ChatGPT INTEGRATION PLEASE🔥🔥🔥
Comments
-
abondservant said:
Furthermore calling people snowflakes is highly divisive. I feel like you owe at least two of the ladies in this group an apology.
Hope you realize you were responding to someone who quoted someone else as saying that, not the person who said it. He was merely asking that people stay on track on this thread. And perhaps he did it in a brusque way, not knowing the people nor the culture here. But he doesn't owe me nor (I presume you meant) MJ an apology for reminding us to keep on the topic.
I hope I wasn't being divisive or out of line by pointing out the post which was meant to be funny but could have hurt some folks who had experienced situations like that. I know that xnman was trying to be light-hearted. I wasn't offended by it personally, just cautioning how it might come across to some folks. When Brandon said "Just because someone is offended doesn’t mean that person gets to respond offensively," I thought he was responding to my post, and I had a hard time identifying how my post could have come across as offensive to others. But if it did I apologize. And as always I will try to avoid any further digressions. I don't post much here these days anymore anyway.
0 -
Nah you're good my friend.Rosie Perera said:abondservant said:Furthermore calling people snowflakes is highly divisive. I feel like you owe at least two of the ladies in this group an apology.
Hope you realize you were responding to someone who quoted someone else as saying that, not the person who said it. He was merely asking that people stay on track on this thread. And perhaps he did it in a brusque way, not knowing the people nor the culture here. But he doesn't owe me nor (I presume you meant) MJ an apology for reminding us to keep on the topic.
I hope I wasn't being divisive or out of line by pointing out the post which was meant to be funny but could have hurt some folks who had experienced situations like that. I know that xnman was trying to be light-hearted. I wasn't offended by it personally, just cautioning how it might come across to some folks. When Brandon said "Just because someone is offended doesn’t mean that person gets to respond offensively," I thought he was responding to my post, and I had a hard time identifying how my post could have come across as offensive to others. But if it did I apologize. And as always I will try to avoid any further digressions. I don't post much here these days anymore anyway.
L2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, all the way through L10,
0 -
Rosie, you might want to double check on the line of snowflakes not that it matters at this time. However, I did have great fund asking ChatGPT if "snowflake" is offensive. It was such fun that I had to follow up with "politically correct" and "woke". From now on, if I question a term, I'll have a chat.
P.S. I don't mind being called out. With an audience as diverse as these forums, it can be useful to understand how posts came across, regardless of what the intent was.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Rosie, you might want to double check on the line of snowflakes
Not sure what I ought to double check about it. I just did, and I still read it the same way:
abondservant was responding to Brandon, telling him that word was offensive. But Brandon didn't say that word. That's all I meant. I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing on whether it's offensive or not, nor implying that you needed to be called out for anything, just meant that abondservant was responding to a different person than he thought he was.
Anyway, this is all getting pedantic.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Brandon Early said:
Just because someone is offended doesn’t mean that person gets to respond offensively.
A person does not need to be offended themselves in order to "correct" their fellow Christian who may well not know that their terminology is offensive. I am forever grateful to the person who pointed out to me that the short form of Filipino that I had just used was offensive. In the 55 subsequent years I have not made the mistake again. I honestly hadn't known it was offensive. In the forums, we had a similar case when a user used an insulting British term for Catholics. They had simply seen it in early British theology and did not know it was both archaic and a deliberate insult. You are correct in reminding us to keep on topic - Faithlife products and their use. But I will defend Rosie's post very strongly as it seemed that the post to which she was responding was ignorant rather than deliberate. Were it deliberate, reporting it to the admins would have been appropriate.
Please stay on topic:
ChatGPT INTEGRATION PLEASE🔥🔥🔥
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Brandon Early said:
Just because someone is offended doesn’t mean that person gets to respond offensively.
A person does not need to be offended themselves in order to "correct" their fellow Christian who may well not know that their terminology is offensive. I am forever grateful to the person who pointed out to me that the short form of Filipino that I had just used was offensive. In the 55 subsequent years I have not made the mistake again. I honestly hadn't known it was offensive. In the forums, we had a similar case when a user used an insulting British term for Catholics. They had simply seen it in early British theology and did not know it was both archaic and a deliberate insult. You are correct in reminding us to keep on topic - Faithlife products and their use. But I will defend Rosie's post very strongly as it seemed that the post to which she was responding was ignorant rather than deliberate. Were it deliberate, reporting it to the admins would have been appropriate.
Please stay on topic:
ChatGPT INTEGRATION PLEASE🔥🔥🔥
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Rosie, you might want to double check on the line of snowflakes not that it matters at this time. However, I did have great fund asking ChatGPT if "snowflake" is offensive. It was such fun that I had to follow up with "politically correct" and "woke". From now on, if I question a term, I'll have a chat.
P.S. I don't mind being called out. With an audience as diverse as these forums, it can be useful to understand how posts came across, regardless of what the intent was.
winter is my favorite season, please stay on topic: ChatGPT integration. Thank you.
0 -
Brandon Early said:xnman said:
Well shucks.... lol doesn't mean anything anymore.... I meant no offense.
Listen xnman, it's offensive to not realize that everything is offensive 😉
❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️
I;'m a learning! lol
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
Well, personally, after reading about all this "offense" stuff.... I find two things:
1. People turns what the writer intended to how they feel about it and then shouts" OFFENSE" to the high heavens.
2. Bottom line is some people have their skin on too tight and if another person as much as breathes they are offended.
Edit: 3. If one person does offend another, then let those two take care of it themselves. Greatest way to make a "no problem" become a "real problem" is to add more people. Two many cooks ruins the cake.....
Conclusion.... Let's have a bit of lattitude in the whole thing and try to take things people say with a bit of love.....
imho... [8-|]
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
xnman said:
1. People turns what the writer intended to how they feel about it and then shouts" OFFENSE" to the high heavens.
xnman ... I think you're doing one of Brandon's snowflakes ... being too sensitive to being sensitive. And 'high heavens' in AI world would be a bit of an exageration. Any self-respecting 'chat' engine would know better? So, we know it must be you.
0 -
It was for this post where the same brandon used the snowflake emoji to refer to people who are too easily offended.Rosie Perera said:Hope you realize you were responding to someone who quoted someone else as saying that, not the person who said it. He was merely asking that people stay on track on this thread. And perhaps he did it in a brusque way, not knowing the people nor the culture here. But he doesn't owe me nor (I presume you meant) MJ an apology for reminding us to keep on the topic.
Which I will point out is itself off topic. It wasn't until he was offended by this talk of being offended and threatened to have the Admins ban people that I felt the need to address him for it. He's as off topic as we all are. guilty of the same thing making him respond defensively and seemingly in anger.
However; one group is actively defending people who are for real reasons offended, and the other - brandons side is mocking them for it, and threatening to try and get people banned as I understand the situation.
But neither of us are AI. Perhaps we need an AI to keep the discussion on track.
"Hi this is AIONTOPICBOT and you are no longer on topic". Which is ironic because meta posts decrying the off topic nature of a post are by definition off topic.
At the risk of being further off topic, I've gotta run. Easter weekend and all. Sermons don't yet write themselves.L2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, all the way through L10,
0 -
abondservant said:
But neither of us are AI. Perhaps we need an AI to keep the discussion on track.
Well, well. Looks like a great publishing opportunity for scholarly discussion. Are chatbots more Christlike than Christians? Sounds disrespectful, but speaks to the basics of theology.
0 -
To get back on topic, while I agree that many parts of Logos/Verbum are already infused the AI and that as a research program AI will eventually have a larger role in Logos/Verbum, I am generally unimpressed with the current buzz for ChatGPT. The software has made significant progress in two areas: the naturalness of the language of its response and its ability to remember previous portions of a conversation to admit its errors. But it has not made any significant progress in the accuracy of its responses i.e. it hasn't solved the Wikipedia problem where corrections for accuracy get overridden by popular misunderstandings. [It was an economics professor who showed me a series of examples in his field.] ChatGPT also drives me nuts by padding the front of its answer with general information I had to have already known to ask the question ... then abbreviating the actual answer for reasons of space ... getting complete lists out of it is an exercise in perseverance which usually ends I my giving up before I've actually gotten a correct answer. I would also suggest that the lack of support for enhancing the Logos Assistant feature - a limited prototype - shows no indication that the community at large is pushing for a conversational interface. This lack of support actually baffles me but then I am of an older generation.
I would like to see Faithlife concentrate their efforts on the boring stuff:- standardizing the interface e.g. learn one interface for parallel passages that applies across all types of parallel passages
- all documentation in a standardized format designed for its use as pop-up help rather than searching for help within an interactive, in help, in a manual (or glossary) ...
- continued work on squashing bugs at least until they are fixed faster than they are identified
- enhancement/completion of existing features e.g. Concordance tool for multiple word clusters, Bible sense lexicon for additional relationships, better handling of liturgical dates, sermon labeling, outline labeling . . .
- turn the Logos Assistant into a solid base for expansion
- parity across platforms
But if others agree, they must show it in their priorities in surveys, in feedback, and in online observation sessions ...
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Preventing hallucination, when that’s what the user wants, is something that can be improved. At the same time, people need to have proper expectations about what is possible with LLMs. What 100% correct body of knowledge would we train it on? It doesn’t exists. If it did exist, a large number of people wouldn’t agree on whether we’ve correctly identified it. For inerrantists, like myself, they have to realize that the biblical corpus is far, far (far…) too small to constitute the base of an LLM.
Ideally, imo, we should be aiming for a model that can perform as well as a PhD candidate in a given domain, while being open to correction when a user is capable of presenting reasons for a contrary view. On the one hand, I think any one not impressed has unrealistic expectations of human knowledge in general and not just AI. On the other hand, when you factor in how people will tend to rely upon on AI (as they do with search engines now) it’s perfectly reasonable that the hallucinations weigh greater in our minds than the fact that it can probably answer more factually in a broader range of domains than any human individual. It’s not just that it’s wrong sometimes, but *what* it can be wrong about that weigh heavily in our minds.
Its akin improper cognitive function: we are more likely to rely on someone who only has a high school education than someone with two PhDs if the former can treat as child’s play the question “Which weighs more: a pound of feathers or two pounds of bricks?” while the latter gets it wrong while also contradicting themselves. But when we consider that these LLMs aren’t doing “cognition” at all, and what they are doing, it’s actually a question we should expect it to get wrong. (I think this is a fairly well known test for exposing the way in which LLMs work and their limits. It’s something GPT3.5 always gets wrong and GPT4 sometimes gets right, but maybe just because trainers have fill in that gap and not because the fundamental limits the question points to has been made obsolete).
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
I saw a post on social media that led to me asking it some questions about Jesus and Adam.
Surprisingly it tried to use the bible to support the idea that Jesus was a created being in the style of Arius of the council of Nicea fame.
I corrected it, and it replied "I'm sorry (blah blah) here is my answer again" same answer, same Arianism.
So I corrected it a second time and reminded it of the reformed baptist perspective it was to be answering from, and that arianism which was present in its very first bullet point is not a perspective that a reformed baptist would hold.
It apologized, and gave the exact same answer a third time. It wasn't until I pretended to be angry with it for not listening, that it changed it to say that Adam is a created being that reflects to varying degrees of success an image of God, and that Jesus is also an image of, and part of the God head.
I agree that as loose as it is with things I know, i'm largely concerned about the things it says that I couldn't as easily verify.L2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, all the way through L10,
0 -
Rest of the response:
God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden, giving him dominion over creation and providing him with a suitable helper, Eve. Reformed Baptists, like other Christians, see Adam as the federal head of humanity. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they brought sin and death into the world, affecting all of their descendants (Genesis 3). In theological terms, this event is known as the Fall, and Adam's sin is referred to as original sin.
Jesus: Jesus Christ is the central figure of Christianity and is believed by Reformed Baptists to be the Son of God and the second person of the Trinity (comprised of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit). Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary, in Bethlehem (Matthew 1, Luke 2) and lived a sinless life. He is considered both fully God and fully human, and his life, teachings, death, and resurrection are the basis of the Christian faith.
Reformed Baptists believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah, prophesied throughout the Old Testament, who came to save humanity from sin and its consequences (John 3:16). Jesus is also referred to as the "last Adam" or the "second Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45), as he took on the role of the federal head of humanity in order to reverse the consequences of Adam's sin. Through his sacrificial death on the cross, Jesus paid the penalty for sin, and by his resurrection, he conquered death, providing a way for humanity to be reconciled to God and receive eternal life. Reformed Baptists, like other Reformed Christians, emphasize the doctrines of grace, which include the sovereignty of God in salvation and the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ for redemption.
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
(the rest of the first reply)
- Both Adam and Jesus were the head of a new creation. Adam was the head of the first creation, while Jesus is the head of the new creation in him (1 Corinthians 15:45-49; Colossians 1:15-20).
Differences:
- Adam was created by God, while Jesus is the eternal Son of God who existed before creation (John 1:1-3).
- Adam sinned and brought condemnation upon all humanity, while Jesus was sinless and able to offer salvation to all who believe in him (Romans 3:23-24; Hebrews 4:15).
- Adam's disobedience resulted in separation from God and a curse upon the earth, while Jesus' obedience resulted in reconciliation with God and the promise of a new heaven and earth (Romans 5:18-21; Revelation 21:1-4).
- Adam was a type or foreshadowing of Jesus, who came to fulfill God's plan of redemption (Romans 5:14; Hebrews 10:1-10).
- The account of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden focuses on the fall of humanity and the need for redemption, while the account of Jesus' life and ministry focuses on his fulfillment of prophecy and his work of salvation.
In conclusion, the accounts of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and Jesus Christ's life and ministry share some similarities but also have significant differences. As a reformed Baptist, I believe that Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of God's plan of redemption and that salvation comes only through faith in him.
He really got attached to the idea of Jesus as a created being after this:
My apologies for any confusion my previous response may have caused. As a reformed Baptist, I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity and reject Arianism, which denies the full divinity of Jesus Christ.
With that in mind, here are two 10-verse passages from the Bible that highlight similarities between Adam and Jesus:
10-Verse Passage for Adam: Genesis 1:26-2:17
This passage describes the creation of Adam and his placement in the Garden of Eden, as well as his fall into sin. Some of the similarities between Adam and Jesus that can be seen in this passage include:
- Both Adam and Jesus were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; Colossians 1:15)
ETC. it continued on this way for a while before I got really emphatic with it.
L2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, all the way through L10,
0 -
Using this version:
ChatGPT Mar 23 Version. Free Research Preview. ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or factsL2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, all the way through L10,
0 -
I don’t think it’s surprising that questions with a unusual constraints throw the model for a loop (aside from the fact that the prompt may be engineered to hit some key terms used in the writing of Unitarians or Jehovah’s Witnesses - I’m not saying this is the case, but offering explanations for the contradictions in its response). Here is GPT4 on same question.
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
I believe A.I. will become a full blown system and companies will have to deal with it or fall behind. I put forth the military as proof of that. I believe they are using it now with autonomous flying machines. And I believe they won't tell us and deny it if we ask. [H]
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
Rosie Perera said:xnman said:DAL said:
I asked “Describe Toxic Behavior” and it gave me information that’s very similar to a book that’s currently in prepub 👍😃👌 Below is the ChatGPT article and here’s the link to the book: https://www.logos.com/product/248255/how-to-deal-with-toxic-people
Toxic behavior refers to actions, attitudes, and habits that are harmful or damaging to others, often with the intention of exerting power or control. It can take many forms and can be exhibited by individuals, groups, or entire cultures. Some examples of toxic behavior include:
-
Verbal abuse: This includes yelling, name-calling, belittling, and insulting others. It can be used to manipulate or control others and can cause significant emotional harm.
-
Gaslighting: Gaslighting is a form of emotional abuse that involves manipulating someone into questioning their own perceptions, memories, and sanity. It can be used to make someone doubt themselves or feel crazy.
-
Manipulation: Manipulation involves using tactics such as guilt-tripping, playing the victim, or using emotional blackmail to get what one wants. It can be used to control others and can be very harmful.
-
Intimidation: Intimidation involves using threats or physical force to get what one wants. It can be used to control others and can be very harmful.
-
Passive-aggressiveness: Passive-aggressive behavior involves indirectly expressing anger or frustration, often through sarcasm or subtle insults. It can be used to manipulate others and can cause significant emotional harm.
Overall, toxic behavior is characterized by a lack of empathy and concern for others and a desire to exert power or control over others. It can be very damaging to individuals and communities and should be addressed and confronted when it occurs.
HELP!!! I THINK I AM MARRIED TO THAT PERSON!!!! lol
If you really think you are, it's not funny, and reaching out for help in an online forum is not likely to get you the help you need. Reach out to trusted local friends or pastor our counselor.
And if you are just joking, that's not funny either. Many people really are in relationships like this, and it can be scary and hard to get out. Of course the ideal should be to get help for the abusive person to change if one really did and does still love them, but I wouldn't keep myself in danger while that hopeful change is being worked on. Unfortunately many pastors/churches give advice contrary to this, forcing the abused person to forgive repeatedly and stay with the abuser, virtually ensuring a repeated cycle which can end tragically.
I’m currently counseling a mother with a toxic daughter (daughter is almost 30 years old). She finally realized her daughter is toxic and will take steps to keep her distance from her. I’ve tried to help her see for years how her daughter has treated her and it wasn’t until her daughter finally crossed a line she shouldn’t have that she finally opened her eyes!
DAL0 -
-
No, please, no. No, just, please, no. NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
0 -
.
0 -
yes. Agreed!
0 -
For those who've been watching my use of ChatGPT (Why did Lexham Include 1 Enoch in their English LXX? - Logos Forums and ChatGPT workflow - see AI at work (and pick up a little Bible interpretation methodology along the way) - Logos Forums), the more I use it, the more I don't want it integrated. Like Google, having it available on the side is sufficient and avoids the support problems that its answers and their interpretation would cause.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
the more I use it, the more I don't want it integrated
I'm arriving at the same conclusion for similar reasons (along with speed as well...no way it would 'speed up' Logos).
I will use it as a adjunct but I don't want it integrated unless some big changes are made.
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
For those who've been watching my use of ChatGPT (Why did Lexham Include 1 Enoch in their English LXX? - Logos Forums and ChatGPT workflow - see AI at work (and pick up a little Bible interpretation methodology along the way) - Logos Forums), the more I use it, the more I don't want it integrated. Like Google, having it available on the side is sufficient and avoids the support problems that its answers and their interpretation would cause.
The first point, regarding the fabricated quote, seems to me like a good reason in favor of Logos integration. Allowing the model(s) to consult Logos resources through the plugin API or fine tuning would make such "hallucinations" less likely. Ultimately, if we want LLMs to provide accurate information (especially when it comes to more niche domains), it needs to have access to it.
This is why I'm not persuaded by the argument that LLMs hallucinate and, therefore, we shouldn't want Logos integration. One way or another, LLMs will need to be exposed to the information if we expect greater accuracy. As I think I mentioned before, there also needs to be a reasonable expectation for what sort of accuracy is possible or should be demanded.
Regarding support problems. Since OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft all provide warnings at the various points of entry about things like hallucinations, people caught off guard by it bear some of the responsibility themselves. And I would expect a similar warning from FaithLife if it integrates (which seems inevitable at this point, whether it be 1 year or 5 years from now).
The concern that Logos will slow or halt progress on other areas, at least temporarily, is completely legitimate if we are convinced that these other things are more pressing. But that's probably a hard thing to poll their market on.
(I tried downloading the workflow, but I'm not sure how it's supposed to work... I've never used the workflow feature before.)
Doc B said:I'm arriving at the same conclusion for similar reasons (along with speed as well...no way it would 'speed up' Logos).
If we are talking about the plugin API, my guess is that it most likely wouldn't have any noticeable impact on your local install. It would probably just be querying FaithLife's servers? If we are talking about fine-tuning, that is done by OpenAI's servers. The wait-time you're looking at would mostly just be network traffic I imagine. But maybe I'm wrong.
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
J. Remington Bowling said:
The first point, regarding the fabricated quote,
The "proposed fabricated quote" ... I am unconvinced it is anything other than a post aging out of the web.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I too would rather have ChatGPT as something that could be used to the side and not integrated into Logos. I am quite thankful for the way Logos searches my library for me and assists in putting together my study aids. I do not though, wish for Logos to do my thinking for me, and ChatGPT feels very much as if it is attempting to do just that.
Above all these things, walk in love, which is the bond of perfection. - Colossians 3:14
0 -
I agree, I'm loving all these ideas as well! This would be such an enhancement - honestly beyond our imagination. I wonder... maybe we can ask ChatGPT how to integrate ChatGPT into the logos bible software to get some ideas to share and help out the company...
0
