The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[MG 2.0]

In response to this Perplexity has this to say in response to your A.I. response:

This answer ignores Unique Circumstances of Book of Mormon Production

The A.I. answer does not address the manner in which the Book of Mormon was produced: dictated orally, without notes or drafts, at a rapid pace (about 4,700 words per day over roughly 57 days), and with little to no revision. This process is unlike the methods used by Shelley or Dickens, who wrote, revised, and edited their manuscripts over much longer periods.

Scholars note there is no evidence Joseph Smith engaged in preparatory literary exercises, kept journals, or developed writing skills prior to the Book of Mormon.

2. Overlooks Stylometric and Structural Arguments

Stylometric studies and literary analysis show the Book of Mormon contains multiple distinct narrative voices and complex interwoven storylines, which some argue are unusual for a single, untrained author working under Smith's constraints.

Critics and some scholars argue that the book's internal consistency and "hidden complexity" (such as chiasmus, ancient literary forms, and cultural details) increase the improbability that Smith could have produced it unaided, especially given his background and the time constraints.

And...

The answer does not engage with the apologetic argument that the complexity of the Book of Mormon is evidence against Smith's sole authorship, especially when considering his limited education and the rapid, oral composition process.

It also does not mention that, historically, the book's complexity led some critics to propose that Smith had help from more educated contemporaries, a point relevant to the debate.

Finally:

Lacks Nuance About "Complexity"

Not all complexity is equal: the type of complexity (e.g., narrative structure, literary devices, historical and cultural references) matters when assessing authorship claims. The Book of Mormon's complexity is argued by some to be qualitatively different from that found in the early works of Dickens or Shelley

Regards,,
MG

MG, that's not the response I got. When I asked Perplexity to react to Analytics' post, I got this reply:


Prompt: Please react to this:

"Does complexity prove Joseph  Smith didn’t write it? No. Gifted nineteenth‑century authors (e.g., Dickens at 24, Mary Shelley at 18) produced works of similar or greater complexity. Complexity shows effort and imagination; it does not rule out Smith as author or compiler."


Answer: Certainly! Here’s a thoughtful reaction to your statement:

Reaction

Your point is well taken. The complexity of a written work—such as the Book of Mormon—does not, by itself, prove that Joseph Smith could not have written or compiled it. History provides numerous examples of young or relatively inexperienced authors producing intricate and influential works, as you note with Dickens and Shelley.

Complexity as Evidence

While complexity may reflect effort and imagination, it is not a definitive marker of authorship. Rather, it is one factor among many that scholars consider when evaluating the origins of a text. Other factors—such as historical context, linguistic analysis, and available evidence about the author’s background and abilities—are also crucial.

Summary

In short, complexity alone does not rule out Joseph Smith as a possible author or compiler. It simply highlights the need for a nuanced and multi-faceted approach to understanding the origins of complex texts.


You're not being honest about what you're using as prompts.

This was the complete prompt:

On a message board a poster quoted an A.I. as saying that: Inquiry: Does complexity prove Joseph Smith didn’t write it?
Answer: No. Gifted nineteenth‑century authors (e.g., Dickens at 24, Mary Shelley at 18) produced works of similar or greater complexity. Complexity shows effort and imagination; it does not rule out Smith as author or compiler. Is this A.I. answer adequate or are there some weaknesses that you can see?

I asked it to dig a bit deeper and look for possible weaknesses. I think that is reasonable.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

I asked it to dig a bit deeper and look for possible weaknesses. I think that is reasonable.

Sure it is. But only if you include the words you used to conduct the search. This is so that any bias from any effort to slant the reply will be revealed. But then, you already know this.

I'd guess that one of the reasons that A.I. has been cordoned off from the rest of the board is your continued unwillingness to abide by this.

[Marcus]

You're not being honest about what you're using as prompts.

No, he's not. Even when he wrote out what he said was his prompt, his own next sentence wasn't honest about his own alleged prompt. His disingenuousness is baked in.

[MG 2.0]

I asked it to dig a bit deeper and look for possible weaknesses. I think that is reasonable.

Sure it is. But only if you include the words you used to conduct the search. This is so that any bias from any effort to slant the reply will be revealed. But then, you already know this.

I'd guess that one of the reasons that A.I. has been cordoned off from the rest of the board is your continued unwillingness to abide by this.

You're right. I posted the prompt on one post and not the other. If I don't correct that and get that prompt on every post I'm going to live to regret it at the hands of the unmerciful board nanny, Marcus.

Anyway, the substance/information contained in the A.I. response is interesting, nonetheless.

Critics would like to have a slam dunk in regards to the Book of Mormon at its origins. They don't have it. As with so many other things there is adequate room for reasonable faith/belief. And, of course, it can go the other way also.

Interesting how that works. I've always been intrigued by that very fact.

Regards,
MG

[Bret Ripley]

You're right. I posted the prompt on one post and not the other. If I don't correct that and get that prompt on every post I'm going to live to regret it at the hands of the unmerciful board nanny, Marcus.

You don't have to choose to be honest out of respect for Marcus or anyone else here. If nothing else, choose to be honest out of respect for yourself.

Yeah, because dishonesty is funny.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

You're right. I posted the prompt on one post and not the other. If I don't correct that and get that prompt on every post I'm going to live to regret it at the hands of the unmerciful board nanny, Marcus.

You don't have to choose to be honest out of respect for Marcus or anyone else here. If nothing else, choose to be honest out of respect for yourself.

Yeah, because dishonesty is funny.

That’s some great missionary work, MG.

[MG 2.0]

You're right. I posted the prompt on one post and not the other. If I don't correct that and get that prompt on every post I'm going to live to regret it at the hands of the unmerciful board nanny, Marcus.

You don't have to choose to be honest out of respect for Marcus or anyone else here. If nothing else, choose to be honest out of respect for yourself.

Yeah, because dishonesty is funny.

No dishonesty going on from this end. Forgetfulness at times in regards to the complete recitation of the question or inquiry, yes. No intent to deceive or steer the conversation away from the topic at hand.

The smiley face is to have a little laugh when it comes to the absolute mercilessness of some posters here. Process is more important than content.

Be that as it may, on this thread I will try and be more cognizant of what is truly important in the minds of some.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

You don't have to choose to be honest out of respect for Marcus or anyone else here. If nothing else, choose to be honest out of respect for yourself.

Yeah, because dishonesty is funny.

That’s some great missionary work, MG.

The lies are unreal. He says all he did was not post the prompt, and then skips right over the part where he posts the prompt after being caught, and then STILL msrepresents his prompt..

Disingenuousness baked in.

[MG 2.0]

That’s some great missionary work, MG.

The lies are unreal. He says all he did was not post the prompt, and then skips right over the part where he posts the prompt after being caught, and then STILL msrepresents his prompt..

Disingenuousness baked in.

I'll stick with my previous response knowing that it will never be good enough for you.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Sure it is. But only if you include the words you used to conduct the search. This is so that any bias from any effort to slant the reply will be revealed. But then, you already know this.

I'd guess that one of the reasons that A.I. has been cordoned off from the rest of the board is your continued unwillingness to abide by this.

You're right. I posted the prompt on one post and not the other. If I don't correct that and get that prompt on every post I'm going to live to regret it at the hands of the unmerciful board nanny, Marcus.

I find it interesting that you still don’t post the accurate prompts that you use for each of the A.I. submissions that you make. This failing has been pointed out by multiple people, multiple times. Yet still you don’t provide it. Is that because you have to copy and paste it separately to the main body of text, and that’s a bit too much effort for you? Is it because you’re having cognitive issues due to age or illness? Is it because you hate being corrected, especially by women? Or some other reason?

It happens so often, despite the repeated corrections, it can only be that you’re incapable of remembering to do it, or else you are deliberately choosing not to do it. Which is it?