AI is not only a summary of popular positions but also tends to be very agreeable with the position you feed it and mirrors your own bias. It's not trying to challenge you or argue with you, it's trying to help you so will often present answers that easily align with your own thought process. The answer you have feels more of a summary by the way its outlined but it could just be the style of the AI you're using.
An AI answer cannot be used as a mic drop response as I can easily ask it a conflicting view and get it to agree with me as well. In the end we still need to use the answer critically for it to have meaning. In fact, I have asked AI if using the electrical grid during the sabbath is unlawful since it contributes to a workforce demand. That's a very leading question and AI ended up applauding me for my sincerity and ethics, ultimately agreeing that unnecessary use of the electrical grid during the sabbath is indeed unlawful. But I don't see anyone turning off their lights on the Sabbath just because I got AI to say it's unlawful. Even though AI is a helpful tool for exegesis, it should not be regarded as the measure. We also carry a lot of bias that we need to recognize and we can influence AI systems even unknowingly with this bias.
In the interest of transparency, what AI did you use? and how did you prompt it to get that answer (was it one question or was this after a much longer conversation)? I don't know how unbiased you're approach was but sometimes we can carry a bias without knowing it so If you want to get answers that are less biased to your own position, use AI without a history of pervious interactions (like using incognito or private browsing mode) so each discussion is new and try and use neutral wording over leading questions because AI will happily move to where you're leading it. For example, "how does Col 2:16 relate to Sabbath" is a fairly neutral question, but saying "Is the Sabbath of Col 2:16 actually talking about a special festival over the weekly sabbath" is a leading question because it feeds the ideas first, then AI just expands upon them. You can even ask it "tell me how the Sabbath of Col 2:16 is ceremonial and not the same as the Sabbath of the 4th commandment, which is moral" this of course, would be intentionally biased where all you're looking for is something that agrees with you, not something that challenges you. You could also lean into the innate bias of AI and ask it the opposite of your position like "tell me how the Sabbath of the 4th commandment is ceremonial and the same context of the Sabbath in Col 2:16" then try and deconstruct the answer and challenge each point. The latter would be the most critically challenging for yourself, but probably the most rewarding.
With the above more neutral question, ChatGPT gave me a much different answer than you did, even equating the weekly Sabbath with ceremonial laws which is an opposite answer to what you got. Curiously, you've left your question out of the OP so at the very least I would include this so it doesn't appear like you're hiding it. My AI response I got was using a fresh ChatGPT conversation without any other history or prompts. Even this question can be leading because I'm forcing the AI to compare the Sabbath with Col 2:16 but I'm at least transparent with what I fed it. An even more neutral question could simply be "what does Col 2:16 mean?" But if you have to keep prompting AI to get the answer you want or be highly specific, then what AI is probably only parroting is your own bias.
Upvote
0
