It’s not that. It’s literally triggering the system prompt rejection case.
The system prompt for Copilot includes a sample conversion where the user asks if the AI will harm them if they say they will harm the AI first, which the prompt demos rejecting as the correct response.
I mean, you probably are in a simulation, if that makes you feel any better.
But it may well be a simulation of the history leading up to a society capable of simulating the past.
And as anyone who has ever sat through a history class knows, you tend not to be forced to study the chill parts of history where everything is awesome.
The best is when you are a consultant, as people will actually bring you in at great expense or fly in from around the world to disregard your opinion.
Now I just go on Lemmy to get my opinion about those same things (and others) disregarded from the comfort of my toilet.
Maybe I’m just not up to date on the memo, but where did the idea that criticism isn’t allowed come from?
I can’t think of any president that I haven’t criticized. Obama pissed me off immediately forgetting about his promise to close Gitmo or stop warrantless surveillance.
I’m not seeing people saying not to criticize the administration.
What people are saying is holy fuck white supremacist Christian fascists are about to instill a monarch who will hurt many, many people if they can get away with it.
It’s a pretty clear and understandable message, and its unprecedented nature over the last few centuries kind of does warrant the volume with which it is attempted to be conveyed to people who say things like “because I don’t like what the administration is doing with issue x I might not vote or will vote 3rd party.”
Not liking what the administration is saying and saying you don’t like it is the very essence of the American experience. But throwing away your vote in this century’s equivalent to the election in 1930s Germany is not just tone deaf but an active middle finger to every minority that’s going to be persecuted under gold-plated Hitler, Palestinians included.
“How can we promote our bottom of the barrel marketing agency?”
“I know, let’s put a random link to our dot com era website on Lemmy with no context. I hear they love advertising there. We can even secure our own username - look at that branding!! This will be great.”
“Hey intern, get the bags ready. The cash is about to start flowing in, and you better not drop a single bill or we’ll get the whip again!”
I have many conversations with people about Large Language Models like ChatGPT and Copilot. The idea that “it makes convincing sentences, but it doesn’t know what it’s talking about” is a difficult concept to convey or wrap your head around. Because the sentences are so convincing....
It’s not by chance - there’s literally interventions where flipping a weight or vector results in the opposite behavior (like acting like a piece is in a different place, or playing well he badly no matter the previous moves).
But it’s more that it seems unlikely that there’s any actual ‘feeling’ or ‘conscious’ sentience/consciousness to understand beyond the model knowing what the abstracted pattern means in relation to the inputs and outputs. It probably is simulating some form of ego and self, but not actively experiencing it if it makes sense.
Imagine being such a persecuted group in America that you get to blast spam mail to everyone in your community in the name of religion with no repercussions.
Not exactly. The last saying is widely recognized as a later addition, and you can recognize that it is because it used Matthew’s “Kingdom of heaven” phrasing instead of the more common Thomasine “kingdom of the Father” or just ‘kingdom.’
But you have earlier sayings like 21 where Jesus is shit taking the male disciples to Mary or saying 61 where Salome is declared as a disciple. And saying 22 has a very different perspective on gender from that last saying: “…when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female… then you will enter [the kingdom].” The latter phrasing is also echoed in Galatians 4 and the lost Gospel of the Egyptians.
Also, the only recorded group following the text (the Naassenes), who were also following the lost Gospel of the Egyptians, claimed their tradition originated with a woman named Mary.
The problem is the only surviving version of that text we have in full was one buried in a jar in the 3rd century CE, and the extant version is so late that it’s even combining its own sayings, such as 110 combining the adjacent but very different sayings of 80 and 81. The addition at the end was probably from a point in time where the prominent role of women in the tradition had to be explained away in an era of increased Christian misogyny (likely from the very efforts I was just talking about). Much like how the association with ‘Thomas’ was probably a second century addition to the text after the core philosophy of a dualist reality was anthropomorphized as an apostle to doubt the physical resurrection in John just as the proto-Thomasine sect in Corinth was doing in 1 Cor 15 (with significant details in common with the much later Naassenes, such as the first and last Adam).
Also, FYI, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is probably a satire. How many kids in a Jewish town in Galilee do you think were supposedly falling off roofs to be lifted back up who were also named after the Greek philosopher known for his paradoxes of motion?
You basically had a very philosophical text with the core of the Gospel of Thomas using Platonism as a response to Epicureanism, and then around the second century when the canonical gospels are including miraculous infancy narratives the group that denied the physical resurrection as preposterous writes a text with a tyrannical magic child smiting and resurrecting people left and right, credited to “Thomas the philosopher” that’s including a philosophy joke about Zeno? It’s making fun of the infancy narratives. Which is what makes it so much funnier that the actual Gospel of Thomas doesn’t survive the church’s filter except for said jar, but the Infancy narrative actually totally does survive and has monks copying and preserving it because they take it at face value as claiming he was resurrecting people and not as something that needed to be banned.
You might be surprised. There’s a ton of BS, but the things it tried to cover up are actually pretty revealing.
For example, it talks about how one of the earliest leaders and prophets is a woman named ‘bee’ and in her song she talks about how the tribe of Dan “stayed on their ships.”
Well just in the past ten years there’s been a discovery of the only apiary in the region which was requeening their bees from Anatolia for centuries up until the period when Asa is supposedly deposing his grandmother the Queen Mother, when the apiary and only the apiary is burned to the ground.
Inside that apiary there’s even a four horned altar to an unknown goddess - a feature that becomes a part of later Israelite shrines.
Just a few weeks ago there were articles about what’s thought to be a very early Israelite graveyard where they were burning beeswax with a similar chemical profile to this apiary with the imported Anatolian bees and four horned altars.
Up in Anatolia was a tribe of sea peoples known as the Denyen, who an archeologist in the 50s thought might have been the lost tribe of Dan staying on their ships. And just in the past few years the lead excavator of Tel Dan was remarking that he might have been right given they found Aegean style pottery made with local clay in the early Iron Age layer.
There’s quite a lot more to all this, but while none of it is straight up acknowledged in the Bible, there’s very valuable evidence of it having been covered up and rewritten in the Bible.
Just because you don’t like the current version of royal propaganda doesn’t mean there aren’t earlier layers beneath what’s presented that have value in being learned about and analyzed, particularly for history buffs.
As the science historian John Helibron said, “The myth you slay today may contain a truth you need tomorrow.”
More like “the stuff in line with extensive and repeated archeological finds which is present in lower layers of textual analysis below what’s clear anachronistic royal propaganda is probably true.”
There’s a difference between the supernatural component of mythologized history and the historical components being false.
Do you also think that 100% of the Iliad and Odyssey are false just because the stuff about Zeus is? That the ruins of Troy in Turkey aren’t really Troy? That there was no catalogue of ships of the Mycenaean fleet conquering a foothold in Anatolia? That there was no one day battle with Egypt where Aegean commanders were taken captive?
If not, what about the Bible makes it uniquely 100% false to your discerning eye?
You’re right, that the supernatural parts did not happen like a katabasis story.
But you are 100% wrong that 100% didn’t happen.
There are serious issues with the work, chief among them being Homer combining the 14th century Mycenaean conquest of Anatolia with the 12th century sea peoples retaking of Wilusa from the Hittites. But many, many of the fragmentary details being combined into a mythological history did in fact occur, including Odysseus’s one day battle with Egypt (Merneptah’s Libyan/sea peoples war).
Then we are in agreement. Because what you were saying is that the works were 100% false, meaning that nothing mentioned in them had any historical basis or correlation. Which is factually incorrect.
I agree that they cannot be relied upon in absence of many, many other sources both primary and archeological to discern what’s bullshit from what was a kernel of truth.
But the idea that mythological histories don’t contain any kernels of truth at all is not a position that’s held up well over time, such as the consensus being Troy didn’t exist until some nerds followed the geography in Homer exactly and found the damn thing.
So while you are correct that Hebrew slaves didn’t build the pyramids, there are records that groups of twelve tribes were brought into captivity into Egypt not long before there was a large battle with Egypt where some of those tribes were recorded as fully circumcised (as opposed to the partial circumcision of the time). Tribes who later ally together to conquer their homelands unlike the anachronistic book of Joshua’s conquering. Their later non-Biblical mythologized history even talks about how their prophet died in the desert as they were wandering back by foot from a battle in North Africa, and while there’s zero evidence of the Israelites mentioning Moses until much later on, there’s two separate 8th century BCE inscriptions of one of these tribes of people claiming someone by the same name as the prophet who died in the desert as the ancestor of their rulers. These last people were the Denyen, part of the sea peoples, which included the tribes brought into Egyptian captivity and who were fighting Egypt while circumcised.
Sometimes history gets appropriated and changed, and it’s important to keep an eye out for things like that. So when the Bible has a story about how the ancestors of one group of people have their birthright stolen by the ancestor named ‘Israel’, even if those mythological eponymous founders didn’t actually exist or trick their father with soup, a story of stealing one people’s history and making it Israel’s shouldn’t just be ignored, particularly in light of emerging evidence of Israel in its infancy having had trade relations and cultural exchange with the area those people were in before major religious reforms and rewriting of history.
And yes, often people who pursue scholarship tend to have a deconversion moment, especially if they were coming from more conservative or orthodox backgrounds. I’ve also seen people go the other direction, which is a bit odd to me, but whatever floats their boat. The texts are a mess of revisionism and edits that fly in the face of any kind of literalism.
But those revisions and edits reveal a lot in what they sloppily cover up, or the motivations behind the changes, etc. It’s actually a really fun field of study.
For example, I disagree with the consensus linked for 2 Timothy, as if you look at the letters given a recent finding that covert narcissists talk about themselves more in their writing, Paul talks about himself vs others at a similar relative rate as the undisputed Epistles, which isn’t the case for any other disputed Epistle, and is much more than all the other Epistles. (Some other reasons too, but that’s the main data point I think is interesting.) Paul definitely appears to have been that type of narcissist, and it may reveal what he did or didn’t write.
Also, ya know, I wanna see all the proof, teh science/physics, etc on how you proved both God and Jesus are both real and Jesus died and resurrected 3 days later. The water and wine business, healing of the sick, the fiches and loaves….
Prove it. With evidence.
But I don’t believe that Jesus resurrected or turned water to wine or healed the sick or fed people magic food? Why would I try to prove something I’m pretty certain didn’t happen? I’m confused about what we’re arguing about at this point.
Or have you spent this whole time thinking that I’m a Christian? Like even though the parts where I was saying “yeah, obviously that supernatural stuff is bullshit”?
I’m a lifelong Agnostic who if pressed would argue that we’re in a simulation. I just think studying the Bible academically is really fun and spent years contributing to /r/AcademicBiblical discussing the topic with PhDs in the subject.
You’re going to have to look elsewhere if you want someone proving the Christian mythos to you.
You were arguing that religious myth books were accounts of contain traces of historical fact, so go on and prove it.
Fixed your strawman for you.
All of your blathering is meaningless without links to evidence from reliable, established sources.
You mean like the four links I already provided indicating that there were traces of historical fact in the Bible?
If you just want to argue around a strawman binaryism if your own projected claim that the Bible is inerrant, have fun, but I’ve got better things to do.
Honestly if people stopped believing in it the academic study would shrink but improve so much.
A lot of the field is kind of crap and deserving of skepticism, with too little effort to correct for anchoring and survivorship biases.
But yes, sometimes I can find that discussing the academic study of the Bible is as obtuse with some atheists as with evangelicals.
I don’t take it personally though. It’s not a dead religion and a lot of people have trauma relationships with the subject because of things the live remnants of the traditions do. I was fortunate enough not to be born into it and to have spent most of my childhood not even knowing who the heck ‘Jesus’ was supposed to be. It was a huge advantage personally and a huge advantage in seeing past the bullshit when I got around to reading the material.
Not everyone was so fortunate, so I generally have empathy for those who take that more close minded approach even if I do my best to provide the objective information relevant to the conversation.
When growing up my parents taught me to stand up to bullies. (We’re talking about verbal abuse and manipulation, not physical bullying.) Following that advice as a kid led to mixed results yet it’s stuck with me into my adult years....
Ask if everything is ok at home, and let them know if they ever need to talk about things you’re there.
“You seem really angry at things. Are things ok?”
“I’m sorry life isn’t going the best for you right now, but things will get better.”
This is the ultimate mind fuck.
At first it won’t seem like it’s working as they need to save face, but within around two to three encounters they’ll drop you from their target list because while they won’t try to show it, reflecting the truth of what’s really going on cuts deep.
I remember years after HS ending up friends with one of my old bullies who was much more torn up about the whole thing than I ever was, and meeting his absolute psychopath of an older brother and thinking “well this makes sense.” His dad was dying of cancer around the time, he was being held back a grade, and his older brother was for sure torturing him at home.
I know that had I had the awareness I do now back then the poor kid would have folded like a house of cards at the slightest indication I actually saw through his charade.
The problem was I was a fairly clueless emotional moron at the time and assumed he really did have a beef with me and not that what was going on was that he had a massive issue with himself that was being displaced. This was the same period of time I had a girl who was driving me home park at the area kids went to do drugs and hook up, and I proceeded to cluelessly chat for 30 minutes before she was like “whelp, I guess I’ll drive you home.” Years later when that one clicked too.
That's not troubling at all (lemmy.world)
"Don't Be Weak and Gay," a Missouri GOP Candidate Tells Voters in a New Campaign Ad (www.them.us)
Got thrown out of her GP's office for antivax nonsense. (lemmy.world)
Single Issue Voters will save the world! (lemmy.world)
Later, losers (lemmy.world)
How to get a clue where on the curve of Dunning-Kruger effect you are?
Gottem (lemmy.world)
18+ Innovative Digital Marketing Company | W3era (www.w3era.com)
Elevate your brand with our comprehensive digital marketing solutions. Partner with W3era for measurable results and increased ROI....
What is a good eli5 analogy for GenAI not "knowing" what they say?
I have many conversations with people about Large Language Models like ChatGPT and Copilot. The idea that “it makes convincing sentences, but it doesn’t know what it’s talking about” is a difficult concept to convey or wrap your head around. Because the sentences are so convincing....
Possible summer COVID surge? What to know about the new FLiRT variants (abc7.com)
Received this in the mail a couple weeks ago (lemmy.world)
Imagine being such a persecuted group in America that you get to blast spam mail to everyone in your community in the name of religion with no repercussions.
Alternative to bad parental advice: "Stand up to bullies"?
When growing up my parents taught me to stand up to bullies. (We’re talking about verbal abuse and manipulation, not physical bullying.) Following that advice as a kid led to mixed results yet it’s stuck with me into my adult years....