Deep Fakes

[Arial]

Speaking of something, unless I set my computer up for the blind, and find a voice to text program that will enable me to continue to participate on the forum without sight, I won't be here next week I don't think.

I have been progressively losing my eyesight at rather breakneck speed since I came here, and I don't have much longer before total and complete blindness sets in. I only have a pinhole left, and I'm losing even that window to the world.

So the day I don't show up at this point might be the day I can't come back anymore, because I just can't see the words.

Don't know for sure, don't know what the future holds, just thought to mention it. I'm almost done.

Hopefully I can set the computer up for the blind and continue on.

Wow! That will be our loss. Didn't you say somewhere that you were scheduled for eye surgery? Will that remedy the problem? Or am I imagining that you mentioned it?

 

[Hazelelponi]

fixed it! I have the microphone to do voice to text and the reader will read everything to me.

That definitely exceeded the token window. You couldn't just trust anything it said. It almost certainly will make stuff up—which could turn out to be an accurate paraphrase, mind you, but you have to confirm.

And, like I said, it doesn't hold on to them forever. Pretty much by the next day it's all gone from its memory.

Okay, I will upload less, perhaps a chapter here or there instead of entire books - though I don't know what to do with the books I can't see, I have to upload them in full or skip things like the language study.

Probably just skip the language really, Scripture is always clear I think.

So the AI thinks we are set to continue. I can do everything by voice and in conversation like I have been and work out my posts.

I'll try and upload less or until I am unable to upload anything. There's probably quickly coming a time for that.

I woke up with far far less sight this morning and panicked because I was not ready was all.

Wow! That will be our loss. Didn't you say somewhere that you were scheduled for eye surgery? Will that remedy the problem? Or am I imagining that you mentioned it?

There's several out of state appointments I need to make and have for the eye surgery but I have been unable to do that at the moment (and for a minute now) due to transportation issues so I have just been waiting.

I will fix it as soon as I'm able, but I can't even make the appointments yet though I have already seen all the doctors and know what's next I just stopped being able to get to the appointments out of the state.

 

[Carbon]

Absolutely everything it told me was completely fabricated. It gave me a link to an interview where Craig admitted to being ordained in the Evangelical Free Church of America back in 1982, and even provided a quote from that interview. But, when you click on the link, you receive an Error 404 message. It also pulled quotes from his short biographical sketch at his web site (www.reasonablefaith.org), all of which were made up. It listed 12 different sources, absolutely none of which panned out; either the quote was non-existent or the web page was non-existent.

It made everything up. (It was muttering to itself, "Hmm, the user meticulously checked every single link and found all of them either 404'd or did not contain the quoted material. This is embarrassing.")

It also fabricates quotes from printed material. It will tell me John Calvin said this, or R. C. Sproul said that, and I will check the book in question (because I have it) and the quote doesn't exist.

Here is a good reason why we must be careful. Now, someone educated in theology will be safer, safer to not throw one off course into a different theology, but still not 100% safe. This is our world today, and we do not have a choice about it.

 

[Carbon]

As a regular user of AI systems—primarily ChatGPT and Perplexity AI—and a frequent observer of AI-focused Reddit communities, I've become adept at recognizing the distinctive markers of AI-generated responses. They are super obvious to me, at this point. (And, yes, I see them being posted in here without being attributed as AI-generated.)

---

That is a fact. It happens to me quite often. Just this morning, out of curiosity, I was asking AI to do a deep dive and find out the denomination to which William Lane Craig belongs. I understand that he attends an SBC church but is ordained in a different denomination. I thought perhaps Methodist, but I wanted to see if there was anything out there that AI could dig up.

Absolutely everything it told me was completely fabricated. It gave me a link to an interview where Craig admitted to being ordained in the Evangelical Free Church of America back in 1982, and even provided a quote from that interview. But, when you click on the link, you receive an Error 404 message. It also pulled quotes from his short biographical sketch at his web site (www.reasonablefaith.org), all of which were made up. It listed 12 different sources, absolutely none of which panned out; either the quote was non-existent or the web page was non-existent.

It made everything up. (It was muttering to itself, "Hmm, the user meticulously checked every single link and found all of them either 404'd or did not contain the quoted material. This is embarrassing.")

It also fabricates quotes from printed material. It will tell me John Calvin said this, or R. C. Sproul said that, and I will check the book in question (because I have it) and the quote doesn't exist.

Do not trust AI models uncritically. Always check everything.

---

That is relatively on target. Much of what Sproul has written or said is publicly available on the internet, and the training datasets for ChatGPT consists of billions of web pages and licensed documents. So, it's got some Sproul up there in its positronic brain.

---

You guys have no idea how many times I have posted someone's content from here and asked AI, "What the hell is he trying to say?"

I admire William Lane Craig in his defence of PSA.

 

[Arial]

@Hazelelponi
Have you considered using a tablet instead of your phone (I know a laptop is not possible because of pain issues) for downloading whole books and then quoting from them or checking AI. It wouldn't help with the vision issue but you can stand and move around while using them and interact with the forum at the same time if you get one where you can have two windows open at the same time.

The thing about a Kindle, for example is that you can purchase digital copies of books, for much less than a hard copy. As you go through them on kindle, you can bookmark pages and highlight passages and save them to pull up as needed.

 

[Hazelelponi]

@Hazelelponi
Have you considered using a tablet instead of your phone (I know a laptop is not possible because of pain issues) for downloading whole books and then quoting from them or checking AI. It wouldn't help with the vision issue but you can stand and move around while using them and interact with the forum at the same time if you get one where you can have two windows open at the same time.

The thing about a Kindle, for example is that you can purchase digital copies of books, for much less than a hard copy. As you go through them on kindle, you can bookmark pages and highlight passages and save them to pull up as needed.

I have everything digital now, I am only missing one digital book and that's Holwerda,(Jesus and Israel One Covenant or Two)i which I have in physical form I just can't see the words on the page even with 20x magnification.

All my physical books I have in both forms now (physical and digital) otherwise.

I have Wayne Grudem and Louis Berkhof in digital form for both of their Systematic Theologies now.

Of course now we all have the Institutes of the Christian Religion on digital copy now, and I have finished hearing him now, I really did enjoy it

Plus I have the physical and digital now of Riddlebarger A case for Amillennialism.

Plus digitally I have a Greek Grammar and a Hebrew Lexicon.

I listen to the books, it's a computer voice unless something is done like people have gone through Spurgeons sermons and made them audio, spoken by real people. I love listening to those, they are my favorite, have been since I was saved.

Plus I have a couple extras digital copy now as well that I have picked up since I came here like Kingdom Prologue by Kline, which the computer reads to me.

For me it's just harder to navigate books without sight, harder to get to the right chapter and paragraph, the days of skimming are finished. Haha haha

I might remember the main idea that was put forth by Holwerda, or Calvin, but it's harder for me to remember a direct quote, or find the quote that would apply best at a certain spot in a post where I would like something highlighted in.

I used to be able to skim and find the right point I'm looking for as I do have actual books but I can't really do it as easily now as everything needs to be audio.

 

[John Bauer]

I admire William Lane Craig in his defence of PSA.

I have not heard his defense of penal substitutionary atonement—and, frankly, it surprises me to hear that he would support it (because it's at odds with his views).

While I admire Craig for his work in Christian philosophy and apologetics—Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview had a part to play in my journey to conversion—I am extremely cautious about him at this stage of my spiritual development and for three reasons important to me:

• Denial of divine simplicity. (Verdict: Material error.) Craig rejects divine simplicity. For him, God is a composite being, one essence with three wills that are each fully divine. But Christian orthodoxy maintains that God's essence just is his attributes, that all in God is God (e.g., WCF 2.1). His position is not orthodox, but it's not exactly heresy, either. However, ...
  
  ​
• Functional tritheism. (Verdict: Practical heresy.) If God has "three centers of self-consciousness, intentionality, and will" (Craig 2021), wherein each faculty-set is fully divine, then Craig affirms three indivisible instances of deity. Three wills coordinating per accidens either (a) undermines the trinitarian axiom of opera ad extra indivisa, or (b) smuggles in a fourth ordering principle that is neither the Father, Son, or Spirit. Alternatively, if this fourth ordering principle is not divine, then the three divine persons depend upon something outside themselves to remain united—a denial of aseity.
  
  ​
• Affirms monothelite heresy. (Verdict: Formal heresy.) Craig denies that Jesus Christ had a human will (therefore he was not fully human). Moreover, if Christ lacks a human will, his obedience unto death (Phil 2:8) is no longer the obedience of true humanity—no distinct human volition—destroying federal representation and penal substitutionary atonement. Imputation of righteousness and satisfaction no have a legal footing because he was not legally one of us. On this view, Christ cannot accomplish the covenantal exchange at the heart of Reformed soteriology.

Measured by Nicene-Chalcedonian and Reformed standards, Craig's efforts abandon divine simplicity, fractures the one will of God, and reintroduces a Christological heresy already adjudicated in the seventh century. Those are not minor quibbles but structural departures from confessional orthodoxy and the creedal catholic faith.

Sorry for the tangent. Now back to our regularly scheduled broadcast.

 

[prism]

God only reminds us of Scripture, not of x scholars thinking related to the Scriptures in question....

Apparently what God says is not enough for many people. God does agree with reformed theologians and it's helpful to say " see! It's not just me!" from time to time.

Not sure how that ties into my point of the danger on an over reliance (i.e., trust in) on AI.

 

[prism]

So, I didn't experience the bias that you did.

Refresh my memory about experiencing an AI bias, I only recall warning about the Christian's temptation to over-rely on AI

 

[Hazelelponi]

Not sure how that ties into my point of the danger on an over reliance (i.e., trust in) on AI.

Because we might use books less otherwise - or need to use them less I should more accurately say

When I was first saved I came up with my own Systematic in about a year; just a basic systematic using Scripture. Then I picked up a few books, comforted by the knowledge that there was a Church, alive, real, and occasionally making books.

When that's where it ends there's no over reliance on AI in the modern, technologically driven era or at the least there wouldn't be but for the debates and discussions of the modern day.

The problem is we don't memorize scholars, and have no voice of consciousness reminding us of their words, so we have a tendency to use AI more frequently when it comes to scholarship.

 

[EarlyActs]

I grant the truth is found in scripture. But, I would dare to say that if I used AI and, when needed, prefaced anything question with "from a reformed perspective" it will come up with a superior answer to what most people would come up with on their own. I grant that a smart/informed people like @Carbon, @Arial, @makesends , @John Bauer or @Josheb would make the contest close/interesting. Hmmm... maybe @Hazelelponi too ... she seems to know her stuff.

Note: AI can construct answers at incredible speed which is a great advantage given the need to access (systematize) many biblical references that might be needed to answer a particular question. A non biblical expert would not be able to compete.

But God was not trying to convert so-called 'thinking' machines. He was trying to convert human minds. When the apostles are told 'knock it off' about the question of determining when Israel would have a kingdom, that is a problem of a human heart's willingness or obedience, not the speed of a digital retrieval system.

 

[fastfredy0]

Refresh my memory about experiencing an AI bias

Gee, that was many posts ago. I tried going back but I could not find anything you said that would cause me to make a statement about AI bias.

 

[fastfredy0]

But God was not trying to convert so-called 'thinking' machines.

I didn't infer that God was trying to convert 'thinking' machines. God was trying to convert Bibles either, but God can use both bibles and "thinking" machine (AI) to facilitate our understanding of God.

When the apostles are told 'knock it off' about the question of determining when Israel would have a kingdom, that is a problem of a human heart's willingness or obedience, not the speed of a digital retrieval system.

Straw man argument (A straw man argument is a fallacy where someone misrepresents or distorts an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack, thus creating a "straw man" that is easily defeated. It's a tactic used to avoid engaging with the actual argument being made by the other person.)

 

[prism]

Because we might use books less otherwise - or need to use them less I should more accurately say

Yes, books are slower than AI.
Yet hopefully those books are written by teachers of the Church. (God has placed teachers in the Church. But who is AI?

The problem is we don't memorize scholars, and have no voice of consciousness reminding us of their words, so we have a tendency to use AI more frequently when it comes to scholarship.

Memorizing Scripture would be better. I had read recently of the Puritans that they were just as familiar with obscure OT books as they were with Romans and Galatians, etc.

 

[prism]

Gee, that was many posts ago. I tried going back but I could not find anything you said that would cause me to make a statement about AI bias.

I wasn't aware of any myself.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Memorizing Scripture would be better. I had read recently of the Puritans that they were just as familiar with obscure OT books as they were with Romans and Galatians, etc.

I thought that was a given

We all know the Bible front to back.

Just not necessarily by chapter and verse but the words of it certainly.

I thought what we were doing was helping people put those ideas and concepts in their proper order and place.

Hence scholars.

This way we can say why there should be a weighty emphasis on Justification by Grace through faith, for example, to people who might not understand, or etc. .

 

[prism]

I thought that was a given

We all know the Bible front to back.

Just not necessarily by chapter and verse but the words of it certainly.

I thought what we were doing was helping people put those ideas and concepts in their proper order and place.

Hence scholars.

I guess I'm just wayyyy behind

 

[Hazelelponi]

I guess I'm just wayyyy behind

How many times have you read the Bible cover to cover since you were saved?

I'm sure you are not behind, there's no such thing.

 

[prism]

How many times have you read the Bible cover to cover since you were saved?

Not enough times.

I'm sure you are not behind, there's no such thing.

I meant "I don't know the bible front to back" I use to think I did.

 

[EarlyActs]

I didn't infer that God was trying to convert 'thinking' machines. God was trying to convert Bibles either, but God can use both bibles and "thinking" machine (AI) to facilitate our understanding of God.


Straw man argument (A straw man argument is a fallacy where someone misrepresents or distorts an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack, thus creating a "straw man" that is easily defeated. It's a tactic used to avoid engaging with the actual argument being made by the other person.)

Your straw man here is straw. What are you saying?