Do you believe that facts kill conversation?

Xeno.of.athens · Wednesday at 8:58 PM

Up until recently providing facts, especially some theological facts, has been difficult. The provision of facts requires wide reading, and not many people in Christian forums have had the time, or the inclination, in my opinion, to read a great deal. I include myself in that description. But now with the presence of AI searching, and the large language models that are behind AI, being widely read and well read is easy by proxy. It is as if people were, vicariously, scholars. This is not a bad thing. But I am wondering if it may not kill conversations.

I observed to my brother, during one of our many conversations, that the availability of Google Assistant on each of our phones, made fact checking ridiculously easy. Now we have co-pilot and other AI entities that will not only do fact checking, but will perform research tasks upon request. This makes the analysis and documentation of replies to propositions in "General theology" every bit as easy as fact checking was a couple of years ago using Google Assistant. The other thing that I observed to my brother is that ease of fact checking deprived us of hours of productive, though somewhat ignorant, discussion about disputed matters. And I freely admit that I miss some of those productive and ignorant discussions, just for the social interaction we got out of them.

So, my theologically oriented question for all of you is, do you believe the Christian Forums is enhanced by or detracted from, when people use artificial intelligence to fill out their own personal shortcomings with the vast array of data available through the AIs?

Bob Crowley · Thursday at 5:26 AM

It's going to depend on how forum members phrase their questions. To give an exaggerated example, suppose someone is a hardline Protestant Reformer looking for justification for their Calvinist beliefs. They're going to ask for as much evidence as they can get to support the opinion they already have.

Likewise an incorrigible pro-Vatican I Catholic will ask questions to get answers which will embellish their preformed opinion.

To give a political opinion, when the Bush government wanted to justify Gulf War II, I think the politicians told the CIA to give them the answers they wanted, so they could have their war. That's my cynical opinion. The facts had to support what they wanted to hear. AI will similarly do our bidding in that respect.

In the end all the AI will have done is to strengthen both points of view to Christians who asked questions to get the answers they wanted.

And ne'er the twain shall meet. The divisions will remain.

AI makes fact checking easier, but I don't see it changing people's fundamental belief systems.

JohnC101 · Thursday at 7:31 AM

I believe it's enhanced. Those who are responding aren't having to go through hours of reading for fact-checking before making a response, allowing more members to respond in a timely manner and contribute to the conversation/dispute.

Xeno.of.athens · Thursday at 7:37 AM

JohnC101 said:
I believe it's enhanced. Those who are responding aren't having to go through hours of reading for fact-checking before making a response, allowing more members to respond in a timely manner and contribute to the conversation/dispute.

you make a good and positive point, it is something worth discussing.

fhansen · Thursday at 10:11 AM

Xeno.of.athens said:
Up until recently providing facts, especially some theological facts, has been difficult. The provision of facts requires wide reading, and not many people in Christian forums have had the time, or the inclination, in my opinion, to read a great deal. I include myself in that description. But now with the presence of AI searching, and the large language models that are behind AI, being widely read and well read is easy by proxy. It is as if people were, vicariously, scholars. This is not a bad thing. But I am wondering if it may not kill conversations.

I observed to my brother, during one of our many conversations, that the availability of Google Assistant on each of our phones, made fact checking ridiculously easy. Now we have co-pilot and other AI entities that will not only do fact checking, but will perform research tasks upon request. This makes the analysis and documentation of replies to propositions in "General theology" every bit as easy as fact checking was a couple of years ago using Google Assistant. The other thing that I observed to my brother is that ease of fact checking deprived us of hours of productive, though somewhat ignorant, discussion about disputed matters. And I freely admit that I miss some of those productive and ignorant discussions, just for the social interaction we got out of them.

So, my theologically oriented question for all of you is, do you believe the Christian Forums is enhanced by or detracted from, when people use artificial intelligence to fill out their own personal shortcomings with the vast array of data available through the AIs?

As for theology, AI is limited. It can compile and summarize the various interpretations and understandings of the faith, and perhaps highlight many errors but at the end of the day the data that it analyzes is still based on human opinions and Scriptural interpration while the will of God as revealed at the beginning can be more elusive than that data is capable of providing.

Hentenza · Thursday at 10:18 AM

Xeno.of.athens said:
Up until recently providing facts, especially some theological facts, has been difficult. The provision of facts requires wide reading, and not many people in Christian forums have had the time, or the inclination, in my opinion, to read a great deal. I include myself in that description. But now with the presence of AI searching, and the large language models that are behind AI, being widely read and well read is easy by proxy. It is as if people were, vicariously, scholars. This is not a bad thing. But I am wondering if it may not kill conversations.

I observed to my brother, during one of our many conversations, that the availability of Google Assistant on each of our phones, made fact checking ridiculously easy. Now we have co-pilot and other AI entities that will not only do fact checking, but will perform research tasks upon request. This makes the analysis and documentation of replies to propositions in "General theology" every bit as easy as fact checking was a couple of years ago using Google Assistant. The other thing that I observed to my brother is that ease of fact checking deprived us of hours of productive, though somewhat ignorant, discussion about disputed matters. And I freely admit that I miss some of those productive and ignorant discussions, just for the social interaction we got out of them.

So, my theologically oriented question for all of you is, do you believe the Christian Forums is enhanced by or detracted from, when people use artificial intelligence to fill out their own personal shortcomings with the vast array of data available through the AIs?

Like any technology it only works at different levels for those that take advantage of it. There is still plenty of mental laziness around CF.

2PhiloVoid · Thursday at 10:21 AM

Xeno.of.athens said:
Up until recently providing facts, especially some theological facts, has been difficult. The provision of facts requires wide reading, and not many people in Christian forums have had the time, or the inclination, in my opinion, to read a great deal. I include myself in that description. But now with the presence of AI searching, and the large language models that are behind AI, being widely read and well read is easy by proxy. It is as if people were, vicariously, scholars. This is not a bad thing. But I am wondering if it may not kill conversations.

I observed to my brother, during one of our many conversations, that the availability of Google Assistant on each of our phones, made fact checking ridiculously easy. Now we have co-pilot and other AI entities that will not only do fact checking, but will perform research tasks upon request. This makes the analysis and documentation of replies to propositions in "General theology" every bit as easy as fact checking was a couple of years ago using Google Assistant. The other thing that I observed to my brother is that ease of fact checking deprived us of hours of productive, though somewhat ignorant, discussion about disputed matters. And I freely admit that I miss some of those productive and ignorant discussions, just for the social interaction we got out of them.

So, my theologically oriented question for all of you is, do you believe the Christian Forums is enhanced by or detracted from, when people use artificial intelligence to fill out their own personal shortcomings with the vast array of data available through the AIs?

No, the assertion of "facts," even those that come by having dredged information through an A.I. application, does not discern clearly, or always, what the meanings, implications, or accurate and proper interpretations of those facts are.

So, there should always remain room for discussion, mainly because there's very little that anyone has to take as axiomatic by some people's claims that certain propositions should be absolutely self-evident to everyone.

AND THAT'S A FACT! ^_^

Clare73 · Thursday at 11:21 AM

Bob Crowley said:
It's going to depend on how forum members phrase their questions. To give an exaggerated example, suppose someone is a hardline Protestant Reformer looking for justification for their Calvinist beliefs. They're going to ask for as much evidence as they can get to support the opinion they already have.
Likewise an incorrigible pro-Vatican I Catholic will ask questions to get answers which will embellish their preformed opinion.
To give a political opinion, when the Bush government wanted to justify Gulf War II, I think the politicians told the CIA to give them the answers they wanted, so they could have their war. That's my cynical opinion. The facts had to support what they wanted to hear. AI will similarly do our bidding in that respect.

In the end all the AI will have done is to strengthen both points of view to Christians who asked questions to get the answers they wanted.

And ne'er the twain shall meet. The divisions will remain.

AI makes fact checking easier, but I don't see it changing people's fundamental belief systems.

Because for so many is not about the facts, it is about one's preference.

Xeno.of.athens · Thursday at 2:16 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
No, the assertion of "facts," even those that come by having dredged information through an A.I. application, does not discern clearly, or always, what the meanings, implications, or accurate and proper interpretations of those facts are.

This is said with some humorous intent, and I think I should say I am using voice to text to produce these sentences.
I am not entirely confident that when a person is in possession of the facts, that they will do a better job of interpreting those facts, than an AI, which has at its disposal the interpretations of many scholars who have written commentaries and other works dealing with passages that may be under debate in Christian forums. But I will grant, that an AI will probably not be as astute in interpreting what another poster in christian forums, means by what they have written.

sometimes I have very great difficulty in interpreting the meaning of posts that I read. do you ever have similar difficulties?

2PhiloVoid said:
So, there should always remain room for discussion, mainly because there's very little that anyone has to take as axiomatic by some people's claims that certain propositions should be absolutely self-evident to everyone.

AND THAT'S A FACT!

2PhiloVoid · Thursday at 3:12 PM

Xeno.of.athens said:
This is said with some humorous intent, and I think I should say I am using voice to text to produce these sentences.
I am not entirely confident that when a person is in possession of the facts, that they will do a better job of interpreting those facts, than an AI, which has at its disposal the interpretations of many scholars who have written commentaries and other works dealing with passages that may be under debate in Christian forums. But I will grant, that an AI will probably not be as astute in interpreting what another poster in christian forums, means by what they have written.

sometimes I have very great difficulty in interpreting the meaning of posts that I read. do you ever have similar difficulties?

Yes, I often have difficulty in interpreting the meaning of posts that I read, which is why I've invested heavily in the scholarly At the same time, I don't assume that A.I. has the ability to overcome any and all epistemological obstacles that any or all human beings encounter. If anything, I only expect A.I. to help realize where are limits of knowledge actually are in a quicker, more accessible fashion. One thing I don't expect it to do is pontificate on Christian Theology or a number of other areas of Philosophy that remain, I believe, secure to, and only to, the human existential experience.

But, as always, I'm always open to being proven wrong. Are there some particular "facts" that you think are clearly arbitrated by A.I. and which defer the usual byways of human discussion in our newly minted age of Large Language Models?

The Liturgist · Sunday at 7:06 PM

Xeno.of.athens said:
So, my theologically oriented question for all of you is, do you believe the Christian Forums is enhanced by or detracted from, when people use artificial intelligence to fill out their own personal shortcomings with the vast array of data available through the AIs?

The problem is that many users don’t know how to use AIs properly as a means for actual fact-verification and are using inferior and unreliable models. I particularly dislike Google’s DeepMind AI.

There is a way to use some AIs like chatGPT and Grok in a way where one can obtain reliable information, but it requires careful prompt-engineering skills and use of the correct model with the correct features enabled (for example, chatGPT 5 with web search and the python API enabled).

The Liturgist · Sunday at 7:07 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
If anything, I only expect A.I. to help realize where are limits of knowledge actually are in a quicker, more accessible fashion.

I would be very careful about using it for that without caution.

By the way I say this as probably the most pro-AI member on the forums, but the way I use AI and what I’m using it for is very different from what most members are using it for.

The Liturgist · Sunday at 7:10 PM

fhansen said:
As for theology, AI is limited. It can compile and summarize the various interpretations and understandings of the faith, and perhaps highlight many errors but at the end of the day the data that it analyzes is still based on human opinions and Scriptural interpration while the will of God as revealed at the beginning can be more elusive than that data is capable of providing.

One thing chatGPT is very good at is in generating translations, and it also has surprisingly good knowledge of historical liturgical texts. However if one uses it incautiously it can still generate inaccurate results, for example, one needs to specify to the AI not to inject its own interpretation into the text based on what it believes you want to see. This is particularly the case with the wealth of information that has been loaded into its training data.

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 8:21 PM

The Liturgist said:
I would be very careful about using it for that without caution.

By the way I say this as probably the most pro-AI member on the forums, but the way I use AI and what I’m using it for is very different from what most members are using it for.

Do you always read what other write in the worst possible light, making inferences as to what they mean without due process of inquiry?

The Liturgist · Sunday at 8:54 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
Do you always read what other write in the worst possible light, making inferences as to what they mean without due process of inquiry?

No? What makes you say that?

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 9:00 PM

The Liturgist said:
No? What makes you say that?

I could be wrong, but I'm getting the sense that you think I have quite a bit of erroneous thinking in my approach to the Christian Faith or in my mode of interpreting.

The Liturgist · Sunday at 9:04 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
I could be wrong, but I'm getting the sense that you think I have quite a bit of erroneous thinking in my approach to the Christian Faith or in my mode of interpreting.

That’s not the case; I find most of what you write to be extremely interesting and I’d say you’re one of the more learned members.

I just don’t understand why my recommendation you use AI in a careful manner to test the limits of knowledge would translate to interpreting the posts of other members in the worst possible light.

My goal was to provide a specific technical recommendation - that being, that insofar as AI has problems with reliably conveying information unless used extremely carefully, that the use case you were outlying struck me as one that would warrant additional caution. This is particularly the case with less advanced AIs that many people use, for example, Anthropic or Google DeepMind.

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 9:08 PM

The Liturgist said:
That’s not the case; I find most of what you write to be extremely interesting and I’d say you’re one of the more learned members.

I just don’t understand why my recommendation you use AI in a careful manner to test the limits of knowledge would translate to interpreting the posts of other members in the worst possible light.

My goal was to provide a specific technical recommendation - that being, that insofar as AI has problems with reliably conveying information unless used extremely carefully, that the use case you were outlying struck me as one that would warrant additional caution. This is particularly the case with less advanced AIs that many people use, for example, Anthropic or Google DeepMind.

Alright. But do know, there's a reason I distrust the current trends of technology and LLMs.

Do you believe that facts kill conversation?

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Oldbie

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Critically Copernican

Blood-bought

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Critically Copernican

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Critically Copernican

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Critically Copernican

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Critically Copernican

Similar threads