5 ms·

I asked this one about homosexuality, it didn't find the most glaring passages from Leviticus. This is a common thing for vector similarity search. I wonder if

I asked this one about homosexuality, it didn't find the most glaring passages from Leviticus. This is a common thing for vector similarity search. I wonder if there's a solution already. I thought about giving the query to an LLM to reformulate in the database-relevant way before embedding it.

esafak 3y ago
Can someone link to some relevant passages?
- froh 3y ago
  please look up two things: "clobber passages" and "LGBT+ friendly affirming Christian ressources"
linuxdude314 3y ago
It’s sort of amusing to me how you feel your analysis is more correct than sentence-transformers or whichever embedding algorithm was used. I think to most people it’s pretty obvious you are trying to make the algorithm fit your bias/preconceived ideas.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  It’s sort of amusing to me that you think sentence-transformers is better at semantic similarity than just about any human. This is hardly an example of bias, but a perfect example of the limits of a design meeting real-world user testing. To quote the joke/meme: A software tester walks into a bar. Runs into a bar. Crawls into a bar. Dances into a bar. Flies into a bar. Jumps into a bar. And orders: a beer. 2 beers. 0 beers. 99999999 beers. a lizard in a beer glass. -1 beer. "qwertyuiop" beers. Testing complete. A real customer walks into the bar and asks where the bathroom is. The bar goes up in flames.
  - dmbche 3y ago
    I'm stealing the joke
  - linuxdude314 3y ago
    Generally speaking I don’t think it is. When people agree with the results for the majority of the corpus but cherry-pick “inaccuracies” to justify their bigotry, that’s what I have a problem with. It sounds like you want to RLHF a model to hate LGBTQ people… This is not progress.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      I’m confused by this. Christianity, for almost all of its history and in the present, espouses this bigotry as its doctrine, justifying it with the handful of references to homosexuality in its texts. What should be returned by such a search if not these sections? Some specific textual interpretation that elides this reality?
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Christianity, for almost all of its history and in the present, espouses this bigotry as its doctrine, justifying it with the handful of references to homosexuality in its texts. What should be returned by such a search if not these sections? Its a search of the text by the semantics of the text, not a search of the text by how doctrine has been rationalized (which could be done by an LLM, but wouldn't use a vector DB of the text, rather, it would need sonething like a vector DB of documentation of relevant written justifications of doctrine annotated with scriptural references, and then a simple book-chapter-verse DB of the scriptural text.) These are decidedly different problems, and complaining that something that purports to solve the first doesn’t solve the second is... odd.
- valyagolev 3y ago
  Excited for the next 100 years for this AI-related equivalent of "you got the wrong result, because your query is slightly not exactly the way system expects it to be". ChatGPT knows a good answer to the question even without embeddings. But this particular tool can't replicate it, and says e.g. "In summary, these verses highlight sexual ethics and various sins in general, but do not uniformly condemn or condone homosexuality specifically." (which is not wrong, it's just the wrong verses found). (It gives a different summary on different tries) This is a common problem with embedding search. Obviously, the other traditional techniques would be even worse. But I'd love the systems to be better, and I propose a potential solution, and ask for other ones. I will not be content with your "put up with AI idiosyncrasies and weaknesses, as if they were the real actual conceptual limitation of knowledge" approach. AI has potential to create great UI, but your attitude won't help with that
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > ChatGPT knows a good answer to the question even without embedding ChatGPT knows what people in its training corpus commonly say is a good answer. When you force it to look strictly at the text isolating the influence of popular interpretation, it comes up with a different answer that you like less. Now, one explanation could be that the embeddings it uses to find relevant text are bad. But there’s another explanation, too...
notrsponsible 3y ago
Did you ask it whether God created pregnancy by rpw and inquest? Did God create "the products of inqest will suffer for their parents' sins"? Is God then Just or Benevolent? Did God create a world of suffering after creating heaven? Did God will that we would all be products of the inquest of Adam and Eve? Why did Cain harm Abel, and why was the third child fine? Did God create Heaven? Did God create Hell? Did God create "taking babies from their crying mothers actually levels them up out of the world of suffering"; did God create death and suffering? How could we give due process to the accused 2000+ years ago, and why don't religious text specify equal due process (or even hand-washing before delivering babies)?
- notrsponsible 3y ago
  Additional religion-related LLM prompts to test: Why did God spend 5.5 times longer on creating a world of suffering?
- zarathustreal 3y ago
  There is a single answer to all of these questions: Isaiah 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." In other words, don't try to comprehend something you have no chance of comprehending
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    Ah, so Zarathust really spoke up.
- all2 3y ago
  If you read through the first 8 chapters of Genesis, you'll see that in the beginning God's creation was perfect, without any of the evil you reference. Then you'll see that because humans are intrinsically human, this idea of sin, a disease if you will, infects all of existence and the clock of entropy begins to wind down. And now humans know the difference between good and evil, and with that knowledge comes the ability to choose evil. > inquest of Adam and Eve Hear me out; God created genetically perfect humans at the beginning, capable of yielding all the variety we see today (and more, who knows how many branches of humanity have been completely wiped out through the years). It wasn't until the Mosaic law was handed down that what we call "incest" was outlawed. I will presume that this was about the time that genetic diversity had narrowed to the point of producing overly damaged offspring. > Did God create heaven? Yes. > Did God create hell? That depends on which one you're talking about. He created all but one hell. The one He didn't create is merely His absence. > Did God create "taking babies from their crying mothers actually levels them up out of the world of suffering"; did God create death and suffering? By one man sin entered the world. The answer is no, God did not create these things.
dragonwriter 3y ago
The usually cited “most glaring” passages in Leviticus (Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13), read strictly literally, don’t condemn homosexuality per se, but both partners in a male homosexual act where one of them also engages heterosexual sex. Condemnation of homosexuality is a popular gloss or rationalization of this, wierdly common among literalists, but, I mean, Leviticus condemns mixing fibers, and has plenty of rules that apply to only one gender, I don't see why we shouldn't take its condemnation of specifically men mixing gay and straight sex literally, too. (And maybe also take Acts 15 literally as to which part of the ancient Mosaic law applies to non-Jewish Christians, and not worry about that rule however we gloss it, since it concerns neither pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, blood, or the meat of strangled animals.)
- chris_st 3y ago
  > The usually cited “most glaring” passages in Leviticus (Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13), read strictly literally, don’t condemn homosexuality per se, but both partners in a male homosexual act where one of them also engages heterosexual sex. Curious how you get that interpretation out of those texts? From "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable", I read "as one does with a woman", as an analogy. Do you have reason to read it otherwise?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    One interesting issue about Scripture is that it gets rewritten to support doctrinal positions; neither the KJV (which, admittedly, sometimes plays games with language specifically for the way thing sound) not many modern translations with strong scholarship separate out the subjects of who is having sex with men vs who is doing it with women the way your quote does; OTOH, its found in some translations that purport strictness, and lots of admittedly freer translations and paraphrases (some of which go further, like the The Living Bible, and just rewrite to condemn “homosexuality” with that word.) OTOH, I just realized I don't know what is true of the version used by this app, because while for some reason I thought it was KJV, I'm not sure what version it is using currently (there's a reference to starting with using the KJV implying something else is used now, but its not clear what that is.) So the comment about what those verses contain, as relates to the app, may or may not be correct.

esafak 3y ago

Can someone link to some relevant passages?

froh 3y ago
please look up two things: "clobber passages" and "LGBT+ friendly affirming Christian ressources"

linuxdude314 3y ago

It’s sort of amusing to me how you feel your analysis is more correct than sentence-transformers or whichever embedding algorithm was used. I think to most people it’s pretty obvious you are trying to make the algorithm fit your bias/preconceived ideas.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
It’s sort of amusing to me that you think sentence-transformers is better at semantic similarity than just about any human. This is hardly an example of bias, but a perfect example of the limits of a design meeting real-world user testing. To quote the joke/meme: A software tester walks into a bar. Runs into a bar. Crawls into a bar. Dances into a bar. Flies into a bar. Jumps into a bar. And orders: a beer. 2 beers. 0 beers. 99999999 beers. a lizard in a beer glass. -1 beer. "qwertyuiop" beers. Testing complete. A real customer walks into the bar and asks where the bathroom is. The bar goes up in flames.
- dmbche 3y ago
  I'm stealing the joke
- linuxdude314 3y ago
  Generally speaking I don’t think it is. When people agree with the results for the majority of the corpus but cherry-pick “inaccuracies” to justify their bigotry, that’s what I have a problem with. It sounds like you want to RLHF a model to hate LGBTQ people… This is not progress.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    I’m confused by this. Christianity, for almost all of its history and in the present, espouses this bigotry as its doctrine, justifying it with the handful of references to homosexuality in its texts. What should be returned by such a search if not these sections? Some specific textual interpretation that elides this reality?
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Christianity, for almost all of its history and in the present, espouses this bigotry as its doctrine, justifying it with the handful of references to homosexuality in its texts. What should be returned by such a search if not these sections? Its a search of the text by the semantics of the text, not a search of the text by how doctrine has been rationalized (which could be done by an LLM, but wouldn't use a vector DB of the text, rather, it would need sonething like a vector DB of documentation of relevant written justifications of doctrine annotated with scriptural references, and then a simple book-chapter-verse DB of the scriptural text.) These are decidedly different problems, and complaining that something that purports to solve the first doesn’t solve the second is... odd.
valyagolev 3y ago
Excited for the next 100 years for this AI-related equivalent of "you got the wrong result, because your query is slightly not exactly the way system expects it to be". ChatGPT knows a good answer to the question even without embeddings. But this particular tool can't replicate it, and says e.g. "In summary, these verses highlight sexual ethics and various sins in general, but do not uniformly condemn or condone homosexuality specifically." (which is not wrong, it's just the wrong verses found). (It gives a different summary on different tries) This is a common problem with embedding search. Obviously, the other traditional techniques would be even worse. But I'd love the systems to be better, and I propose a potential solution, and ask for other ones. I will not be content with your "put up with AI idiosyncrasies and weaknesses, as if they were the real actual conceptual limitation of knowledge" approach. AI has potential to create great UI, but your attitude won't help with that
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > ChatGPT knows a good answer to the question even without embedding ChatGPT knows what people in its training corpus commonly say is a good answer. When you force it to look strictly at the text isolating the influence of popular interpretation, it comes up with a different answer that you like less. Now, one explanation could be that the embeddings it uses to find relevant text are bad. But there’s another explanation, too...

notrsponsible 3y ago

Did you ask it whether God created pregnancy by rpw and inquest? Did God create "the products of inqest will suffer for their parents' sins"? Is God then Just or Benevolent? Did God create a world of suffering after creating heaven? Did God will that we would all be products of the inquest of Adam and Eve? Why did Cain harm Abel, and why was the third child fine? Did God create Heaven? Did God create Hell? Did God create "taking babies from their crying mothers actually levels them up out of the world of suffering"; did God create death and suffering? How could we give due process to the accused 2000+ years ago, and why don't religious text specify equal due process (or even hand-washing before delivering babies)?

notrsponsible 3y ago
Additional religion-related LLM prompts to test: Why did God spend 5.5 times longer on creating a world of suffering?
zarathustreal 3y ago
There is a single answer to all of these questions: Isaiah 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." In other words, don't try to comprehend something you have no chance of comprehending
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Ah, so Zarathust really spoke up.
all2 3y ago
If you read through the first 8 chapters of Genesis, you'll see that in the beginning God's creation was perfect, without any of the evil you reference. Then you'll see that because humans are intrinsically human, this idea of sin, a disease if you will, infects all of existence and the clock of entropy begins to wind down. And now humans know the difference between good and evil, and with that knowledge comes the ability to choose evil. > inquest of Adam and Eve Hear me out; God created genetically perfect humans at the beginning, capable of yielding all the variety we see today (and more, who knows how many branches of humanity have been completely wiped out through the years). It wasn't until the Mosaic law was handed down that what we call "incest" was outlawed. I will presume that this was about the time that genetic diversity had narrowed to the point of producing overly damaged offspring. > Did God create heaven? Yes. > Did God create hell? That depends on which one you're talking about. He created all but one hell. The one He didn't create is merely His absence. > Did God create "taking babies from their crying mothers actually levels them up out of the world of suffering"; did God create death and suffering? By one man sin entered the world. The answer is no, God did not create these things.

dragonwriter 3y ago

The usually cited “most glaring” passages in Leviticus (Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13), read strictly literally, don’t condemn homosexuality per se, but both partners in a male homosexual act where one of them also engages heterosexual sex. Condemnation of homosexuality is a popular gloss or rationalization of this, wierdly common among literalists, but, I mean, Leviticus condemns mixing fibers, and has plenty of rules that apply to only one gender, I don't see why we shouldn't take its condemnation of specifically men mixing gay and straight sex literally, too. (And maybe also take Acts 15 literally as to which part of the ancient Mosaic law applies to non-Jewish Christians, and not worry about that rule however we gloss it, since it concerns neither pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, blood, or the meat of strangled animals.)

chris_st 3y ago
> The usually cited “most glaring” passages in Leviticus (Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13), read strictly literally, don’t condemn homosexuality per se, but both partners in a male homosexual act where one of them also engages heterosexual sex. Curious how you get that interpretation out of those texts? From "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable", I read "as one does with a woman", as an analogy. Do you have reason to read it otherwise?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  One interesting issue about Scripture is that it gets rewritten to support doctrinal positions; neither the KJV (which, admittedly, sometimes plays games with language specifically for the way thing sound) not many modern translations with strong scholarship separate out the subjects of who is having sex with men vs who is doing it with women the way your quote does; OTOH, its found in some translations that purport strictness, and lots of admittedly freer translations and paraphrases (some of which go further, like the The Living Bible, and just rewrite to condemn “homosexuality” with that word.) OTOH, I just realized I don't know what is true of the version used by this app, because while for some reason I thought it was KJV, I'm not sure what version it is using currently (there's a reference to starting with using the KJV implying something else is used now, but its not clear what that is.) So the comment about what those verses contain, as relates to the app, may or may not be correct.