Rethinking the AI "problem"

[Limnor]

Ok I see your proposal a little more clearly now, though I’m not sure how it would work, practically.

Getting people to post at a place that they have condemned as filled with people of the blackest die is a tall order.

I may not have been clear, Limnor - perhaps I muddied the waters by mentioning the other board.

I wasn't suggesting trying to bring posters from there to this board. I agree that that's extremely unlikely. My original idea was for MG to find other TBMs who might enjoy a chance to hone their apologetic skills, and vanquish the infidels. Perhaps there are people in his ward/stake who might enjoy the challenge. In addition, any of us critics who have a good relationship with a TBM might likewise invite them to lurk for a bit, and then dip their toes in the murky waters.

That makes sense. I think I was mostly considering the idea of reinforcement in general, not where it would come from.

[I Have Questions]

I think I've been thinking about the AI "problem" in completely the wrong way - particularly in not looking beyond the surface in order to try to tackle underlying causes.

MG has said that he has used AI as a "force multiplier", allowing him to somewhat redress the imbalance of the small number of defenders (mostly just himself) trying to fend off the rabid horde of critics (most of the other posters).

The real answer, I believe, is for the defenders to attract other like-minded people to join the battle.

Let me head off the inevitable objection that this board would be too offensive to the average active believer, and that only a stalwart like MG could withstand the pressure and maltreatment dished out by us nasty apostates and heretics. True disciples of Jesus have historically withstood much worse situations than anything found on this board. Especially if they stuck to the Celestial Kingdom - that's where they are headed post mortem, after all - they should find a safe enough atmosphere. For sure, anyone who served a mission in Scotland is tough enough to fight the good fight here.

If MG could find just one other, valiant like unto himself, and that person brings two friends, and they each tell two friends ... soon the critics will be begging Dr Shades to be allowed to use AI as they will otherwise crumple under the weight of the attack.

Even critics could invite TBMs they know! I'll excuse myself, however, because:
- firstly, I'm antisocial, and have never made friends easily, so I'm not close enough to any suitable candidates, and
- secondly, TBMs that I have been close to over the past 10 years or so, have been becoming inactive, or even resigning, at an alarming rate

What do you guys think?

It sort of happens remotely. Peterson will have a go at some of the topics discussed on here. You saw some filtered efforts on the MAD board. Interpreter verbose blog posts articles try to provide apologetic answers. The Church has produced “essays” and “Gospel Topics”. So there is a lot of TBM perspectives out there to help drawn from. And those things are the best apologetic efforts. MG could (and should) draw from those arguments, providing quotes and links, to show that there are good answers to critical questions. It would be a good way for him to add voices to his own. He has so far failed to do so. Spectacularly failed to do so. His protestations that he is on his own is a smokescreen. There are plenty of other people attempting to fight the good fight apologetically. But he doesn’t take the time to reference them properly.

That might be down to his own laziness or increasingly diminished capabilities, but it is also likely that he knows all of those sources produce faith promoting “chaff”. Lots of noise but when you look hard there is nothing compelling in it. It’s just distraction designed to make you think there’s something of substance there.

The people who are producing that “chaff” won’t set foot in here themselves because they know their arguments will be destroyed in an instant. They will be humiliated and shown to be either deceitful in their methodology, intellectually dishonest, or downright dumb.

[malkie]

I think I've been thinking about the AI "problem" in completely the wrong way - particularly in not looking beyond the surface in order to try to tackle underlying causes.

MG has said that he has used AI as a "force multiplier", allowing him to somewhat redress the imbalance of the small number of defenders (mostly just himself) trying to fend off the rabid horde of critics (most of the other posters).

The real answer, I believe, is for the defenders to attract other like-minded people to join the battle.

Let me head off the inevitable objection that this board would be too offensive to the average active believer, and that only a stalwart like MG could withstand the pressure and maltreatment dished out by us nasty apostates and heretics. True disciples of Jesus have historically withstood much worse situations than anything found on this board. Especially if they stuck to the Celestial Kingdom - that's where they are headed post mortem, after all - they should find a safe enough atmosphere. For sure, anyone who served a mission in Scotland is tough enough to fight the good fight here.

If MG could find just one other, valiant like unto himself, and that person brings two friends, and they each tell two friends ... soon the critics will be begging Dr Shades to be allowed to use AI as they will otherwise crumple under the weight of the attack.

Even critics could invite TBMs they know! I'll excuse myself, however, because:
- firstly, I'm antisocial, and have never made friends easily, so I'm not close enough to any suitable candidates, and
- secondly, TBMs that I have been close to over the past 10 years or so, have been becoming inactive, or even resigning, at an alarming rate

What do you guys think?

It sort of happens remotely. Peterson will have a go at some of the topics discussed on here. You saw some filtered efforts on the MAD board. Interpreter verbose blog posts articles try to provide apologetic answers. The Church has produced “essays” and “Gospel Topics”. So there is a lot of TBM perspectives out there to help drawn from. And those things are the best apologetic efforts. MG could (and should) draw from those arguments, providing quotes and links, to show that there are good answers to critical questions. It would be a good way for him to add voices to his own. He has so far failed to do so. Spectacularly failed to do so. His protestations that he is on his own is a smokescreen. There are plenty of other people attempting to fight the good fight apologetically. But he doesn’t take the time to reference them properly.

That might be down to his own laziness or increasingly diminished capabilities, but it is also likely that he knows all of those sources produce faith promoting “chaff”. Lots of noise but when you look hard there is nothing compelling in it. It’s just distraction designed to make you think there’s something of substance there.

The people who are producing that “chaff” won’t set foot in here themselves because they know their arguments will be destroyed in an instant. They will be humiliated and shown to be either deceitful in their methodology, intellectually dishonest, or downright dumb.

From the defender's PoV, an advantage of using the Church-produced material is that it at least has some sort of official backing, rather than being just a bunch of ideas thought up by your average ward member. The disadvantage, of course, is that informed critics know about these materials, and their weaknesses, making them somewhat less useful.

I have known members like MG. I believe that they exist in every ward - the folks who read more than the standard works and the Ensign, who keep tabs on apologetics. They have personal libraries with books by GAs and others - when I was in my 30s, such libraries contained works by Cleon Skousen and others of that ilk.

Some of them like to talk about everything to do with the church to whoever will listen. In the old days, I was one of them, and perhaps you were too. Sometimes they end up as adult Sunday School teacher, and introduce some not-in-the-manual material to make the lessons more interesting. For example, I liked to use ideas from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith with my YSA class, exploring, for example, the King Follet Discourse. They were a bright bunch, and we had some excellent discussions that barely touched the SS manual.

My original thought was that these are people who would be able, and perhaps willing, to share the "work" here with MG. But perhaps it's just a pipe dream

[malkie]

MG apparently disagrees:

It was within the Gemini link that the concern was alleviated/squelched. Honestly, I think that the reason A.I. is unwanted is that the information available is so easily and quickly accessible. It would/did put a stop to some of the incomplete and/or misdirection that happens when critics can throw sh** against the wall without anyone cleaning up the mess.

It is what it is.

It gives an overwhelming advantage to the critics on a board such as this where the numbers are so imbalanced. A.I. at least opened up the possibility that critics could be responded to with factual information that counter to their mud slinging, and that it could be done in a timely manner.

Regards,
MG

It appears that you haven't looked at this topic - or at least haven't commented on it - perhaps thinking that it was not relevant to you.

So I'm using this comment of yours from the AI megathread to let you know that the current topic is intended to look from a different angle at the issue you have identified, and see if there's something worth following up on.

[MG 2.0]

It was within the Gemini link that the concern was alleviated/squelched. Honestly, I think that the reason A.I. is unwanted is that the information available is so easily and quickly accessible. It would/did put a stop to some of the incomplete and/or misdirection that happens when critics can throw sh** against the wall without anyone cleaning up the mess.

It is what it is.

It gives an overwhelming advantage to the critics on a board such as this where the numbers are so imbalanced. A.I. at least opened up the possibility that critics could be responded to with factual information that counter to their mud slinging, and that it could be done in a timely manner.

Regards,
MG

It appears that you haven't looked at this topic - or at least haven't commented on it - perhaps thinking that it was not relevant to you.

So I'm using this comment of yours from the AI megathread to let you know that the current topic is intended to look from a different angle at the issue you have identified, and see if there's something worth following up on.

I've pretty much said all I have to say on this. A lot of words spilled.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

It appears that you haven't looked at this topic - or at least haven't commented on it - perhaps thinking that it was not relevant to you.

So I'm using this comment of yours from the AI megathread to let you know that the current topic is intended to look from a different angle at the issue you have identified, and see if there's something worth following up on.

I've pretty much said all I have to say on this. A lot of words spilled.

Regards,
MG

Did you read this thread, or decide it's of no interest to you without reading it?

[Limnor]

Every so often I have a peek at "the other" board, where believers outnumber critics, but don't overwhelm them. I see a lot of productive discussion there

I sampled that other board a long time ago but the “grammar” seemed off-putting to me. Plus the initial reaction to my Book of Mormon theory was one of dismissal as impossible without any exploration. I’m only peripherally interested in the apologetics, mostly because the explanations fall flat to me, so I saw no reason to remain there.

Topics here that are of interest to me include philosophical and historical insights into the creation and development of Mormonism, less so the current affairs associated with the system. I haven’t posted any of the book origin ideas in a while, but likely will continue. To me, the coolest part of the book is imagining Oliver as Alma, or the other real-world people as they act out the scenes. Sometimes it’s so clear that I wonder if everyone else already sees it and I’m just stating the obvious.

Ok I rambled a bit there… all that to ask: are there any topics under discussion there that you think would be interesting to the group here?

[MG 2.0]

I've pretty much said all I have to say on this. A lot of words spilled.

Regards,
MG

Did you read this thread, or decide it's of no interest to you without reading it?

I read it. I appreciate your wanting to somehow provide a wider/solid group of voices from different points on the spectrum of belief/non belief. Honestly, I don't know anyone personally that I could invite here. As I've said many times, I'm just a regular guy. I don't have associations in academic circles. I don't live in the ivory tower.

What I do have is the ability to sift through information and analyze it to the extent that I feel comfortable posting it as 'relevant' and useful. As I had mentioned a number of times, I would always preview and 'pass off ' AI retrieved information. It wasn't simply a "wall of text".

I do think that there may (I've already said this) be folks who have a problem with actually seeing their 'out of context' contributions/information challenged with any kind of frequency and accuracy. That IS possible to do with AI if it is curated carefully and with precision.

Anyway, thanks for looking for alternatives, but I don't think they are realistic. As it is, the way the board rules stand, the critics have the advantage because of their sheer numbers and lack of pushback from their own.

It is what it is.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Did you read this thread, or decide it's of no interest to you without reading it?

I read it. I appreciate your wanting to somehow provide a wider/solid group of voices from different points on the spectrum of belief/non belief. Honestly, I don't know anyone personally that I could invite here. As I've said many times, I'm just a regular guy. I don't have associations in academic circles. I don't live in the ivory tower.

If you read what I was suggesting, can you quote the part where I was talking about inviting academics? I was actually talking about people who are very much like you, and, I believe, like I and other regular guys here used to be before we stepped away from the church. Sure, we have academic folks here, but I'm not one any more than you are.

What I do have is the ability to sift through information and analyze it to the extent that I feel comfortable posting it as 'relevant' and useful. As I had mentioned a number of times, I would always preview and 'pass off ' AI retrieved information. It wasn't simply a "wall of text".

I don't see how this responds to what I was saying - for example, I don't believe I mentioned "wall of text" anywhere, or anything to do with previewing AI-generated content.

I do think that there may (I've already said this) be folks who have a problem with actually seeing their 'out of context' contributions/information challenged with any kind of frequency and accuracy. That IS possible to do with AI if it is curated carefully and with precision.

Again, not what I was talking about - at all.

Anyway, thanks for looking for alternatives, but I don't think they are realistic. As it is, the way the board rules stand, the critics have the advantage because of their sheer numbers and lack of pushback from their own.

You're welcome - but ... my suggestion was to look for a non-AI way to overcome the critics' "advantage because of their sheer numbers". Did you notice that?
I said nothing at all about board rules, but I'd be interested to hear how you think the rules relate to what I was saying.
As for "pushback from their own" - in what way is that relevant to the topic? By the way, have you noticed at all that the critics here are not uniform in their opinions, and that they do disagree about some things?

It is what it is.

I'm not so sure that it is. I would say, from your response, that you appear to have read a completely different post than the one I wrote.

Regards,
MG

Well, I gave it a shot.

May I ask if you have tried to think of any way in which the board could incorporate "a wider/solid group of voices from different points on the spectrum of belief/non belief". If you haven't, how about giving it a go, and see what you come up with.

[MG 2.0]

I read it. I appreciate your wanting to somehow provide a wider/solid group of voices from different points on the spectrum of belief/non belief. Honestly, I don't know anyone personally that I could invite here. As I've said many times, I'm just a regular guy. I don't have associations in academic circles. I don't live in the ivory tower.

If you read what I was suggesting, can you quote the part where I was talking about inviting academics? I was actually talking about people who are very much like you, and, I believe, like I and other regular guys here used to be before we stepped away from the church. Sure, we have academic folks here, but I'm not one any more than you are.

What I do have is the ability to sift through information and analyze it to the extent that I feel comfortable posting it as 'relevant' and useful. As I had mentioned a number of times, I would always preview and 'pass off ' AI retrieved information. It wasn't simply a "wall of text".

I don't see how this responds to what I was saying - for example, I don't believe I mentioned "wall of text" anywhere, or anything to do with previewing AI-generated content.

I do think that there may (I've already said this) be folks who have a problem with actually seeing their 'out of context' contributions/information challenged with any kind of frequency and accuracy. That IS possible to do with AI if it is curated carefully and with precision.

Again, not what I was talking about - at all.

Anyway, thanks for looking for alternatives, but I don't think they are realistic. As it is, the way the board rules stand, the critics have the advantage because of their sheer numbers and lack of pushback from their own.

You're welcome - but ... my suggestion was to look for a non-AI way to overcome the critics' "advantage because of their sheer numbers". Did you notice that?
I said nothing at all about board rules, but I'd be interested to hear how you think the rules relate to what I was saying.
As for "pushback from their own" - in what way is that relevant to the topic? By the way, have you noticed at all that the critics here are not uniform in their opinions, and that they do disagree about some things?

It is what it is.

I'm not so sure that it is. I would say, from your response, that you appear to have read a completely different post than the one I wrote.

Regards,
MG

Well, I gave it a shot.

May I ask if you have tried to think of any way in which the board could incorporate "a wider/solid group of voices from different points on the spectrum of belief/non belief". If you haven't, how about giving it a go, and see what you come up with.

You have a way of controlling...or attempting to...the structure of the conversation. At this point now, I will again repeat, I've said what I've wanted to say in regard to this topic. Others will do 'work arounds' and/to try to control the flow/narrative and will succeed.

I'll hand you that. It's a given.

In the larger scope of this conversation, now, and including what came before, I think that I have presented a valid argument for using AI in a limited fashion on this board.

I'm not expecting to change any hearts/minds at this point. It would be a HUGE shift. That much I agree with.

Regards,
MG