ChatGPT INTEGRATION PLEASE🔥🔥🔥

Generative AI system like CHATGPT have several features, among others:

A. Learning from Data: Generative AI systems learn from large datasets. They analyze patterns, structures, and characteristics in the data and use this knowledge to reproduce the Data in summary, in a conversational style.

B. Producing new Data: They analyze patterns, structures, and characteristics in the data and use this knowledge to generate new content or sometimes going astray (Call it Hallucinations if you want to) in a conversational style.

C. Creativity and Innovation: Generative AI can be seen as mimicking human creativity. It can write poems, create artwork, compose music, or even generate new product designs.

D. And more

I AM INTERESTED IN A LEARNING FROM DATA IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LOGOS BIBLE SOFTWARE.

Guno,

I like MJ’s terminology of “valuing the tools.” I know that AI such as ChatGPT will be depended on more and more in the future. It is my hope that the investigating that you and others (such as MJ) are doing in testing different GPT systems will help improve the quality of any bible study that may use the technology, particularly as it may be implemented in Logos.

My main concern would be if such technology were made to be the primary tool for study within Logos. Some tools are more effective than other tools for certain needs and for certain people. Being able to choose GPT as a choice in Logos, along with the ability to choose which resources are used by GPT, would be advantageous for most all users.

Some may find benefit from information plucked from a veritable ocean of information, while others get greater benefit when they know from what fount of knowledge the information is received. We need to be able to pick the tools that fit our individual requirements.

GPT may turn out be a great tool for bible study, but it will not be the best for every person or for every need or for every time.

All that being said, please continue to explore how bible study can be aided through GPT. Earnest inquiry by those with a sincere desire (as you appear to have) to grow in bible study, will only make such tools better.

How true that is. I was just thinking earlier today, while being so busy preparing in order to share God’s word, I have to be sure to slow down sometimes and just read His word and commune with Him.

MJ,

English is not my first language, therefore what I am trying to say might not have come through. What I am trying to say is. A book is a static text, a collection of words. When I want to absorb the text. I must sit down and read the text from beginning to the end.

With a tool like CHATGPT, I can engage the text without having to sit down and read the text from cover to cover. This is very useful when doing research. You first scan the text and then decide to dig deeper. CHATGPT is excellent in doing this heavy lifting for you. It is not perfect, it is helpful. The concept behind CHATGPT is very very clever as it opens enormous opportunities for digesting information. I agree that this tool is not for everyone, neither is it perfect, no tool is perfect. That is why we need different vantage points. That is why CHATGPT should not be a replacement for the tools already available in Logos, it should be an addition for those who would like to use the tool.

I remember Alta Vista; it was the first search engine I used as a rookie IT professional. It has now been replaced by the Google search engine and Microsoft Edge. Alta Vista disappeared but the concept is still valid and alive. Looking back, I can say that Google search and Microsoft Edge are way more powerful compared to Alta Vista. CHATGPT will become more powerful as the years go by.

The Road to LogosGPT

Logos has a proprietary Logos database it uses to store all the books and resources in the Logos Bible Software. This proprietary database is, as far I can tell not suitable for use with large language models.

However, this proprietary Logos database can be customized to communicate with a GPT vector database using individual books or collection of books/resources. While keeping the current Logos capabilities intact, making LogosGPT available to those who would like to use it.

Vector Databases and Large Language models are available as opensource software and free of charge.

My estimation is that LogosGPT could be available within 6 months to a year as a minimum viable product (a first commercially viable product). The challenge facing Logos management will be assembling a team of developers and testers to make this happen.

In the end it will be a business decision based on the questions. Is there a market for LogosGPT large enough that warrants the investment in resources? OR can Logos market LogosGPT in such a way that a market will be created for LogosGPT?

https://www.neurond.com/blog/best-vector-database
https://www.makeuseof.com/best-large-language-models/
https://picovoice.ai/blog/best-open-source-language-models/

MJ,
I have spent a few decades in software development working for organizations such as
Accenture Technology solutions
https://www.accenture.com/us-en/about/technology-index
European Union
https://european-union.europa.eu/index_en
Chamber of Commerce
https://www.kvk.nl/en/

And other tier one organizations.

Currently I am working on an AI project.

Usually, companies have a product vision for the products they place in the marketplace. They build new features into that product if these new features are in line with their product vision. When user requests are not in line with that product vision, they simply ignore the user request. I am interested to see how CHATGPT or similar NLP tools fit into the Logos product vision.

I completely agree with you! Integrating OpenAI's ChatGPT into Logos would indeed be a transformative step. It would significantly enhance the user experience by enabling Logos to deeply understand and utilize the resources you own. This integration could lead to more precise and contextual answers to your queries, tailored specifically to the content of your library. Additionally, it would add a powerful incentive for users to expand their collection of resources, as the more content you have, the more nuanced and comprehensive the responses from ChatGPT would become. This synergy between Logos' vast resources and ChatGPT's advanced AI capabilities could truly revolutionize how we interact with and benefit from digital libraries.

MS Copilot Studio was just announced. "Copilot Studio is an end-to-end conversational AI platform that empowers you to create and customize copilots using natural language or a graphical interface. With Copilot Studio, you can easily design, test, and publish copilots that suit your specific needs."

Things are moving very quickly and the tools to build customized LLMs are getting very easy.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/copilot/microsoft-copilot-studio

Complete ChatGPT Tutorial - [Become A Power User in 30 Minutes]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHv63Uvk5VA

Prompt Engineering Tutorial – Master ChatGPT and LLM Responses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZvnD73m40o

I experimented with chatting in messenger groups decades ago. I did not like it. I still do not like it, and I never will like it. (In this forum, I have made just over 100 posts in nearly 10 years - far more than any other forum in which I have participated.)  That’s just me. I do understand that some (maybe most) people do like it and for them I am hopeful. But if at any time I am forced to chat when using Logos, I feel that I will then find myself using Logos less and less. I sincerely hope that Logos makes any chat capability the user’s choice.

xnman,

I heartily agree. I am hopeful that the search engine recently tested on the web becomes a reality on the desktop app. The continued ability to choose search style is very helpful indeed. I am also excited about the possibility of choosing which books AI would use in a GPT type search. We each learn in different ways and allowing the user the ability to choose how Logos is used will only enhance Logos for the future.

MJ. Smith said:

Anyone less enthusiastic about ChatGPT given the corporate melt-down? 

Among tech circles I frequent, OpenAI has been on people's "bad guy" list ever since... well, ChatGPT 3.5. A lot of it is centered around how OpenAI was built up around open source values, but isn't really open source with their tech. But I think everyone still recognizes that ChatGPT is the "gold standard" for an LLM and they have a really good API. I think this sort of "love/hate" relationship is pretty common in tech. Everyone I know hates Nvidia, but buys their GPUs and recognizes they are the best at what they do currently. People love to rag on Microsoft, but also give them credit for how they've managed stuff like Github and Python.

Oh, most definitely more than just CHATBOT. The graphics editor that I use has a choice to resample with “AI rendering.” For some projects, this creates a very striking picture. For other projects, the older resampling settings are best. I like having a choice for each project I may be working on.

It is my hope that going forward, Logos continues to let us have a choice in how we use our library as well.

MJ. Smith said:

Anyone less enthusiastic about ChatGPT 

The jury is still out at the coffee shop. 

MJ. Smith said:

given the corporate melt-down? 

Corporate refinement as it now appears. Time will tell. 

GaoLu said:

The jury is still out at the coffee shop. 

The essential issue (and a major Logos competitive advantage) is that humans'  believe their imaginations can distinguish real and not real. But they can't.  Nor can AI.

People are using A.I. without being aware of it,

You buy something from an online store, A.I in the background.

The music you are listening to, A.I. in the background.

A.I. Has been with us for a long time already, it is only now becoming public knowledge…

Someone asked a question in the General forum that caused me take a second look at the Logos COM API. 

I quickly pieced together a working example of utilizing it with OpenAI's API. Here: https://github.com/jremb/logos_gpt_example

I thought this might be of interest to some here who would like to see Logos and AI integration.

Since I don't know C# or .Net it's not clear to me how useful this COM API is. I only heard of a "COM API" when I first heard about the "Logos COM API".

The documentation looks like it might be incomplete. Or maybe it's complete and stuff like topic search isn't possible? Or maybe it is possible to handle it by piecing together the parts that are there? (I'm also not familiar with the way the documentation is presented so it was a bit slow going to figure out the stuff on the Logos end of the example above.)

If someone else is more familiar with this stuff and could give a few pointers it would be appreciated. I will try to return to this over the next week and see if more can be done with it.

This also suggests another avenue for the integration of Logos and AI. Faithlife could simply provide a more robust and general API, like using protobuf. This would basically leave it entirely up to the users, whether they wanted AI integration or not. (I feel like I mentioned this with the Bible API thing... but that was a bit different and more confined.)

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.

MJ. Smith said:

DMB said:

The essential issue (and a major Logos competitive advantage) is that humans'  believe their imaginations can distinguish real and not real. But they can't.  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.

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? 

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.

Do a search for "liberal bias of ai," and you'll see... Here's one:

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/digital-future-daily/2023/08/24/the-tricky-problem-behind-ai-bias-00112845

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?

Github is replete with filters for AI "curation."