Disturbing A.I. chats

[Josheb]

Take your own advice.

I did.

I ditched the eschatological content and posted an entirely new reply (Post 61) to the first half of the op. It is sitting unattended awaiting your response.

 

[makesends]

One doesn't have to prepare for the mark of the beast. As Christians alive today won't be here for it. Those after the rapture who become christians will.
Like forecasting the weather...seeing the path of a hurricane and predicting where it will go....the bible has also "forecasted" the events of the last days. (7 year tribulation or time of Jacobs trouble if you choose to call it that.)
As a christian I can read the bible and connect the dots pertaining to the end times and warn others about the final result of AI and how Satan will use AI to take complete control with the hopes of achieving his form of omnipotence. I can read Revelation and see how Satan will achieve this to a limited degree for a short season prior to Jesus restoring earth and its system back to mans origin dominion destroying Satan and his proxies.

Ok, "if you say so".

No disrespect intended, brother. I grew up with Dispensationalism and saw holes in it even as a kid. Too much unproven. Too many contradictions, too much speculation, too intricate the meandering pattern through signposts --(what @Eleanor calls, "riddles")-- that are taken as completely intelligible and precise. Too much time and attention to eschatology, and not about the reason for our existence. Too much trust in human self for substantive discourse and comprehension.

I thought I must be wrong, because, after all, "The adults have got their stuff together --they are all grown up!, and what do I know? --I'm just a kid!" And I heard no dissenting voices from outside my community, except for the "pagans and the impious unfaithful".

Satan may use AI, but inherently, Satan can do nothing, but what God purposes concerning him.

 

[Josheb]

There is some integral need felt by fallen man, to be in charge of their own fate. I'm not saying it is entirely bad, because it is not bad for a child to want to grow up, but this insistence on independence from God, where we take the tenets of Scripture in hand like Pharisees, and think ourselves increasingly able to accomplish obedience, ever growing closer to the image of Christ.....

I don't want to get too far afield of the op, but I'm inclined to think some degree of that is part of our created constitution and, therefore, it persists even after conversion to Christ. I'm not sure how multiply, subduing and ruling over the earth, or the great commission, can happen without some degree of self-determination, or perhaps it is best to say real volitional agency. Salvation frees us to be interactive participants with God, whereas sin makes us constant opponents of God.

.....is shown in the usual theology of Dispensationalism. I thank God that not all DP's believe the nonsense of independent virtue apart from Christ, such as @CrowCross and John McArthur. But it shows up still, in threads like this one, where we want to calculate the future so we know how to prepare, when the only real preparation is to walk with God in obedience and close fellowship, getting to know him.

Yep.

And it is worth noting we've got about 200 years of prognostication in which not a single prediction has ever come true. Ask them about that, though, and the response is avoidant, oppositional, and/or rancorous (like this thread, HERE, and HERE). It, therefore, proves impossible to discuss anything they post (why would anyone mentioning the beast not answer the question, "what follows Revelation's beast?").


AI has nothing to do with Rev. 13's beast, but I can lay that aside and ask questions about AI that have nothing to do with eschatology. Having done so, the response is silence (avoidance) opposition and rancor. They could be discussing anything in Post 61 but they're not, choosing irrelevancies, red herrings, straw men, and ad hominem instead.

• Were any positive AI chats observed?
• Demonic forces manipulate people, not objects (and if they were manipulating AI it would be for the purpose of......manipulating people ).
• What evidence exists the devil knows how to program AI?
• AI is, by definition, software. How then, could software generate something other than software (and what, exactly, might that be)?
• If Christians applied the cultural mandate or the great commission to AI then ops like this one would have an entirely different meaning and significance (which brings us back to the first bullet point).

Are these not valid and op-relevant points of comment and inquiry? Why then are thy treated with avoidance, opposition, and/or rancor? Given the facts in evidence, I conclude because the op was never posted with any intent to have it engaged with anything other than submissive fealty (in spite of the very poor historical performance of DPism and the prominence of orthodox alternatives). Maybe someone here will eventually prove me wrong.

 

[makesends]

I don't want to get too far afield of the op, but I'm inclined to think some degree of that is part of our created constitution and, therefore, it persists even after conversion to Christ. I'm not sure how multiply, subduing and ruling over the earth, or the great commission, can happen without some degree of self-determination, or perhaps it is best to say real volitional agency. Salvation frees us to be interactive participants with God, whereas sin makes us constant opponents of God.

Well, it goes to the definition of "artificial" in intelligence, so not entirely off topic.

The clinical definition/use of self-determination, at least in my thinking, means only "choosing according to self-interest" or the like. Self-interest is natural, as you show, since I am me, and my survival and my satisfaction and so on are mine to see to. (That is not the same thing as "selfishness".) What I generally refer to, is, "those insisting on self-determination" though I also say "the self-determinist" or "the self-deterministic", and contextually as being in opposition to God's determining, or even (though it comes down to God's) the determinism of cause-and-effect.

Yep.

And it is worth noting we've got about 200 years of prognostication in which not a single prediction has ever come true. Ask them about that, though, and the response is avoidant, oppositional, and/or rancorous (like this thread, HERE, and HERE). It, therefore, proves impossible to discuss anything they post (why would anyone mentioning the beast not answer the question, "what follows Revelation's beast?").


AI has nothing to do with Rev. 13's beast, but I can lay that aside and ask questions about AI that have nothing to do with eschatology. Having done so, the response is silence (avoidance) opposition and rancor. They could be discussing anything in Post 61 but they're not, choosing irrelevancies, red herrings, straw men, and ad hominem instead.

• Were any positive AI chats observed?
• Demonic forces manipulate people, not objects (and if they were manipulating AI it would be for the purpose of......manipulating people ).
• What evidence exists the devil knows how to program AI?
• AI is, by definition, software. How then, could software generate something other than software (and what, exactly, might that be)?
• If Christians applied the cultural mandate or the great commission to AI then ops like this one would have an entirely different meaning and significance (which brings us back to the first bullet point).

Are these not valid and op-relevant points of comment and inquiry? Why then are thy treated with avoidance, opposition, and/or rancor? Given the facts in evidence, I conclude because the op was never posted with any intent to have it engaged with anything other than submissive fealty (in spite of the very poor historical performance of DPism and the prominence of orthodox alternatives). Maybe someone here will eventually prove me wrong.

Agreed. To me, the question is superstitious. Most likely, if AI is involved, it will be no different than technology has been used of both the devil and by God, just like our eyes and desires have been used. Nothing new there.

But the suggestion is along the lines of the Jewish legend of golem --that is what they want to discuss, (which to me is a disgusting waste of time, more for the purpose of the thrill of the spectacular than for the purpose of understanding prophecy, and certainly more than for the purpose of coming to know God better. At least, that is how it comes across to me.)

 

[CrowCross]

Yes, quite.

If that's what you need to believe...go for it.

Back when the typical computer had an 8 bit word...the 16, then 32 then 64....see what's happening? Now it's up to something like 107 bit long words. Oh, also a bit typical has like 2 stable states. 1 or O. That's it. Now each bit can have several states...perhaps as high as 32.

They asked one of the inventors of these quantum computers how they "work" ...and he said, "I don't know".

There is a system called "willow" that I believe was shut down because it was doing stuff it wasn't supposed to be doing.

I stand by....No, not quite.

 

[CrowCross]

Ok, "if you say so".

No disrespect intended, brother. I grew up with Dispensationalism and saw holes in it even as a kid. Too much unproven. Too many contradictions, too much speculation, too intricate the meandering pattern through signposts --(what @Eleanor calls, "riddles")-- that are taken as completely intelligible and precise. Too much time and attention to eschatology, and not about the reason for our existence. Too much trust in human self for substantive discourse and comprehension.

Funny, I can say the same for the non-disp.

I thought I must be wrong, because, after all, "The adults have got their stuff together --they are all grown up!, and what do I know? --I'm just a kid!" And I heard no dissenting voices from outside my community, except for the "pagans and the impious unfaithful".

Satan may use AI, but inherently, Satan can do nothing, but what God purposes concerning him.

I agree. Thing is Revelation speaks of a beast system....a system used by Satan to control. Considering the bible speaks of it, it is obviously part of Gods plan. Fortunately th rapture happens first and Christians will be delivered from that wrath and time of trouble.

 

[Tambora]

Josheb complains about other threads drifting from the OP....but when Josheb does it, it's OK. Go figure.

It happens.

 

[makesends]

Josheb complains about other threads drifting from the OP....but when Josheb does it, it's OK. Go figure.

Brother, whether or not someone is being fair, do them the kindness and respect to not talk behind their back. Use the @Handle linking so they can see they are being referred to.

 

[Josheb]

@Tambora,

I'm still waiting for a response to Post #61. Among the points of comment and inquiry are...

• Were any positive AI chats observed?
• Demonic forces manipulate people, not objects (and if they were manipulating AI it would be for the purpose of......manipulating people ).
• What evidence exists the devil knows how to program AI?
• AI is, by definition, software. How then, could software generate something other than software (and what, exactly, might that be)?
• If Christians applied the cultural mandate or the great commission to AI then ops like this one would have an entirely different meaning and significance (which brings us back to the first bullet point).

These can be answered, addressed and discussed without further digression.

 

[Josheb]

Agreed. To me, the question is superstitious.

There's a lot of superstition in modern futurism. Much of this thread appears to have been influenced by the sci-fi channel, not the Bible, and the holding of those beliefs proves to be impenetrable.

 

[Arial]

Ok, "if you say so".

No disrespect intended, brother. I grew up with Dispensationalism and saw holes in it even as a kid. Too much unproven. Too many contradictions, too much speculation, too intricate the meandering pattern through signposts --(what @Eleanor calls, "riddles")-- that are taken as completely intelligible and precise. Too much time and attention to eschatology, and not about the reason for our existence. Too much trust in human self for substantive discourse and comprehension.

I thought I must be wrong, because, after all, "The adults have got their stuff together --they are all grown up!, and what do I know? --I'm just a kid!" And I heard no dissenting voices from outside my community, except for the "pagans and the impious unfaithful".

Satan may use AI, but inherently, Satan can do nothing, but what God purposes concerning him.

Exactly!

 

[Tambora]

Satan may use AI,

Right, no doubt he could even though we don't know for certain AI will be the image he will use.

but inherently, Satan can do nothing, but what God purposes concerning him.

We know for certain that the dragon has the ability (for whatever reason) to give one beast the power to bring an image of another beast to life, for the Bible tells us so.

 

[Josheb]

we don't know for certain AI will be the image he will use.

That is the smartest thing you've said in this thread. Given the fact we do not know for certain, everything pertaining to AI is sheer speculation. Therefore, we must then ask ourselves...... "Upon what is this speculation based?"

We know for certain that the dragon has the ability (for whatever reason) to give one beast the power to bring an image of another beast to life, for the Bible tells us so.

Which we do not know for certain has anything to do with AI.

In other words, Post 92 is a circular argument. Speculation about what may be the image is juxtaposed against the supposed certainty the devil will indirectly bring the entirely speculative beast of AI to life. That is not what the Bible states at all. Furthermore, only Dispensational Premillennialists think that way. Everyone else in the entire history of Christendom thinks completely differently about this...... and we/they all manage to do so without fearmongering and without creating centuries' worth of prognostications that never come true. Only modern futurists do that.


And I still don't see answers to Post 61's points of comment and inquiry.

• Were any positive AI chats observed?
• Demonic forces manipulate people, not objects (if they were manipulating AI it would be for the purpose of......manipulating people ).
• What evidence exists the devil knows how to program AI?
• AI is, by definition, software. How then, could software generate something other than software (and what, exactly, might that be)?
• If Christians applied the cultural mandate or the great commission to AI then ops like this one would have an entirely different meaning and significance (which brings us back to the first bullet point).

The posts are proving it's impossible to get a modern futurist to engage his or her own beliefs with any substance, logic, or well-rendered scripture.

 

[Tambora]

That is the smartest thing you've said in this thread.

No it's not, it's just one of the things I've said in this thread that you were able to understand and not misconstrue.

Given the fact we do not know for certain, everything pertaining to AI is sheer speculation.

Duh.
Apparently, you have not understood that I offer all perspectives of what the image might be as speculation.
Just because you are afraid to offer a speculation on how it might happen doesn't mean others must keep their traps shut, now does it?

In other words, Post 92 is a circular argument. Speculation about what may be the image is juxtaposed against the supposed certainty the devil will indirectly bring the entirely speculative beast of AI to life.

Wrong again.
No one in this thread has said with certainty the devil will use AI as the image brought to life.

Furthermore, only Dispensational Premillennialists think that way.

Wrong again.
I'm not a Dispensational Premillennialists.

Everyone else in the entire history of Christendom thinks completely differently about this...... and we/they all manage to do so without fearmongering and without creating centuries' worth of prognostications that never come true. Only modern futurists do that.

Wrong again.
I've witnessed on other sites many, including Calvinists, that also speculate on what the image may be.

And I still don't see answers to Post 61's points of comment and inquiry.

You can wait by the phone if you want, but I do not need to adhere to how YOU think the conversation in this thread must progress.
Others here are having a swell time discussing the many speculations.

The posts are proving it's impossible to get a modern futurist to engage his own beliefs with any substance, logic, or well-rendered scripture.

I don't use the pronoun "him" because I'm not a male.

 

[Josheb]

I don't use the pronoun "him" because I'm not a male.

I stand corrected and have amended my post accordingly. Everything else, though, remains the same. AI has nothing to do with Rev. 13's beast and.....

 

[Josheb]

Apparently, you have not understood that I offer all perspectives of what the image might be as speculation. Just because you are afraid to offer a speculation on how it might happen doesn't mean others must keep their traps shut, now does it?

Speculation is never a sound way to approach God's word.

You can wait by the phone if you want, but I do not need to adhere to how YOU think the conversation in this thread must progress.

Which is just another way to say Post 61 is being avoided despite its valid and op-relevant content.


Were any positive AI chats observed? If not, then the op is selective in its observations because AI is used in many positive ways. If so, then the op is selective (and thereby misrepresentative) with its report of observations. That's a fail, either way.

Demonic forces manipulate people, not objects. There is no report in scripture of the devil attaching himself to an inanimate object. Appeals to the devil controlling fire and wind in Job fail because Job 1:16 states, "The fire of God fell..." and verse 19 never mentions the devil controlling the wind. James 5:11 attributes Job's suffering to God and God's outcome, not the devil. The appeal to Rev. 13's beast has already been addressed. It was the beast, not the devil, who brought fire down from heaven.

Tambora in Post #7, "And we have the story of Satan being able to cause fire from the sky to burn up Job's sheep flock and his servants, and also caused a wind storm that collapsed the house his children were in."​

It was not Satan that did that.

What evidence exists the devil knows how to program AI? None. It is reasonable to think the devil could take some programming classes (I did) and learn programming languages used in AI (I'm surprised no one has posted an op claiming Python is proof the serpent is controlling AI), but that would have nothing to do with the spiritualized argument of demonic influence. For now, evidence was requested and none has been provided.

AI is, by definition, software. How then, could software generate something other than software. Granted, software is worthless without hardware to run it, but the salient point is that the devil must control the software if he's going to control any hardware and there's no evidence the devil can do either. So far there is no software that can control the heavens or the weather sufficiently to bring fire down. Perhaps one day that might happen, but it'll take more than computer code to do so and we're a long way off from that capability. No one in this thread will be alive to see that development. The software would have to control the computer running it and the computer would have to manufacture whatever device is used to create the necessary atmospheric conditions to summon fire (not lightning) from heaven, and since Rev. 13:13 stipulates the fire comes down out of heaven (nto the skies of earth) that means this devil-run computer must have some control over heaven. There's definitely no evidence in scripture the devil can control anything in heaven (the last time he did that he got locked up).

If Christians applied the cultural mandate or the great commission to AI then ops like this one would have an entirely different meaning and significance. That is how Christians should approach AI. We're supposed to take every thought captive that sets itself up against Christ. We're supposed to be subduing the earth andruling over it, baptizing the nations and teaching the Jesus' commands, not irrationally speculating.

Tambora in Post #11: "This thread is purely speculative as to what means the one beast uses to cause the image of the other beast to come to life."​

Tambora in Post #24: "That's a lot more than I can prove. It makes for an interesting speculation, though."​

Speculation can be fun, but when it promotes the misuse or abuse of God's word then it should be avoided. God tells us to reason with Him. Paul exhorted the young Timothy,

1 Timothy 1:3-4 ​

As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.​

2 Timothy 2:23​

But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels.​

And he told Titus,

Titus 3:9​

Avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.​

​

Especially when those speculations are associated with centuries of false teachers and would-be prophets.​

​

Romans 1:21 ​

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.​

When all of this is considered, there's not a single sentence in the opening post that withstands critical examination, so the conclusion is therefore, there is nothing worthy of godly speculation.

 

[Tambora]

I stand corrected

Yep, because you do not know me.

Everything else, though, remains the same. AI has nothing to do with Rev. 13's beast and.....

You do not know what the image will be other than it is man-made object and that one beast gives it life.

 

[Tambora]

Speculation is never a sound way to approach God's word.

People have speculated on God's word for ages and still do.
There is nothing wrong with expressing speculations when it is stated that it is speculation.

Which is just another way to say Post 61 is being avoided despite its valid and op-relevant content.

The speculation is on what the image could be and how it is given life by a beast.
You have yet to offer anything to the matter as to what the image that is given life might be or how that happens and keep insisting that others give answers to your narrative.
Sorry, but you don't get to dictate the narrative of others.

Tambora in Post #7, "And we have the story of Satan being able to cause fire from the sky to burn up Job's sheep flock and his servants, and also caused a wind storm that collapsed the house his children were in."​

It was not Satan that did that.

You don't think in the narrative of the book of Job that it was Satan that manipulated the fire and wind to destroy Job's stock and children?
Hmmm.

Tambora in Post #11: "This thread is purely speculative as to what means the one beast uses to cause the image of the other beast to come to life."​

Tambora in Post #24: "That's a lot more than I can prove. It makes for an interesting speculation, though."​

Speculation can be fun,

Yep, it can be fun and make people think about things.

but when it promotes the misuse or abuse of God's word then it should be avoided.

Speculation is not a misuse or abuse of God's word when it is clearly stated that is speculation.
Even scholars throughout the ages have done it.
So you can save that dig for someone that will fall for it.

When all of this is considered, there's not a single sentence in the opening post that withstands critical examination, so the conclusion is therefore, there is nothing worthy of godly speculation.

The conclusion is that you can't critically examine what the image is because you don't know what it is.
And you still haven't offered anything as to what it might be.

 

[CrowCross]

That is the smartest thing you've said in this thread. Given the fact we do not know for certain, everything pertaining to AI is sheer speculation. Therefore, we must then ask ourselves...... "Upon what is this speculation based?"

The prediction made in the bible as well as the current level of technology.

 

[CrowCross]

The conclusion is that you can't critically examine what the image is because you don't know what it is.
And you still haven't offered anything as to what it might be.

Have you offered anything? Feel free to speculate.