Why Did AI Lie To Me?

[Chesterton]

So he is innocent of all the crimes he has been convicted?

His history of hooliganism, violence, fraudulism and stalking of young women is a matter of public record.

Lots of lies and exaggeration. He defends himself from being assaulted and gets charged with assault.

His real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon but he changed it to avoid police detection, commit mortgage fraud and enter America illegally.

I'd probably change my name too if I were in his shoes.

Do you know anything about this man? He was a member of the British Fascist Party the BNP. Again, this is all public information; yet you call him a political prisoner?

Yes I know he was briefly a member when the group was perceived as more moderate.

If Britain so dystopian why is he currently at large staging protests in London over this very weekend. It’s been televised. He’s had Elon Musk as a guest speaker. He’s been on stage freely promoting his ideas.

Because 1.000 cops can't stop 1,000,000 citizens, although the cops did try to stir up unneccessary violence here and there.

And you know what? In the dystopian UK he did all that without being murdered. Unlike what has recently happened to a guy just talking on stage in the apparent utopian state of America.

Maybe look to you own dysfunctional country before you bemoan another’s.

Our government did not murder Kirk. An LGBT fascist did.

 

[Uriah S]

Our government did not murder Kirk. An LGBT fascist did.

Spot on. Even from this side of the pond, it's becoming evident who are being bossy authoritarians and who are standing for tolerance and freedom.

And the parallels between events on both sides of the pond are so clear, that trans-Atlantic discussions of the issues are absolutely appropriate.

 

[Chesterton]

Spot on. Even from this side of the pond, it's becoming evident who are being bossy authoritarians and who are standing for tolerance and freedom.

And the parallels between events on both sides of the pond are so clear, that trans-Atlantic discussions of the issues are absolutely appropriate.

Boy, I could write a lengthy essay about this, lol, but the thread's already a little off-topic for the science forum (my fault ).

I wouldn't have thought Kirk was very well known over there, but I saw a young girl at the rally with a hand-made sign that said "Charlie Kirk brought me here", and I heard other influential people talking about him. I think the U.K. is the most important place on Earth right now, and how the people and the government decide to go will have great influence on America and nations of Western Europe. You've got momentum and you've got the moral high ground. Don't lose either.

 

[Uriah S]

I thought he was kind of niche, but I learned he was assassinated when I heard two (older) colleagues talking about it.
The younger folk in church know all about him, and a slew of other speakers I don't know.
As for the future, I'm doubling down on the fates of our countries being interlinked. I don’t know where things are going, but there's been a head of steam growing for a couple of decades. Charlie's assassination probably did increase turnout at Tommy's protest. I haven't disengaged completely from current events, and I'm careful to keep our authorities in prayer.

Anyhows, back to the topic. Computers are dumb. My guess is Grok was just parroting back the many sources it trawled, and one piece of contrary input doesn't tip the balance. Can AI still be trained by users, or have the owners locked that down already?

(Edit: I realised somebody already wrote what I was getting at, and they did it more elegantly, so, nevermind... )

 

[partinobodycular]

There are humans who, like AI, just spit out what they've heard from the BBC or MSNBC, but there are other humans who actually think critically for themselves,

I assume that you'd number yourself among the latter. In which case may I ask you a question... is it possible that Christ wasn't the Son of God at all, but just an ordinary man?

 

[Chesterton]

Can AI still be trained by users, or have the owners locked that down already?

My suspicion is that it's probably locked down.

If you ever want to entertain yourself, try asking interesting questions about Islam. I've found AI is incapable of telling the truth most of the time. I asked "Did Abraham build the Kaaba"? It said "No". I then immediately asked "Who built the Kaaba?", and it said "Abraham and Isaac".

 

[Chesterton]

I assume that you'd number yourself among the latter. In which case may I ask you a question... is it possible that Christ wasn't the Son of God at all, but just an ordinary man?

Hmm, is this some kind of trick question? No I don't think it's possible that Christ wasn't the Son.

 

[partinobodycular]

Hmm, is this some kind of trick question? No I don't think it's possible that Christ wasn't the Son.

It's not a trick... it is a test though, my bad if you're offended by it. A truly critical thinker would understand that it simply isn't possible to know whether Jesus was actually the Son of God, or even if there is a God. They can passionately believe that He was, and they can present arguments in support of that belief, but they can't "know", and a critical thinker would understand that.

So from a critical thinking standpoint the correct answer is yes, it is possible that Christ wasn't the Son of God.

I would resubmit that there really isn't that much of a difference between how an AI thinks and how a person thinks. Hence we should no more be offended by what a person says, than we should be offended by what an AI says.

 

[Chesterton]

It's not a trick... it is a test though, my bad if you're offended by it. A truly critical thinker would understand that it simply isn't possible to know whether Jesus was actually the Son of God, or even if there is a God. They can passionately believe that He was, and they can present arguments in support of that belief, but they can't "know", and a critical thinker would understand that.

So from a critical thinking standpoint the correct answer is yes, it is possible that Christ wasn't the Son of God.

I would resubmit that there really isn't that much of a difference between how an AI thinks and how a person thinks. Hence we should no more be offended by what a person says, than we should be offended by what an AI says.

What I replied to you is that I think He is the Son of God. I didn't say I know.

 

[partinobodycular]

What I replied to you is that I think He is the Son of God. I didn't say I know.

The original question was... 'is it possible that Christ wasn't the Son of God at all, but just an ordinary man?' Forgive me if the question was unclear, but allow me to ask again, is it possible that Christ wasn't the Son of God?

 

[Chesterton]

The original question was... 'is it possible that Christ wasn't the Son of God at all, but just an ordinary man?' Forgive me if the question was unclear, but allow me to ask again, is it possible that Christ wasn't the Son of God?

Again, I don't think it's possible.

 

[partinobodycular]

Again, I don't think it's possible.

Got it, no need to belabor the point any more. Have a nice day.

 

[AV1611VET]

A truly critical thinker would understand that it simply isn't possible to know whether Jesus was actually the Son of God,

Speaking of critically thinking, let me ask you this:

If Jesus wasn't the Son of God, then why didn't the Romans, who tried to squelch Christianity before it even got started, just go get His body and parade It around?

 

[dlamberth]

If Jesus wasn't the Son of God, then why didn't the Romans, who tried to squelch Christianity before it even got started, just go get His body and parade It around?

I entered that question word for word into Chatgpt. It gave no clear answer. Here's what it had to say:




That's a thoughtful and historically rich question — and it gets at the heart of the historical and theological debates surrounding the resurrection of Jesus.

In short:​

If Jesus wasn’t raised from the dead, and His body was still in the tomb, why didn’t the Romans (or Jewish leaders) just produce the body to stop the early Christian movement?

Let’s look at this from a few angles — historical, theological, and plausibility-based — while being fair to different viewpoints.

1. Historical Background: What Actually Happened?​

We know from both Christian and some non-Christian sources that:

• Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, a Roman governor, around 30–33 AD.
• His followers claimed He rose from the dead.
• The early Christian message centered on the resurrection — if that could be disproved, the whole movement would collapse (see 1 Corinthians 15:14).
• Christianity began in Jerusalem, where Jesus was buried — meaning, if a body existed and could be shown, this was the easiest place and time to disprove the resurrection.

2. So why didn’t they just produce the body? Here are the main explanations people propose:​

A. The Tomb Was Empty — and No One Could Produce a Body​

This is the traditional Christian claim.

• Jesus was buried in a known tomb (Joseph of Arimathea’s), and that tomb was empty three days later.
• The Jewish and Roman leaders could not produce the body because it wasn’t there.
• This doesn’t "prove" the resurrection per se — but it fits well with it.
• It's notable that no early source (even opponents) says: "Here is the body." Instead, they claimed the disciples stole the body (see Matthew 28:11–15), which indirectly admits the tomb was empty.

B. They Didn’t Know Where the Body Was​

Some skeptical scholars argue:

• Jesus was buried in a mass grave, or no one knew where His body was placed.
• If the tomb location wasn’t known, they couldn’t produce a body.
• But this runs into trouble because the Gospels say a specific person (Joseph of Arimathea) buried Him in a private tomb, and even hostile early traditions don’t deny that — they only dispute what happened after.

Also, early Christian preaching focused on an empty tomb, meaning opponents would have had incentive to say: “No, He’s still buried right over there.” Yet we have no record of that.

C. They Did Try, but the Body Was Gone or Unrecognizable​

• If the body had been stolen, eaten by animals, or decomposed somewhere, maybe it couldn’t be identified.
• But again — if any body had been found and shown as Jesus’, it would’ve shut down the movement quickly. That didn’t happen.

D. The Resurrection Was a Myth Created Later​

• Some argue the resurrection story was a later invention — legendary development.
• Problem: The resurrection was preached immediately (Acts 2, ~50 days after the crucifixion), and Paul’s letters (like 1 Corinthians 15) date to within 20–25 years of the crucifixion, possibly quoting creeds from mere years or months after Jesus died.
• Too early for "legend" to fully develop — and still no body was produced.

Summary of Possibilities:​

Conclusion:​

From a historical angle, no one — Roman, Jewish, or otherwise — ever presented Jesus’ body, despite having strong motives and early opportunities to do so.

• If the body had been there, they had every reason to find it and show it.
• The fact that they didn’t (or couldn’t) is a puzzle — one that Christian theology answers by saying: Because He rose.

Of course, whether one believes in the resurrection depends on your view of miracles and historical evidence. But your question points to one of the strongest historical supports for the resurrection: no body was ever found, and no one seems to have claimed otherwise in the earliest years.

Theory	Strengths	Weaknesses
Resurrection is true	Explains the empty tomb, changed disciples, no body found	Requires belief in a miracle
Disciples stole the body	Explains empty tomb	Doesn’t explain their willingness to die for a lie
Wrong tomb or unknown burial	Simple natural explanation	Doesn’t fit early sources or opponents’ responses
Body destroyed/unidentifiable	Possible	Still, no effort to fake/find a body? Seems odd.
Legend developed later	Naturalistic explanation	Doesn’t fit with early dates of resurrection preaching

 

[Ophiolite]

Getting back to Tommy Robinson: having suggested that calling him far right may be inaccurate given some of his positions (which I did not name) ChatGPT responded with a lengthy piece of which this was the conclusion:

• Yes, it is reasonable to call Tommy Robinson far right, in that many of his positions, rhetoric, and associations align with what is commonly understood by the term in the UK context: anti-Islam, anti-immigration, national identity, populism, links to far-right groups, etc.
• But it is also simplistic in the sense that the label doesn’t capture everything: the nuances of how he shifts tactics, how he frames his message, his particular blend of claims, the way he appeals to certain grievances rather than just ideological purity.
• Also, there is value in distinguishing between “radical right / far right” as a spectrum (ranging from mainstream conservative nationalism to extreme xenophobic / racist ideology) vs. “fringe extremist” or “neo-fascist” etc. Depending on which end of the spectrum you place Robinson, the label may seem more or less apt.

My thought: Like most casual and convenient classification systems, while spectrums are better than a simple dichotomy, they hardly capture the full range of any position. A more relevant question is not "What is he politically?", but "How does he want to change society and which methods does he plan to use to do so?"

 

[partinobodycular]

If Jesus wasn't the Son of God, then why didn't the Romans, who tried to squelch Christianity before it even got started, just go get His body and parade It around?

You're assuming that the story of Christ's resurrection arose (pun intended) in the immediate aftermath of His burial. More likely the story was a later development. So much so that the original versions of Mark don't mention Christ's appearances at all. (With all due respect to the KJV) Neither was there any reason why the story should be of any concern to the Romans, lacking the subversive context that had accompanied Christ's pre-crucifixion ministry.

In other words, they probably didn't know and didn't care.

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words, they probably didn't know and didn't care.

So they allowed themselves to be martyred for a story they themselves made up???

 

[rambot]

I asked Grok a question about the Unite The Kingdom rally. It began by mentioning that it is organized by "far-right Tommy Robinson". (I'll leave out some verbiage to keep this brief.)

I then asked why it said Tommy is far-right when he's not far-right. It said because that's how the media and a couple of organizations describe him. I asked "wouldn't it be more appropriate and fair to give his name without prefixing it with a subjective adjective?" The AI agreed with me that it would be, and said it would refrain from doing so in the future.

I was impressed with both the AI and myself. Did little old me just influence Grok to change its evil, woke ways to a small extent? Nope. I went back about an hour later and asked "Who is Tommy Robinson", and it began with he is a "far-right" activist. Why did Grok lie to me?

(For the fun of it I also asked "Who is Bill Ayers", and it did not anywhere include the words "far-left".)

I love this!

Just a conservative being offended by words.

 

[rambot]

Right of far left, yes.

Incorrect.

Do, do you know what the political spectrum looks like and what beliefs would sit where?

 

[Chesterton]

Getting back to Tommy Robinson: having suggested that calling him far right may be inaccurate given some of his positions (which I did not name) ChatGPT responded with a lengthy piece of which this was the conclusion:

• Yes, it is reasonable to call Tommy Robinson far right, in that many of his positions, rhetoric, and associations align with what is commonly understood by the term in the UK context: anti-Islam, anti-immigration, national identity, populism, links to far-right groups, etc.
• But it is also simplistic in the sense that the label doesn’t capture everything: the nuances of how he shifts tactics, how he frames his message, his particular blend of claims, the way he appeals to certain grievances rather than just ideological purity.
• Also, there is value in distinguishing between “radical right / far right” as a spectrum (ranging from mainstream conservative nationalism to extreme xenophobic / racist ideology) vs. “fringe extremist” or “neo-fascist” etc. Depending on which end of the spectrum you place Robinson, the label may seem more or less apt.

My thought: Like most casual and convenient classification systems, while spectrums are better than a simple dichotomy, they hardly capture the full range of any position. A more relevant question is not "What is he politically?", but "How does he want to change society and which methods does he plan to use to do so?"

If you recall, in the OP, I mentioned that Grok volunteered that Tommy is far-right, even though I didn't ask. When I asked about violent far-leftist Bill Ayers, it did not use the words "far-left". This is how AI is programmed similarly to how mainstream media humans are programmed. For example, in America, a TV news show will say "Tonight's guest is conservative senator Ted Cruz", or it might say "Tonight's guest is senator Bernie Sanders". They will never say "Tonight's guest is liberal senator Bernie Sanders". It's a bit subliminal you might say, but your mind gets the idea that there's something abnormal about being conservative so that it needs to be specified, and the same does not apply to liberals. (I've heard that the words liberal and conservative don't mean exactly the same things across the pond, but hopefully you'll know what I'm saying.)

The first bullet point mentions that the ideas it's expressing are "in the UK context". This really should say in "the Leftist or liberal context". There's nothing far-right, or abnormal, or immoral about being anti-Islam or anti-immigration. (I'm a Christian, but even if I were an atheist I would be anti-Islam.) If Saudi Arabia were receiving 1,000,000 white Western Christian migrants a year, do you think they'd be putting them up in 4-star hotels, even while we were committing an inordinate amount of crime and many of us bragging that we are going to take over their kingdom?

I also wonder why, if Tommy is far-right, why does almost all of the actual far-right denounce him these days.