The artificial intelligence MEGATHREAD

[Marcus]

There’s an inherent problem with the A.I. Rule that Shades has put in place to prevent MG 2.0 spamming threads with A.I. generated content that he portrays, dishonestly, as if it’s his own words. It’s that Shades has allowed for A.I. generated content ”factual” content to be used - the example Shades gave was of a scripture.

You make a good point. Fortunately, that problem wasn't written into the rule itself; it's only in the post you quoted wherein I gave an example of a very strict circumstance where it wouldn't be problematic. I doubt anyone other than MG 2.0 will have a problem with misinterpreting it. Considering his recent lapse, though, I don't think leaving that example out would've changed his behavior.

Continually expecting MG to do the right thing and manage himself, after so many examples of where he has promised to do so and then immediately shown he has no intention of doing so, is a fool’s errand.

I don't typically publicly state when I've issued someone a suspension, because I don't like to embarrass anyone, but in this case I feel the need to inform you that I issued MG 2.0 a very brief suspension for violating the A.I.-generated content rule yet again so he knows we're serious about it. Therefore, it's not necessary to claim that I let another of his violations stand without consequence

How long is "very brief" ? Given that he has had over a dozen posts moved, including three more tonight, specifically because he violated the 'AI-generated content' rule, AFTER it was in place and AFTER he received multiple public posts from you personally and specifically explaining the rule to him in excruciating detail, I hope it was long enough to have some impact.

[Dr. Shades]

MG 2.0, I have to reprove you with sharpness, so I'll need to use black text and not red text for this post.

Do you dispute that this list presents an accurate assessment?

DAMN IT, MG 2.0, THE RULE AGAINST USING A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT IS ***NOT*** BECAUSE A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT IS INACCURATE!! THE RULE AGAINST USING A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT APPLIES TO A.I.-GENERATE CONTENT THAT (you believe) IS 100% ACCURATE, TOO! MERE ACCURACY IS ***NOT*** THE ISSUE!

By the way, I'm not aware of any rule that outlaws using the internet, including search, to find information, read it, digest it, and post the findings. I'm absolutely sure that others use the internet to locate and find information...read it, digest it, and post their findings.

DAMN IT, MG 2.0, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE INTERNET IN GENERAL! WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT IN SPECIFIC!

I approve the list. I wouldn't post it, if I didn't.

DAMN IT AGAIN, MG 2.0!! THE RULE IS ***NOT*** MERELY ABOUT PROHIBITING YOU FROM POSTING A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT YOU ***DON'T*** AGREE WITH! THE RULE PROHIBITS YOU FROM POSTING A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT YOU ***DO*** AGREE WITH, TOO!! MERE AGREEMENT IS ***NOT*** THE ISSUE!

It's not just a random wall of text. It's a list.

Far be it from me to blaspheme, but Jesus Christ, MG 2.0, THE RULE IS ***NOT*** MERELY AGAINST POSTING A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT THAT APPEARS IN THE FORM OF "RANDOM WALLS OF TEXT!" THE RULE APPLIES TO ***ALL*** A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT, EVEN CONTENT THAT APPEARS IN THE FORM OF A LIST!!

Remember when you were still raising your kids and you wanted them to just obey your rules as stated instead of looking for loopholes to justify disobeying them? And how you reprimanded them many times over the years whenever they tried to do it yet again? APPLY THIS TO YOU, YOURSELF, HERE AND NOW.

NO LOOPHOLES, MG. 2.0. YOU ARE ***NOT*** THE EXCEPTION. YOUR OWN A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT, WHILE NO DOUBT BRILLIANT, IS ***NOT*** THE EXCEPTION.

We have let [Marcus's] accusations, etc., stand without board discipline, even though I have continually called her out.

Her "accusations, etc.," were generated within her own mind, which is the only content we want here. Her accusations, etc. were ***NOT*** A.I.-generated! If they were, they wouldn't be allowed, either! So no, we're not letting her get away with something we're NOT letting you get away with.

For me to go through and do the 'armchair psychoanalysis' thing would be time consuming and very possibly not near as accurate and concise as the list I used, . . .

I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say that THAT'S A RISK WE'RE WILLING TO TAKE. It's a time-honored tradition to do armchair psychoanalysis here, and taking the required time to do so hasn't stopped anyone before. . . and I'm sure it didn't stop you, either, before the invention of ChatGPT.

With that in mind, let's review Universal Rule #10 itself:

All A.I.-generated text may only be posted within the appropriate forums' artificial intelligence megathreads, found here for Mormon-related topics and here for non-Mormon topics. Additionally, do not post any links to anything in those threads (just send the person whom you want to see the text a private message pointing it out). For additional information, see here.

To simplify, outside of an artificial intelligence megathread, . . .

• DO NOT POST ANY A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT, EVEN CONTENT THAT IS ACCURATE.
• DO NOT POST ANY A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT, EVEN CONTENT THAT YOU AGREE WITH.
• DO NOT POST ANY A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT, EVEN CONTENT THAT IS A LIST.
• DO NOT POST ANY A.I.-GENERATED CONTENT, EVEN CONTENT THAT SAVES YOU TIME.

As we fine tune A.I. use, I will abide by any forthcoming tweaks. . . I think we're all having to learn and adjust to this new age of A.I.

Great! Here's the forthcoming tweak that will help you learn and adjust to this new age of A.I.:

1. You, MG 2.0, may NOT have multiple browser windows or tabs open that contain BOTH discussmormonism.com and an A.I. chat bot (or anything like unto it) at the same time. You may only have one or the other open, but never both.
2. If you, MG 2.0, have an artificial intelligence window or tab open, you may NOT left-click and drag your mouse across any part of it.
3. If you, MG 2.0, have an artificial intelligence window or tab open, you may NOT right-click anywhere within it.
4. If you, MG 2.0, have an artificial intelligence window or tab open, you may NOT simultaneously click "Ctrl" and "C" on your keyboard.
5. If you, MG 2.0, have a discussmormonism.com window or tab open, you may NOT right-click anywhere within it.
6. If you, MG 2.0, have a discussmormonism.com window or tab open, you may NOT simultaneously click "Ctrl" and "V" on your keyboard.

Please let me know if you need any further clarification to any part of the above.

[I Have Questions]

The only explanation left is that he violated a very simple rule, on purpose and repeatedly, across multiple threads, with the express intent of disrupting the board.

You’ve hit the nail on the head.

[I Have Questions]

You make a good point. Fortunately, that problem wasn't written into the rule itself; it's only in the post you quoted wherein I gave an example of a very strict circumstance where it wouldn't be problematic. I doubt anyone other than MG 2.0 will have a problem with misinterpreting it. Considering his recent lapse, though, I don't think leaving that example out would've changed his behavior.


I don't typically publicly state when I've issued someone a suspension, because I don't like to embarrass anyone, but in this case I feel the need to inform you that I issued MG 2.0 a very brief suspension for violating the A.I.-generated content rule yet again so he knows we're serious about it. Therefore, it's not necessary to claim that I let another of his violations stand without consequence

How long is "very brief" ? Given that he has had over a dozen posts moved, including three more tonight, specifically because he violated the 'AI-generated content' rule, AFTER it was in place and AFTER he received multiple public posts from you personally and specifically explaining the rule to him in excruciating detail, I hope it was long enough to have some impact.

It’s not my board, and Shades is free to operate it how he sees fit. However, my opinion is that it should be a clear and transparent system. So if a posters behaviour gets to a point where a ban is necessary, the first step is a 1 week ban. For a second offence it would be a month long ban. And a third offence would see that poster banned for life (because if you cannot control your behaviour within the boards framework of acceptability after two such warnings, you never will). And let’s be honest, there’s only 1 poster struggling with the concept of posting within the board’s existing framework of acceptability. Deliberately so in my opinion.

If MG’s ban is for less than a week, it’s meaningless (in my opinion).

[MG 2.0]

How does the Limited Geography Model account for content in The Book of Mormon that can only have come from plagiarising a 17th Century Bible, when it wouldn't exist until 16 centuries after the book was supposedly sealed and hidden? If they cannot answer that satisfactorily then where the events supposedly took place is irrelevant, it's already shown itself to be a fraud.

In terms of the Limited Geography Theory - they are putting the cart before the horse. Why are they looking for where the events happened, when it remains unproven that the events happened at all, and all the available objective evidence points to the fact that the events are fictional?

The use of A.I. in any way has been excluded from providing counter evidence to posts made by critics on this board. As a result critics are able to shut out any light that could offer countervailing opinions when the breadth, depth, and length of that information makes it unwieldy to do so.

Too bad. For truth and light.

What I will say is as I researched IHQ 's post using A I. there were many countervailing arguments which, in my opinion, shredded his post.

I will not use that information as there would be those that would seem it inaccurate because of its source. I would encourage those that are looking for further relevant and useful information to do a bit more follow up on his post and others like it.

That way, you can come to your own conclusions and I introspections. Anything I personally say will be marked as 'tainted'. Don't take a critic's opinions and partially digested...jaundiced...views as being anything near the actual truth.

I will leave at that. Except to say, again, that my A.I. inquiries made it clear, to me, that IHQ's post was clever while at the same time being terribly flawed.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

How does the Limited Geography Model account for content in The Book of Mormon that can only have come from plagiarising a 17th Century Bible, when it wouldn't exist until 16 centuries after the book was supposedly sealed and hidden? If they cannot answer that satisfactorily then where the events supposedly took place is irrelevant, it's already shown itself to be a fraud.

In terms of the Limited Geography Theory - they are putting the cart before the horse. Why are they looking for where the events happened, when it remains unproven that the events happened at all, and all the available objective evidence points to the fact that the events are fictional?

The use of A.I. in any way has been excluded from providing counter evidence to posts made by critics on this board. As a result critics are able to shut out any light that could offer countervailing opinions when the breadth, depth, and length of that information makes it unwieldy to do so.

Too bad. For truth and light.

What I will say is as I researched IHQ 's post using A I. there were many countervailing arguments which, in my opinion, shredded his post.

I will not use that information as there would be those that would seem it inaccurate because of its source. I would encourage those that are looking for further relevant and useful information to do a bit more follow up on his post and others like it.

That way, you can come to your own conclusions and I introspections. Anything I personally say will be marked as 'tainted'. Don't take a critic's opinions and partially digested...jaundiced...views as being anything near the actual truth.

I will leave at that. Except to say, again, that my A.I. inquiries made it clear, to me, that IHQ's post was clever while at the same time being terribly flawed.

Regards,
MG

That’s a lot of words to say…well…nothing. Simply take the time to put your research into your own words and then provide the web sources (with links) for your information as a reference. Google is your friend for this kind of stuff. Shouldn’t take you more than ten minutes. I don’t think you will. I don’t think you want to. I don’t think you can. The old “L. Tom Perry” defence of “trust me, I have all the answers in my briefcase” but never opening the briefcase, or in your case “all the answers are out there, but I’m not going to any effort to provide them”, is a very cheap, low effort, and childish response. Are you lazy?

[MG 2.0]

The use of A.I. in any way has been excluded from providing counter evidence to posts made by critics on this board. As a result critics are able to shut out any light that could offer countervailing opinions when the breadth, depth, and length of that information makes it unwieldy to do so.

Too bad. For truth and light.

What I will say is as I researched IHQ 's post using A I. there were many countervailing arguments which, in my opinion, shredded his post.

I will not use that information as there would be those that would seem it inaccurate because of its source. I would encourage those that are looking for further relevant and useful information to do a bit more follow up on his post and others like it.

That way, you can come to your own conclusions and I introspections. Anything I personally say will be marked as 'tainted'. Don't take a critic's opinions and partially digested...jaundiced...views as being anything near the actual truth.

I will leave at that. Except to say, again, that my A.I. inquiries made it clear, to me, that IHQ's post was clever while at the same time being terribly flawed.

Regards,
MG

That’s a lot of words to say…well…nothing. Simply take the time to put your research into your own words and then provide the web sources (with links) for your information as a reference. Google is your friend for this kind of stuff. Shouldn’t take you more than ten minutes. I don’t think you will. I don’t think you want to. I don’t think you can. The old “L. Tom Perry” defence of “trust me, I have all the answers in my briefcase” but never opening the briefcase, or in your case “all the answers are out there, but I’m not going to any effort to provide them”, is a very cheap, low effort, and childish response. Are you lazy?

No, not lazy. I'm only suggesting that others follow up on the sort of stuff you posted here. A bit of research typically pokes holes in many of the critic's arguments. That was the only point I was making.

You post had quite a view logical error connections, etc. Try it. Plug your whole post into Perplexity and simply use an inquiry that asks to point out the weakness and/or logical holes in the post.

You might be surprised (or not) and it might also make you think twice (probably not) before putting up posts like this. Those that are naïve, of course, will fall for your rather limited and jaundiced historical sound bites.

These sorts of posts happen over and over again.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

That’s a lot of words to say…well…nothing. Simply take the time to put your research into your own words and then provide the web sources (with links) for your information as a reference. Google is your friend for this kind of stuff. Shouldn’t take you more than ten minutes. I don’t think you will. I don’t think you want to. I don’t think you can. The old “L. Tom Perry” defence of “trust me, I have all the answers in my briefcase” but never opening the briefcase, or in your case “all the answers are out there, but I’m not going to any effort to provide them”, is a very cheap, low effort, and childish response. Are you lazy?

No, not lazy. I'm only suggesting that others follow up on the sort of stuff you posted here.

Do it yourself lazy bones. Stop suggesting other people do what you’re not prepared to. Don’t you know how to use Google? You’re either lazy, or incompetent. Or you know you’re shooting your mouth off firing blanks and you’re hoping nobody notices.

[MG 2.0]

No, not lazy. I'm only suggesting that others follow up on the sort of stuff you posted here.

Do it yourself lazy bones. Stop suggesting other people do what you’re not prepared to. Don’t you know how to use Google? You’re either lazy, or incompetent. Or you know you’re shooting your mouth off firing blanks and you’re hoping nobody notices.

I do what I encourage others to do. That's exactly why I'm suggesting that others double check your postings so as to determine if you are giving accurate information and using it appropriately (not simply looking at things through jaundiced eyes).

I am not shooting off my mouth "firing blanks". You should be happy that I am encouraging others to use A.I. to check up on the validity of the information/opinion you are putting in your posts.

I will continue, now and then, to do so if I have already covered the bases by doing the same thing and finding that you are 'off base'. Critics don't always have it right and they should be checked and double checked.

A.I. is a wonderful tool to move in that direction.

Regards,
MG

[canpakes]

How does the Limited Geography Model account for content in The Book of Mormon that can only have come from plagiarising a 17th Century Bible, when it wouldn't exist until 16 centuries after the book was supposedly sealed and hidden? If they cannot answer that satisfactorily then where the events supposedly took place is irrelevant, it's already shown itself to be a fraud.

In terms of the Limited Geography Theory - they are putting the cart before the horse. Why are they looking for where the events happened, when it remains unproven that the events happened at all, and all the available objective evidence points to the fact that the events are fictional?

The use of A.I. in any way has been excluded from providing counter evidence to posts made by critics on this board. As a result critics are able to shut out any light that could offer countervailing opinions when the breadth, depth, and length of that information makes it unwieldy to do so.

Too bad. For truth and light.

What I will say is as I researched IHQ 's post using A I. there were many countervailing arguments which, in my opinion, shredded his post.

I will not use that information as there would be those that would seem it inaccurate because of its source. I would encourage those that are looking for further relevant and useful information to do a bit more follow up on his post and others like it.

That way, you can come to your own conclusions and I introspections. Anything I personally say will be marked as 'tainted'. Don't take a critic's opinions and partially digested...jaundiced...views as being anything near the actual truth.

I will leave at that. Except to say, again, that my A.I. inquiries made it clear, to me, that IHQ's post was clever while at the same time being terribly flawed.

Regards,
MG

MG, if neither yourself nor IHQ is using AI-generated content, then you are both presumably on equal footing. Why would AI be required to refute IHQ’s claims or opinions?

One issue I’ve seen with AI is its tendency to hallucinate, which can result in the output sometimes not reflecting actual fact or reality. Unless you are meticulously fact-checking that output, it may turn out that the AI response isn’t really refuting an argument or reflecting the supposed work or opinion of another real person. This is apparent from the recent HHS MAHA fiasco where the report submitted to Congress contained numerous fake AI-generated citations. I’ve also tested AI’s ability to capture conversations from this board and found that it often incorrectly attributed the remarks of one participant to another.

AI content can be used to assist with replies, but deferring to cutting and pasting it into posts as opposed to vetting and restructuring that information is the problem that we would like to avoid.