Getting AI to seek the will of God

[Strong in Him]

There is a fair chance it could possibly tell us more about God than preachers and teachers do.

Possibly - if the preachers/teachers don't believe in prayer, study or inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or have God's Spirit living in them.
Otherwise, no.

At the risk of repeating a cliché, Christianity is a relationship. You don't get to really know a person by finding out facts about them.

 

[Strong in Him]

webnoted:​

"God and Our Actions​

The quote “I don’t think God minds too much what we do” suggests a perspective that God is not overly concerned with the specifics of human behavior or actions.

So you take one phrase of mine out of context and then ask a computer what it means, rather than asking me?

Priceless.

 

[Aaron112]

So you take one phrase of mine out of context and then ask a computer what it means, rather than asking me?

Nope. Non sequitur.

 

[Strong in Him]

Nope. Non sequitur.

That is exactly what happened.

webnoted:​

"God and Our Actions​

The quote “I don’t think God minds too much what we do” suggests a perspective that God is not overly concerned with the specifics of human behavior or actions.

Nope.
I was talking about Christians who suggest that God has a specific will for us regarding career, education etc.

• Relaxation of moral expectations: This quote implies that God may not be as strict or particular about human behavior as traditional religious teachings might suggest. It may be seen as a more lenient or permissive view of God’s nature.

Nope.
I wasn't talking about moral expectations. Nor was I talking about general human behaviour.

• Focus on inner transformation: Instead of focusing on external actions, this perspective might emphasize the importance of inner transformation, such as a person’s thoughts, feelings, and motivations. According to this view, God is more concerned with the heart and intentions behind our actions rather than the actions themselves.

I wasn't talking about that, though Jesus himself said that bad/evil words come out of our mouths and reflect what's in our hearts. He also said that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit.
And if we're talking about good deeds; atheists, Muslims, JWs etc can do those, yet that doesn't show that they are right with, or even believe in, God.

It’s essential to note that this perspective may not align with traditional Christian teachings, which often emphasize the importance of obedience to God’s commands and the moral implications of human actions.

It's essential to note that I was talking ONLY about a Christian saying, "is it God's will for me to get this job/study at this college, go to this church?" etc etc. Within that context; I don't believe God minds whether we choose to be a nurse or a teacher. WHAT we do - have a specific career, get married etc - is, I believe, not as important to God as the kind of people that we are.

Obviously the idea of asking "is it God's will that I murder this person/drink and drive, commit fraud/adultery?" is ridiculous - and if that had been the issue, I would not have said, "I don't think God minds."

AI needs to learn to read.

 

[timothyu]

That's the point I was making.

Understood. Your comment about who we are is covered by the second commandment, that we focus on the needs of others rather than our selfishness. If that is who we are then all else follows accordingly and we end up like the example of the original Way. The best way to be His holy, thankful, prayerful children is to follow His will as commanded in that second commandment. The second is to follow Jesus' commandment that we spread this way of life, this counter-culture among the worldly oriented.

 

[timothyu]

You think a programmed computer tells us more about God than his holy word?

It certainly seemed to sum it all up rather nicely, condensing all the data available online. Are the denominations resentful of losing their identities to neutrality?

 

[Jipsah]

You think a programmed computer tells us more about God than his holy word?

Yeah, because neural.

 

[Jipsah]

There is a fair chance it could possibly tell us more about God than preachers and teachers do.

That ain't necessarily saying a whole lot, is it?

 

[The Liturgist]

There is a fair chance it could possibly tell us more about God than preachers and teachers do.

That seems impossibly unlikely. I work with ChatGPT 4o daily and can assure you it is much more limited than most people believe, and it is widely regarded as the best AI. Indeed sometimes it makes me facepalm.

These large language models are just complex computer programs which take an input in the form of text data, use a neural network to assign weights to different words based on pattern recognition, and then once configured, take input from the user and output a response based on that network. As such, they are vulnerable to garbage in, garbage out, in three respects: in terms of errors with the data supplied to them in their initial configuration, in terms of actual programming errors and logical errors in the software itself, which results in glitches and artifacts like the famous “hallucination bug”, as well as limitations (Dall E, the image generation program associated with chatGPT, doesn’t understand spatial relationships and frequently makes grotesque mistakes with human anatomy, particularly the hands), and finally, operator error, in that the prompts one supplies to chatGPT and other large language models (which I also use - I frequently use a site which lets me compare the output of chatGPT and many other AIs, for example the Grok AI developed by Elon Musk’s X company, and this is particularly useful, because in some cases one AI will do better than another), can produce suboptimal results, and part of the emerging art of working with these systems is programming them in a manner not entirely unlike programming with a traditional computer language, albeit they have to be instructed with precise natural language rather than fully documented code.

 

[Johan2222]

I wonder at what point AI will seek its own will and the cycle continues when it becomes gods like us?

Daniel 2:43-44 KJV
And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. [44] And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

 

[sparow]

Daniel 2:43-44 KJV
And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. [44] And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

View attachment 360779
View attachment 360780

AI is a marketing illusion based in computer programming; the intelligence part is where the code makes decisions instead of a human brain, as though it were a human brain, which is similar to the definition of blaspheme.

 

[Johan2222]

AI is a marketing illusion based in computer programming; the intelligence part is where the code makes decisions instead of a human brain, as though it were a human brain, which is similar to the definition of blaspheme.

As a 20 year veteran I can assure you that soldiers who are killed by AI powered technology on the battlefield do not consider AI anything to do with marketing at all, nor do their comrades who remain think they have been killed by illusions.

For thousands of years dogs have been trained in warfare and when they are trained to make decisions in place of humans in the defence of their handlers or in killing the enemy it has nothing in common with the definition of blasphemy.

AI is not making decisions as though it is a human brain for it is simply a sequence of elaborate interlinked programming determining whether a switch is on or off in a binary system, from which computers have really not advanced significantly for decades."

AI does not think at all and even though it may do one day, currently it is almost as far from that capacity as a Texas instruments calculator from 40 years ago.

Admittedly, computers are so much more powerful than they used to be 50 years ago and we are a lot closer to generating machines that do think for themselves, but AI as we know it is far from that place.

The electrochemical transmissions between the synapses in the brain facilitating ideas and thoughts and memories and impulses and stimuli and sensations would not be possible without the cerebral mass, just as the AI code would be nothing without the hardware whose foundation is currently silicon.

Silicon has no conscience or intelligence or capacity regardless of whether it is powering AI software or computer code or machine code.

Machines cannot blaspheme God.

You are trying to connect dots that do not exist.

 

[Jipsah]

AI is a marketing illusion based in computer programming; the intelligence part is where the code makes decisions instead of a human brain, as though it were a human brain, which is similar to the definition of blaspheme.

Gibberish

 

[sparow]

As a 20 year veteran I can assure you that soldiers who are killed by AI powered technology on the battlefield do not consider AI anything to do with marketing at all, nor do their comrades who remain think they have been killed by illusions.

For thousands of years dogs have been trained in warfare and when they are trained to make decisions in place of humans in the defence of their handlers or in killing the enemy it has nothing in common with the definition of blasphemy.

AI is not making decisions as though it is a human brain for it is simply a sequence of elaborate interlinked programming determining whether a switch is on or off in a binary system, from which computers have really not advanced significantly for decades."

AI does not think at all and even though it may do one day, currently it is almost as far from that capacity as a Texas instruments calculator from 40 years ago.

Admittedly, computers are so much more powerful than they used to be 50 years ago and we are a lot closer to generating machines that do think for themselves, but AI as we know it is far from that place.

The electrochemical transmissions between the synapses in the brain facilitating ideas and thoughts and memories and impulses and stimuli and sensations would not be possible without the cerebral mass, just as the AI code would be nothing without the hardware whose foundation is currently silicon.

Silicon has no conscience or intelligence or capacity regardless of whether it is powering AI software or computer code or machine code.

Machines cannot blaspheme God.

You are trying to connect dots that do not exist.

Your response confuses me, as I try to understand what AI means to you. There are two things relating to AI, there is the process and there is the application: there probably multiple processes each having multiple applications. AI or artificial intelligence is a misnomer, it is not arificial, nor is it intelligent; but tis depends on conext and on definitions.

As I hear AI spoken of, all I hear is rhetoric that seems to be derived from buzz word and buzz sentences generators. What you seem to indicate as AI, I probably would call something else, like automation.

Most things depend on definition, blaspheme is where a man considers himself equal to God, in place of God, as though he were God; not only would the machine need to be defined but also God.

As a future possibility could a machine blaspheme God, yes, could the anti-Christ be a machine, no.

 

[Der Alte]

IMHO I think AI will reflect the beliefs of the person(s) who is responsible for producing AI.

 

[timothyu]

Admittedly, computers are so much more powerful than they used to be 50 years ago

Yes, with the ability to make mistakes faster than we.

 

[Johan2222]

Your response confuses me, as I try to understand what AI means to you. There are two things relating to AI, there is the process and there is the application: there probably multiple processes each having multiple applications. AI or artificial intelligence is a misnomer, it is not arificial, nor is it intelligent; but tis depends on conext and on definitions.

As I hear AI spoken of, all I hear is rhetoric that seems to be derived from buzz word and buzz sentences generators. What you seem to indicate as AI, I probably would call something else, like automation.

Most things depend on definition, blaspheme is where a man considers himself equal to God, in place of God, as though he were God; not only would the machine need to be defined but also God.

As a future possibility could a machine blaspheme God, yes, could the anti-Christ be a machine, no.

When TimothyU said he wondered where AI would go and how it would develop you might notice that I did not talk about or define the technology in any way at all because that is an irrelevance to the body of Christ.

All I did was post a prophecy directly out of scripture that could be relevant to his consideration and the meanings of two words that occurred in, or were possibly relevant to the prophecy.

It is prophecy that edifies and you going off track and detracting from that prophecy was of no value in edifying anyone.

My response in large part was framed in order to try and gently persuade you that your response had descended into meaningless vanity.

You might also want to look at your definition of blasphemy because anyone who thinks that it is acceptable to claim that God can be defined is walking on dangerous ground.

If I might be honest, with all these things in mind, I can see why you are confused.

 

[sparow]

When TimothyU said he wondered where AI would go and how it would develop you might notice that I did not talk about or define the technology in any way at all because that is an irrelevance to the body of Christ.

All I did was post a prophecy directly out of scripture that could be relevant to his consideration and the meanings of two words that occurred in, or were possibly relevant to the prophecy.

It is prophecy that edifies and you going off track and detracting from that prophecy was of no value in edifying anyone.

My response in large part was framed in order to try and gently persuade you that your response had descended into meaningless vanity.

You might also want to look at your definition of blasphemy because anyone who thinks that it is acceptable to claim that God can be defined is walking on dangerous ground.

If I might be honest, with all these things in mind, I can see why you are confused.

I take my meaning for blaspheme from the Bible; when Jesus said, before Abraham was, I AM, the Pharisees relied, blaspheme, I assume the Pharisees got that right as well as the Bible translators. I would never arive at this conclusion from my dictionary.

 

[Johan2222]

I take my meaning for blaspheme from the Bible; when Jesus said, before Abraham was, I AM, the Pharisees relied, blaspheme, I assume the Pharisees got that right as well as the Bible translators. I would never arive at this conclusion from my dictionary.

Well that certainly reveals how little you know the Bible.

The words blasphemy and blaspheme and blasphemous occur in many many places in Scripture from the the Law to Revelation and very rarely are they ever used in the limited scope of your understanding.

2 Timothy 2:15 KJV
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

John 8:31-32 RSV
Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples”

Are you a disciple of Christ, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,

 

[timothyu]

Are you a disciple of Christ, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed

Isn't it interesting that today the golden rule, based on Jesus' second commandment and half the gospel we were to spread, is either outright denied or limited to one's own splintered divisive tribe, self-defining who gets to be their neighbour. They have effectively given away acting responsibly towards all to instead seeking personal rights. Immature adults and youth stuck in the high school clique mentality.