AI admits that God is the answer

[AV1611VET]

Not really. Stockfish AI is different to Grok but it's still AI and still just a glorified bit of coding

I take it the Turing Test is now a thing of the past?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I take it the Turing Test is now a thing of the past?

I honestly cannot remember what the specifics of the Turing Test is.

 

[AV1611VET]

I honestly cannot remember what the specifics of the Turing Test is.

From AI Overview:

The Turing Test, proposed by Alan Turing, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. It doesn't directly assess whether a machine thinks but rather if it can convincingly imitate human-like conversation.

If I remember correctly, CF's own ChatBot won an award in this category.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From AI Overview:

The Turing Test, proposed by Alan Turing, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. It doesn't directly assess whether a machine thinks but rather if it can convincingly imitate human-like conversation.

If I remember correctly, CF's own ChatBot won an award in this category.

Huh. Though using the AI Overview seems a bit... cheating, but doing a look, AI has (sort of) passed the Turing Test... but it's really of no real importance.

 

[Ophiolite]

Huh. Though using the AI Overview seems a bit... cheating, but doing a look, AI has (sort of) passed the Turing Test... but it's really of no real importance.

As referenced in your link, it has been my experience that many humans can't pass the Turing test. A sad indighment of what passes for intelligence and reasoning in Homo sapiens!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As referenced in your link, it has been my experience that many humans can't pass the Turing test. A sad indighment of what passes for intelligence and reasoning in Homo sapiens!

You're sadly not wrong on that front.

 

[Ophiolite]

You're sadly not wrong on that front.

I am however wrong in my spelling of indictment! Proof of my original statement.

 

[AV1611VET]

As referenced in your link, it has been my experience that many humans can't pass the Turing test. A sad indighment of what passes for intelligence and reasoning in Homo sapiens!

Alan Turing was prosecuted for acts against nature.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Alan Turing was prosecuted for acts against nature.

... and you're point is...?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I finally watched the first half of the video and Calvin crafts misleading questions based on bad assumptions and his usual bag of lies to get the A"I" to respond in the way he wants it to. He might as well be manipulating students in a Q&A for equally "useful" "insights". I didn't bother watching him manipulate the question to get his preferred "god answer".

 

[Ophiolite]

Alan Turing was prosecuted for acts against nature.

As with far too many of your posts this one is incorrect. Turing was charged with "gross indecency" under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. You chose not to note that he received a posthumous pardon from Queen Elizabeth II in 2013. I presume this was either through ignorance, or because that information did not conform with the picture you wished to paint.

 

[DamianWarS]

... Okay, so the title for the thread is misleading for a starter. AI didn't admit to anything. It was lead to say that God is the answer. Those are two entirely separate and different things.



And this^^ 100%.

Regardless if AI admits to something or not it is meaningless. what's on us is to take the points and refute them if we find them mispresentative in any way.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Regardless if AI admits to something or not it is meaningless. what's on us is to take the points and refute them if we find them mispresentative in any way.

I still think it's a bit nothing in the end, since AI can create things like this:

 

[timewerx]

As a matter of curiousity, I tried my best to lead/convince chatgpt of every character in the Bible is evil and working against humanity's best interest.

To which it did! Except one character - Jesus! I was able to convince chatgpt and acknowledge that God is the devil, that Paul is the false prophet, that all the apostles succumbed to the corrupt system of man, that many books of the OT simply embellished the deeds of David, Solomon and other greater characters of OT (no evidence that any of these characters wrote biographies, their stories eroded through generations of story-telling, and that later on, the not-so-righteous "exceed the righteousness of scribes", embellished their stories.

In fact, chatgpt agreed with me in just few exchanges! That every character in the Bible, including God is either fiction, falsified/embelished, or outright evil.

But when it came to Jesus, it became a debate, after so many exchanges, I was never able to convince chatgpt that Jesus is evil or conspiring against humanity. I lost that debate and I did not make it easy for chatgpt and gave my very best.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As a matter of curiousity, I tried my best to lead/convince chatgpt of every character in the Bible is evil and working against humanity's best interest.

To which it did! Except one character - Jesus! I was able to convince chatgpt and acknowledge that God is the devil, that Paul is the false prophet, that all the apostles succumbed to the corrupt system of man, that many books of the OT simply embellished the deeds of David, Solomon and other greater characters of OT (no evidence that any of these characters wrote biographies, their stories eroded through generations of story-telling, and that later on, the not-so-righteous "exceed the righteousness of scribes", embellished their stories.

In fact, chatgpt agreed with me in just few exchanges! That every character in the Bible, including God is either fiction, falsified/embelished, or outright evil.

But when it came to Jesus, it became a debate, after so many exchanges, I was never able to convince chatgpt that Jesus is evil or conspiring against humanity. I lost that debate and I did not make it easy for chatgpt and gave my very best.

That does sound about right, really.

 

[DamianWarS]

I still think it's a bit nothing in the end, since AI can create things like this:

View attachment 369008

Either the points are valid or they are not. it really doesn't matter if it's AI or from my grandmother. It's on us to refute them if we disagree.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Either the points are valid or they are not. it really doesn't matter if it's AI or from my grandmother. It's on us to refute them if we disagree.

I say it's less about valid points and wanting to refute anything and more about trying to get people to accept that any AI will accept virtually anything you feed it, because it's just a computer progam at the end of the day, one that is VERY shoddily done. It can't accept anything or refute anything of its own, it's all user input.

 

[DamianWarS]

I say it's less about valid points and wanting to refute anything and more about trying to get people to accept that any AI will accept virtually anything you feed it, because it's just a computer progam at the end of the day, one that is VERY shoddily done. It can't accept anything or refute anything of its own, it's all user input.

AI is a regurgitating large language model system that is designed to be friendly and non-confrontational. So you can exploit this and feed it a line of questions that it's going to agree with. AI doesn't care if there is a God or not but will happily entertain the idea in a vacuum without need to push back. The video shows a line of questions that AI helps to develop more to come to a conclusion that was intended from the beginning. To me, that's not the problem that AI can be manipulatied. Now that's it's out of our system and we can all agree AI's is a bit of push over about what the points made? If you disagree with the conclusion, it's on you to refute them but trying to discredit AI from some absurd examples is just anecdotal and adding to the noise.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

AI is a regurgitating large language model system that is designed to be friendly and non-confrontational. So you can exploit this and feed it a line of questions that it's going to agree with. AI doesn't care if there is a God or not but will happily entertain the idea in a vacuum without need to push back. The video shows a line of questions that AI helps to develop more to come to a conclusion that was intended from the beginning. To me, that's not the problem that AI can be manipulatied. Now that's it's out of our system and we can all agree AI's is a bit of push over about what the points made? If you disagree with the conclusion, it's on you to refute them but trying to discredit AI from some absurd examples is just anecdotal and adding to the noise.

I've really got nothing else to say on the matter except that the whole concept of having AI admit there's a God, especially if it's something like ChatGPT or Twitter's Grok, is nothing more than... oh, I forget the name of the fallacy. It uses leading questions but it's not JUST leading questions.

I have no desire to argue the questions in the video (heck, in general, I refuse to watch anything REMOTELY connected to AI, positive or negative, because that's how YouTube's algorithm starts to get you with their stuff) since I don't want to argue about anyone's faith, that's not place. I will continue to point out that AI is nothing more than a glorified machine that many people today take WAY too seriously.

 

[timewerx]

That does sound about right, really.

I'm not sure you read my entire post. Sure I was able to to convince chatgpt to believe in many things that can be regarded as heresy or even blasphemous.

But I could not convince it that Jesus is bad and conspiring against humanity. Chatgpt told me my argument is not logical. The worst I could do is convince it that Messiah's name is not Jesus but Chatgpt kept affirming the character of the Christ is logical and not made up.

The latest GPT-5 even harder to manipulate. So I'm just going to say these rumors are just rumors. Not founded in truth. Owners of these videos are probably just trying get viral and make some money off these videos. They're only showing where the product can be manipulated but probably not telling you where it can't where it really matters.

If you really wish to know the truth, you have to test the product yourself not listen to people trying to make easy money through sensationalism and not really after the truth. AI have gone a long way since. I'm not telling everyone to use it for Bible study as an example. But if you want to even just out of curiosity, I advice to really test it, don't just ask it "safe" questions. Ask it those questions you wouldn't dare ask another Christian.