]

THEREFORE, TO MAKE THIS NEW POLICY WORK, do not copy-and-paste any computer-generated reasoning, opinions, or conversation from Perplexity A.I., etc. into any thread other than this one. Keep anything you generate in any of those programs in a separate browser window, ne'er the twain shall meet.

Amen!

Although you may need to explain this in simpler, blunter, and more forcible language for one specific poster…

I said this^ nearly a year ago. And here we still are. Shades, MG is playing you for a chump.

[malkie]

A few days ago you were asked if you could explain certain statements you copied from an AI response - you gave no explanation. I believe that that is because you were not able to do so - at least, not without help, and certainly not at the time you posted it.

I will concede, as you did, that on the "Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain" thread a lot of that is way above may paygrade of experience and knowledge. I think I mentioned that over on that thread as did you.

The AI, where it was dealing with esoteric content to begin with, came out the other end speaking esoteric. Still above and beyond my own understanding and natural comprehension.

So yeah, in that instance I didn't have much to say. As they say, "It was Greek to me!" I'll have to hand it to Gadianton for all the time and reading he has done into esoterica. I can't say the same.

At this point in my life I don't know that I have any great interest. I dunno, maybe it's a handicap. If he can argue away the Mormon God using his logical chains, natural intellect, and analogies, etc., then maybe I have something to worry about.

Although, I must say, I think that the one and only true God would be the one that a Primary child could understand and worship in their childlike way.

Gadiantion would never make it in Primary. Unless he plays the piano.

Regards,
MG

Something about your reply has been niggling at me, in the back of my mind, all day, and I think I now see why.

Your reply to my comment - a small part of which you quoted and responded to - looks to me very like a pattern of response that I've seen before from my children, from my students, and from a number of adults, regrettably myself included. If you ask me to, I'll describe the pattern, and explain how I think it applies here. However, since you are a parent, a teacher, and an adult, I believe that my alluding to a pattern and indicating that what's quoted above seems to fit should be enough. I think that you will also understand why I'm pushing this, although you may not like it.

OTOH, if you've never experienced this pattern before, I have to think that you've led a very sheltered life

So I'm asking you to go back to my previous comment and respond to all of it, point by point, not just the small part that you already replied to. If it makes it any easier for you, I'll repeat the comment in full with breaks where I insert "[MG - please respond here]".

When you have responded, I'll happily explain the pattern, if you need me to do so.

[Marcus]

...The AI, where it was dealing with esoteric content to begin with, came out the other end speaking esoteric. Still above and beyond my own understanding and natural comprehension.

So yeah, in that instance I didn't have much to say. As they say, "It was Greek to me!" ...

What happened to mentalgymnast's proofreading and standing behind what is posted?

...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..

[Marcus]

I will concede, as you did, that on the "Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain" thread a lot of that is way above may paygrade of experience and knowledge. I think I mentioned that over on that thread as did you.

The AI, where it was dealing with esoteric content to begin with, came out the other end speaking esoteric. Still above and beyond my own understanding and natural comprehension.

So yeah, in that instance I didn't have much to say. As they say, "It was Greek to me!" I'll have to hand it to Gadianton for all the time and reading he has done into esoterica. I can't say the same.

At this point in my life I don't know that I have any great interest. I dunno, maybe it's a handicap. If he can argue away the Mormon God using his logical chains, natural intellect, and analogies, etc., then maybe I have something to worry about.

Although, I must say, I think that the one and only true God would be the one that a Primary child could understand and worship in their childlike way.

Gadiantion would never make it in Primary. Unless he plays the piano.

Regards,
MG

Something about your reply has been niggling at me, in the back of my mind, all day, and I think I now see why.

Your reply to my comment - a small part of which you quoted and responded to - looks to me very like a pattern of response that I've seen before from my children, from my students, and from a number of adults, regrettably myself included. If you ask me to, I'll describe the pattern, and explain how I think it applies here. However, since you are a parent, a teacher, and an adult, I believe that my alluding to a pattern and indicating that what's quoted above seems to fit should be enough. I think that you will also understand why I'm pushing this, although you may not like it.

OTOH, if you've never experienced this pattern before, I have to think that you've led a very sheltered life

So I'm asking you to go back to my previous comment and respond to all of it, point by point, not just the small part that you already replied to. If it makes it any easier for you, I'll repeat the comment in full with breaks where I insert "[MG - please respond here]".

I hope you get a response.