5 ms·

As someone who was raised extremely religious, strayed to the polar opposite, and is now trying to find my way in between the two, I do find this interesting. W

As someone who was raised extremely religious, strayed to the polar opposite, and is now trying to find my way in between the two, I do find this interesting. While the understanding of LLMs and when/how to apply them makes sense, I would argue that they fit right alongside human interpretation of scripture. Consider that many pastors "teaching" scriptures aren't even formally educated. Arguing that you can't use an LLM for Christian apologetics because it "might not be true" overemphasizes the definition of "truth" when it comes to scripture and those teaching Christian apologetics, which is entirely influenced by what doctrine you subscribe to.

heyjamesknight 2y ago
There's a large gap between: 1. This interpretation might not be "true" but it is a good-faith effort that respects the text. 2. This LLM is fabricating verses, chapters, and even books of the Bible. If you've used LLMs much, you know that #2 is not only possible, its quite common. This is the kind of "might not be true" that you should be aware of when using an LLM for apologetics—or any effort where "truthiness" is important.
- darrmit 2y ago
  I do agree point #2 is possible, but is that not something that could be accounted for and tuned in the model to an extent? I believe a tuned LLM would be able to distinguish between interpretation and generation of scripture, but I may be wrong.
  - jimbokun 2y ago
    As far as I know it remains an unsolved problem.
- bmicraft 2y ago
  While I kinda agree, many denominations are also questionable in the "good-faith effort that respects the text" department. Some like making up new chapters while others overemphasize specific short sections while disregarding many others. Much more so than any decent LLM ever would. Even while they're "making stuff up", they largely stick to the general themes.
FartyMcFarter 2y ago
> Arguing that you can't use an LLM for Christian apologetics because it "might not be true" overemphasizes the definition of "truth" when it comes to scripture and those teaching Christian apologetics, which is entirely influenced by what doctrine you subscribe to. But the author is pretty explicit about wanting a high standard (e.g. insisting on using the best sources possible), and doesn't think that using LLMs is compatible with that goal.
freedomben 2y ago
Don't feel obligated to ask if you are not comfortable, but why are you trying to find a middle ground? When you say middle ground, what does that mean for you? Does that mean you have some faith but maybe not in a particular sect?
- darrmit 2y ago
  I mean I found great relief from high-demand Evangelicalism via giving up on my belief and seeking intense therapy from the traumas I experienced. However, as both I, my wife, and our kids age, we feel a need for some framework to live by, to some extent. The friction for me is I am just a very logical and evidence-driven person by nature, so while I recognize (at least for me) that there are some benefits to adhering to some religion or spirituality, the core Christian belief is really difficult for me and always has been. So I don't really know yet where I'll land.
  - BobaFloutist 2y ago
    Why do you need to adhere to religion or spirituality in order to establish a framework to live by? Many atheists and agnostics find great meaning and moral guidance from frameworks that at no point involve religion or spirituality.
    - wrs 2y ago
      Well, not according to the author of the post, and we know how concerned he is with truth, so this must be correct? “That leaves us with atheism, which provides us with not the smallest scrap of a foundation on which to build any claims about the purpose of life, or what is a good or bad.” [0] This is confusingly supported by a quote from C.S. Lewis making the point that it’s better to believe in something that “feels important”, whether or not it’s true. [0] https://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/what-if-none-of-it-is-true/ https://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/what-if-none-of-it-is-tru...
      - BobaFloutist 2y ago
causal 2y ago
But this isn't just claiming to produce some benign facts, it is trying to make claims on absolute truths with consequences as dire as "going to hell". Even if you don't believe, the creators certainly intend for their bot to have eternal consequences. Like selling an LLM with the claim it can give advice better than most doctors and should be used as such, the intent behind the apologetics bot is just as reckless and conceited.
vunderba 2y ago
That's not really what the article is talking about. The article is referring to the fact that you can ask for specific verses in some version/translation (that are KNOWN) and the potential for the LLM to confidently generate a completely fabricated or subtly different copy. And going a step further, any follow-up questions to the LLM will be using this incorrect copy as the source for interpretation causing it to go even further in the wrong direction. Incidentally - this was occurring using a custom fine-tuned model with an added layer of RAG.
jimbokun 2y ago
Did you read the article? The main example he gives is a simple factual matter about the words a specific early Christian manuscript. The LLM invented new text that’s not at all what’s in the manuscript. He also convincingly argues people performing poor apologetics is no excuse to deploy an LLM performing poor apologetics.
scotty79 2y ago
> now trying to find my way in between the two What's your motivation for doing that?

heyjamesknight 2y ago

There's a large gap between: 1. This interpretation might not be "true" but it is a good-faith effort that respects the text. 2. This LLM is fabricating verses, chapters, and even books of the Bible. If you've used LLMs much, you know that #2 is not only possible, its quite common. This is the kind of "might not be true" that you should be aware of when using an LLM for apologetics—or any effort where "truthiness" is important.

darrmit 2y ago
I do agree point #2 is possible, but is that not something that could be accounted for and tuned in the model to an extent? I believe a tuned LLM would be able to distinguish between interpretation and generation of scripture, but I may be wrong.
- jimbokun 2y ago
  As far as I know it remains an unsolved problem.
bmicraft 2y ago
While I kinda agree, many denominations are also questionable in the "good-faith effort that respects the text" department. Some like making up new chapters while others overemphasize specific short sections while disregarding many others. Much more so than any decent LLM ever would. Even while they're "making stuff up", they largely stick to the general themes.

FartyMcFarter 2y ago

> Arguing that you can't use an LLM for Christian apologetics because it "might not be true" overemphasizes the definition of "truth" when it comes to scripture and those teaching Christian apologetics, which is entirely influenced by what doctrine you subscribe to. But the author is pretty explicit about wanting a high standard (e.g. insisting on using the best sources possible), and doesn't think that using LLMs is compatible with that goal.

freedomben 2y ago

Don't feel obligated to ask if you are not comfortable, but why are you trying to find a middle ground? When you say middle ground, what does that mean for you? Does that mean you have some faith but maybe not in a particular sect?

darrmit 2y ago
I mean I found great relief from high-demand Evangelicalism via giving up on my belief and seeking intense therapy from the traumas I experienced. However, as both I, my wife, and our kids age, we feel a need for some framework to live by, to some extent. The friction for me is I am just a very logical and evidence-driven person by nature, so while I recognize (at least for me) that there are some benefits to adhering to some religion or spirituality, the core Christian belief is really difficult for me and always has been. So I don't really know yet where I'll land.
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  Why do you need to adhere to religion or spirituality in order to establish a framework to live by? Many atheists and agnostics find great meaning and moral guidance from frameworks that at no point involve religion or spirituality.
  - wrs 2y ago
    Well, not according to the author of the post, and we know how concerned he is with truth, so this must be correct? “That leaves us with atheism, which provides us with not the smallest scrap of a foundation on which to build any claims about the purpose of life, or what is a good or bad.” [0] This is confusingly supported by a quote from C.S. Lewis making the point that it’s better to believe in something that “feels important”, whether or not it’s true. [0] https://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/what-if-none-of-it-is-true/ https://lukeplant.me.uk/blog/posts/what-if-none-of-it-is-tru...
    - BobaFloutist 2y ago

causal 2y ago

But this isn't just claiming to produce some benign facts, it is trying to make claims on absolute truths with consequences as dire as "going to hell". Even if you don't believe, the creators certainly intend for their bot to have eternal consequences. Like selling an LLM with the claim it can give advice better than most doctors and should be used as such, the intent behind the apologetics bot is just as reckless and conceited.

vunderba 2y ago

That's not really what the article is talking about. The article is referring to the fact that you can ask for specific verses in some version/translation (that are KNOWN) and the potential for the LLM to confidently generate a completely fabricated or subtly different copy. And going a step further, any follow-up questions to the LLM will be using this incorrect copy as the source for interpretation causing it to go even further in the wrong direction. Incidentally - this was occurring using a custom fine-tuned model with an added layer of RAG.

jimbokun 2y ago

Did you read the article? The main example he gives is a simple factual matter about the words a specific early Christian manuscript. The LLM invented new text that’s not at all what’s in the manuscript. He also convincingly argues people performing poor apologetics is no excuse to deploy an LLM performing poor apologetics.

scotty79 2y ago

> now trying to find my way in between the two What's your motivation for doing that?