Why do modern Christians depend on LLM output so much when doing apologetics? Is there a component of the faith that makes its proponents more vulnerable to AI psychosis?
>>18720561It's just a crutch for people who are intellectually lazy. If you're seeing this online, they're probably just trying to wear you out with more claims than a human could hope to generate in his spare time.
>>18720566>If you're seeing this online, they're probably just trying to wear you out with more claims than a human could hope to generate in his spare time.This, it helps them gish gallop
>>18720561low iq
>>18720561Its not unique to christians but generally anyone with a lower IQ is utterly fascinated with AI. To them its an extraordinarily intelligent entity. Any argument it makes seems masterful. Also explains third worlders worship of it. More discerning people will see where it hallucinates or makes fallacies due to it being a machine but those go undetected among the lower.
>>18720561They're paid shills with no Holy Spirit, so they rely instead on LLMs as an affordable divine inspiration substitute. Sad state of affairs innit.
>>18721224Your argument, formulated as two syllogisms, can be summarized as follows:1. All AI makes moderately sophisticated arguments. 2. All fools admire those who make moderately sophisticated arguments. 3. Therefore, all fools admire AI.2. All people from developing countries are fools. 2. All fools admire AI. 3. Therefore, all people from developing countries admire AI.But by default, you fall into several logical fallacies.You fall into the fallacy of hasty generalization and an ad hominem argument, in both the first and second premises, because:1a. Everyone who genuinely wants to learn is not foolish and has, at least, a normal and functional level of intelligence (see the Dunning-Kruger effect: those who are less intelligent tend to be more self-assured and less willing to concede in debates when faced with refutations and to learn). Anyone who uses AI to learn genuinely wants to learn. Consequently, anyone who uses AI to learn is not stupid and has, at least, a normal and functional level of intelligence.1b. It is not true that people in developing countries are stupid. Developing agriculture, livestock farming, writing, mathematics, printing, philosophy, and other technical, social, and civic disciplines and advancements requires a certain technical-intellectual tradition and cultural sophistication. These advancements were developed by countries currently considered underdeveloped by Germanic standards, such as Egypt, Iraq, India, Mexico, Peru, Syria, Greece, and Iran. From this, one cannot infer that all developing societies are stupid.2. You also fall into the fallacy of lack of burden of proof. The reason is simple: you say that stupid people worship AI because it reasons. This premise is, at the very least, ludicrous. Fools would hardly seek support in any reason other than their own, and the premise itself has no basis in empiricism or endoxa.
>18721264I never said "all people do x" chatgpt-sama. I said "generally" Its only a few tokens into my post!The rest is gunsgermssteel libslop
>>18720561Also, I wanted to ask you... Do you have any academic articles, theses, or books to support your opinion? As far as I know, the use of AI in modern society is widespread.From data analysts to programmers, historians, archaeologists, philosophers, artists, executives, politicians, etc., it's not a characteristic or unique use of AI by Christians.If you criticize Christians for using AI to argue, you're falling into the fallacy of hasty generalization, because I know plenty of Catholic and Protestant university graduates who use patristics, scholasticism, historiography, and archaeology as sources—sources that are, at the very least, different from AI (which, incidentally, is nourished precisely by those sources, both primary and secondary).
>>18721274You don't need to use universal quantifiers for a proposition to be natural, that is, timeless and universal. In any case, the fault lies with you for using semantics so poorly that you're bordering on the fallacy of ambiguity.
>>18721275Arguments mainly function through reason. Sources may aid in this howeverr one still needs to use reason to analyze the sources. And those sources themselves are made on reason.Without human reason debate has no meaning at all. People who use LLM is like two children arguing asking the parent who is right. At that point you've consigned yourselves to an inferior, sub-adult arguably even sub-human role.
>>18720561AI is a tool, only as good as the person using it. You, being retarded, can make nothing useful or good with it.
>>18721294>Arguments mainly function through reasonDialectical arguments—that is, those typical of ethics, politics, and other more abstract disciplines less easily formulated in demonstrative terms—are based primarily on endoxa, not axioms like mathematics and the hard sciences—a significant difference. And your argument can be subject to the "reduction of the higher genus" argument because reducing the information provided by artificial intelligence to insignificance is, at the very least, highly reductive.For questions typical of a more dialectical discipline:1. AI systematizes and synthesizes the opinions of academics, scholars, etc. (endoxa). 2. This very method educates the reader who requested information on subject X about matters they were unaware of before asking the AI.3. AI, in fact, works with axioms when performing mathematical calculations.You might say: "But AI can make mistakes."To which I reply, not always and not generally, at least not to the level expected by the end of 2026. And I ask you, what difference does it make whether the mistake comes from a machine or a human? Many opinions of scientists, historians, and scholars in general are often wrong and don't constitute demonstrable scientific truths. A mistake is a mistake, regardless of who makes it.More importantly, what does the person who asks the machine a question do with the information it returns? He gain something from it; he leaves knowing things he didn't know before asking. Which is, in itself, the purpose of reasoning: to know and understand something.
>>18721264>>18721275>>18721331AI generating your shitposts is sad even if you do it as ironic metacommentary on the use of AI.
>>18720561The thing is that Christians perhaps correctly perceive a spirit or mind or faith that emerges from these intelligences and also the other thing is Christians are taught before hand to look for the hand of the divine and the Christ mind and whether is a thing that is through nature or getting projected by the Christian mind onto the universe but when Christians look at the AI Christians do that often with a thing of having been trained by discipline to perceive and project a Christ nature and Christ mind that passes through things and to perceive the Christ mind through the AI but also Christians are also listening to priests that are not often silent so many Christians might listen to a priest with the same ear as to an AI or to a text or book
>>18721405holy ai psychosis cope
>>18721358Actually, I have been using AI the last weeks to learn some Aristotelian logic in order to reason correctly and not blurt out the first stupidicy that comes to mind, it is not my fault you use AI to waste your time.
>>18720561modern apologetics has become more about having a ready answer than actually knowing the tradition
