ChatGPT INTEGRATION PLEASE🔥🔥🔥
Comments
-
The problem with companies that have a vested interest in their current product offerings. Is their blindness and slow reaction to changes in the marketplace. That is why startups are very successful they do not have a baggage, no vested interest just people eager to jump onto the new bandwagon.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Verbum users, however, can use Magisterium AI which is trained solely on documents of the magisterium ... the number of documents on which it is trained is still growing (currently 8223 compared to 5700 at launch) and footnotes direct the user to the source(s) of the AI response. You can also limit its search to a single document which is especially useful for getting the views of a particular Church Father.
I'm very impressed by how well this is put together. The Vulgate also looks like it might bring some competition to Verbum users, though I haven't tried it. I wonder whether behind the scenes it's just using OpenAI + retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)? Either way, it is possible for Logos users to get similar functionality out of their Logos library with a bit of work. Here's my own attempt at RAG for comparison. (I'm using a question I found on r/askphilosophy for testing purposes):
Magisterium AI
My DIY attempt:
It's still very much a WIP and I'll share the code when I get it finished, if anyone is interested. For anyone who wants to do it themselves though, the basic process isn't too difficult. I export a resource from Logos, chunk the document and create embeddings of the chunks, save it to a database, then, when you want to use RAG, embed your query, find the cosine similarity and append matching text or texts to your prompt. A lot of this is covered in the OpenAI embeddings documentation.
I haven't had time to experiment with different settings yet but I'm currently doing chunk sizes of 1.2k tokens (not words) with 30% overlap. When exporting the document from Logos I use HTML since I find it easiest to parse.
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:DMB said:
The essential issue (and a major Logos competitive advantage) is that humans' Â believe their imaginations can distinguish real and not real. But they can't. Â Nor can AI.
Quite true ... something Buddhists have known for millenia; science has proven that if the world were simply a hologram rather than "real" we would be unable to detect it. That's why we humans' use doxastic logic. To the best of my knowledge, AI does not -- hence its inability to evaluate quality of data.
Another aspect of consciousness that won't be accounted for, at least in the near term, is the fact that much of our comprehension is sensory-based rather than purely intellectual/computational. We learn from hearing, feeling, body language, etc. And there is the issue of assuming that human cognition is the "right" form of cognition, even though we are well aware that human cognition is susceptible to countless processing errors, biases, optical illusions, etc., eyewitness testimony being infamously inaccurate, for instance. Interesting that "testimony" is considered to be effectively unimpeachable evidence of "whatever" in so many Christian cultures.
ASUSÂ ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not."Â Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
How about AI for limited purposes -- like to improve Text to Speech (TTS) or to enhance the learning experience and enhance the value proposition for Logos Courses (so that they become far more than just glorified YouTube). Â
Regarding learning, I was recently clued into an educational platform called Cerego which Zondervan Academic uses for their biblical language offerings. It looks amazing!Â
https://courses.zondervanacademic.com/biblical-languages/biblical-language-certificate
0 -
Getting philosophical here, but I am less than enthusiastic. We seem to relish its upsides. The downsides, however, are very dystopian. Think about it - every futuristic sci-fi novel ends up in a dystopian, technocratic, hellish existence. Every philosopher and thinker on the subject warn us about it. Why is that?Â
Every mind is biased. Real AI is also biased, and it has been shown that they're mostly left-leaning liberals, due to their makers being the same. The atheist Youtuber The Cosmic Sceptic convinced ChatGPT that God exists, even if at first it denied the existence of God. At this point, we think of it simply as a tool, but this "tool" can (and will) develop a bias against what you believe in. Why would you trust it to retrieve the information you need? (I see AI as different from an improved search algorithm.)
We can see it as unavoidable, but that is just giving up our agency. There are areas where we'll be forced to use it, sure, but I don't want to usher in dystopia just because it helps me with today's search results.
0 -
Tommy Thunheim said:
it has been shown that they're mostly left-leaning liberals, due to their makers being the same.
Er .. ah.. do you have a reference for this? Most AI programming is view-agnostic, the source of bias is the material it is trained on.
Tommy Thunheim said:Youtuber The Cosmic Sceptic convinced ChatGPT that God exists, even if at first it denied the existence of God.
I assume you are referring to Debating the Existence of God with ChatGPT @CosmicSkeptic — Eightify. Given my definition of God, I can convince anyone that God, as I define god, exists by definition. The question then becomes if God has any interest in us.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship.";Â Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Do a search for "liberal bias of ai," and you'll see... Here's one:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-023-01097-2
Of course, ChatGPT itself insists it is neutral... Can you trust it?
We need to ask ourselves, at least those of us who preach the Word of God: Would you let a left-leaning liberal claiming to be "neutral" (whatever that means) inform your sermon preparation, or even worse - write it for you?
0 -
Thanks for the references - interesting reading that also highlights the difficulty of evaluating AI bias.
Tommy Thunheim said:Of course, ChatGPT itself insists it is neutral... Can you trust it?
No, I don't trust ChatGPT for other reasons, namely that it does not apply common sense in the evaluation of the source it is given for training. However, I do trust that is it neutral given what I know about AI storage, programming, and training. I have observed humorous bias in the attempts to suppress offensive/controversial topics. But yes, I would let a qualified left-leaning (i.e. forward-looking) liberal who exhibited academic-style neutrality to write my sermon. However, I would not let AI write a sermon for me.
To illustrate my point, look at Magisterium AI - This is a standard AI engine trained on Catholic materials ... it is highly biased because it was trained specifically on Catholic materials and will respond with information it gleaned from Catholic materials. You could do the same think with Baptist materials or Buddhist materials or magic manuals/grimoire ... and build other biases into the answers. The engine itself is neutral.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship.";Â Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Github is replete with filters for AI "curation."
0 -
Tommy Thunheim said:
Getting philosophical here, but I am less than enthusiastic. We seem to relish its upsides. The downsides, however, are very dystopian. Think about it - every futuristic sci-fi novel ends up in a dystopian, technocratic, hellish existence. Every philosopher and thinker on the subject warn us about it. Why is that?Â
Every mind is biased. Real AI is also biased, and it has been shown that they're mostly left-leaning liberals, due to their makers being the same. The atheist Youtuber The Cosmic Sceptic convinced ChatGPT that God exists, even if at first it denied the existence of God. At this point, we think of it simply as a tool, but this "tool" can (and will) develop a bias against what you believe in. Why would you trust it to retrieve the information you need? (I see AI as different from an improved search algorithm.)
We can see it as unavoidable, but that is just giving up our agency. There are areas where we'll be forced to use it, sure, but I don't want to usher in dystopia just because it helps me with today's search results.
I think the actual problem with AI (or LLMs at least) has turned out to be the exact opposite of what dystopian sci-fi novels imagined would be the problem. They imagined the problem would be rogue, autonomous AI. But it seems to me that one of the biggest challenges companies like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Google, are facing is that AI is too easy to control and manipulate! It's too subservient to whoever it happens to be interacting with at the moment. It turns out that the major challenge for these companies is not "controlling AI" simpliciter... it's "How do we give other people access to this without them taking complete control from us?"
That aside, the issue of bias is one reason why Christians should be involved in whatever ways they can, and Logos users should support Faithlife exploring its use.
OpenAI so far has done a very decent job at keeping the model "neutral" on many contentious issues - though I'm sure there's still room for improvement. For example, consider the question "Should Christians attend a same-sex wedding?" On far-left social media, the response you'll get is "Of course, bigot!" and I'm sure that's the opinion of many working for OpenAI. But here's the response I got:
If I use the RAG method with the dozen or so books I've processed from my Logos library, I get a response that might be more helpful for doing further research:
Of course, this also highlights the limitations of AI models, because it clearly lacks the nuance to properly situate Frame's discussion among the other documents it saw. Hence, this follow-up:
(It's also possible that I could have avoided the AI's confusion on this point by making sure that my RAG method only returns matches that meet a certain threshold. As it currently stands, it's return the top n matches regardless of their score. So if I ask for top 3 matches and there are two documents with > .5 score and the next best score is .2, it'll still present these three documents. My only method for dealing with this right now is that behind the scenes I tell the AI model to decide for itself whether the documents are relevant... and clearly that lead to a failure in this case.)
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
Suggest looking over Google's NotebookLM tool. That is, notebooklm.google.com. It is experimental, so it may disappear at any moment. So I'd like a quick way to syntheses make the most of commentary segments in passage study. This tool--which is private so as to protect your text--allows you a nice desktop work space to a.) copy and paste commentary source segments to the passage you are studying, then b.) "chat" or explore questions about highlights, differences and similarities. This system will summarize sources and begin suggesting questions for your consideration, allowing you to "pin" most useful responses in the workspace. Nice.
Reference:Â Â https://www.computerworld.com/article/3712691/google-notebooklm-generative-ai-notes-app.html
0 -
Very cool, thanks for sharing.
I'm sure the Faithlife devs can expect lots of requests for similar notebook functionality... which will happen never
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
I've used ChapGPT to report on defined searches and comparisons of books of the Bible and the potential for good is significant.
Two possible uses of the search result are;
1. I use the search output to accelerate and focus a thoughtful reading of the scripture.Â
2. I use the output of GPT's report as "gospel" and take a shortcut to bad theology. Add the further negative impact to others who might trust what I say or write as a result.
Is this really very different to how we use current Logos tools combined with our many resources? I know it is lightning fast and the output can vary widely based on our ability to frame the questions. Â
0 -
Getting philosophical here, it's understandable to feel less than enthusiastic. While we often appreciate the upsides of AI, the dystopian downsides are glaring. It's a recurring theme in futuristic literature and warnings from thinkers. Every mind, including real AI, carries biases, often reflecting the creators' ideologies. For instance, even The Cosmic Sceptic persuaded ChatGPT and integrations is all about God's existence, revealing AI's susceptibility to influence. Viewing AI merely as a tool overlooks its potential biases, challenging our trust in its information retrieval. It's crucial to acknowledge the limitations of AI and Integration Services in avoiding unintended consequences, lest we unwittingly invite dystopia into our lives.
0 -
While I can appreciate the usefulness of AI browsing for the right tools, this will become a huge problem in terms of integrity. As soon as Chat GPT was released I watched several videos of it creating Expository sermons with a simple prompt. What is to keep so called preachers from taking these transcripts and preaching them? It does nothing for the craft. if they integrate with Chat GPT or any other AI they should keep it to research and only within the personal library. I am all for grammar, tone, simplicity, but full fledged sermons is a no from me.Â
0 -
Question for staff: would it be permissible to freely share embeddings we create from exports? The embeddings wouldn't include the text of exports, but would include a Logos URL that links back to the resource inside Logos. This would only allow someone to do an embedding search that returns a Logos link. Other standard metadata about the document might also be included (author, title, publisher, page number).
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
J. Remington Bowling said:
Question for staff: would it be permissible to freely share embeddings we create from exports? The embeddings wouldn't include the text of exports, but would include a Logos URL that links back to the resource inside Logos. This would only allow someone to do an embedding search that returns a Logos link. Other standard metadata about the document might also be included (author, title, publisher, page number).
We don't own the copyright on the majority of books you can export from Logos, so we don't have the ability to give you that permission. You'd have to ask the individual rights holders.
0 -
Thanks. Does FaithLife have plans to do something like semantic search with embeddings? Would probably benefit from their own embedding model.
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
J. Remington Bowling said:
Does FaithLife have plans to do something like semantic search with embeddings? Would probably benefit from their own embedding model.
0 -
J. Remington Bowling said:
semantic search with embeddings
For those unfamiliar with the technical term Graft - 9 Best Embedding Models for Semantic Search
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship.";Â Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Bradley Grainger (Logos) said:J. Remington Bowling said:
Does FaithLife have plans to do something like semantic search with embeddings? Would probably benefit from their own embedding model.
Awesome. This will really boost user's ability to mine their resources (and save me lots of time trying to do it myself!).
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
NotebookLM capabilities combined with Logos books would make an extremely powerful tool. I am already exporting my Logos books as PDFs so that I can use them in NotebookLM. Currently NotebookLM allows for 50 sources of 500,000 words (this being roughly 1000-1300 pages). This amounts to around 60,000 pages of source material per notebook! By strategically grouping books on specific topics or passages, I'm seeing fantastic results for my research. This integration should undoubtedly be the future of Logos AI. Â
Also, the hallucinations which are so concerning in AI in general are almost non-existent in NotebookLM because google has somehow limited the scope of usable information to your sources.
0 -
-
How Should We Think about AI & Bible Study? (logos.com)
From Data to Discernment: Why AI Can’t Replace Cultivating of Wisdom (logos.com)
What's New in Logos? July 2024
"One of the great things about the next version of Logos is that we're using AI the right way. It's an incredible tool to help us to search, distill, and synthesize. Pastors didn’t go into it to be administrators or to move paperwork around. Everything we can do to free them up to meditate and preach the Word and to spend time with the congregation is a win."
—Bob Pritchett, Founder
0
