5 ms·

> The report complains that when asked about the age of the universe, AIs just give the scientific consensus answer of 13bn years, never mentioning that young e

> The report complains that when asked about the age of the universe, AIs just give the scientific consensus answer of 13bn years, never mentioning that young earth creationists believe it’s 600 [SIC] years old. Where do you stop once you go down this rabbit hole? Which faith(s) get their views injected in? Christian? Muslim? Hindu? Pagan Gods? Should I get the perspective of the follower's of Thor when I ask a question? Note that you can always ask for the religious perspective you're interested in. IME with the religion(s) I grew up in or know a great deal about, the LLMs are pretty good at answering accurately and respectfully. Nearly all the products already offer you tools to personalize the output for you too if you want to inject your faith into the answers, so it's not like the LLMs won't give you a religious perspective if you want it.

skeeter2020 5mo ago
The analogy that jumps to mind immediately is "you get the wikipedia page by default, but have the option to explore the page's metadata (including conversations)." This feels reasonable, and how most people use wikipedia - which isn't surprising since you're often getting an LLM's output from the training on the exact same information. The complaints in the report seem to miss the point IMO, jumping to some form of artificial intelligence and applying it to what is text prediction that unsurprisingly reflects the body of human knowledge on which it is trained.
Tangurena2 5mo ago
> young earth creationists believe it’s 600 years old Ahem, 6000 years, approximately. > around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC, per the proleptic Julian calendar. While the Gregorian calendar was in use for about 70 years by the time of his "calculation" of the age of the Earth, the Gregorian calendar was a Catholic invention and Ussher was very Protestant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher Physical evident strongly supports the 13-ish billion year age. Radioactive decay shows that a young earth could not exist, as there would be lots of short-lived primordial radioactive isotopes. Instead, the only primordial radioactives are those with very long half-lives. If there were a different rate of radioactive decay (as some YECs try to suggest), the Earth would still be a molten ball of lava/magma with no solid surface. And definately no liquid water anywhere.
- freedomben 5mo ago
  Yes, the article had a typo in it (I quoted the article verbatim other than the [SIC] that I added). The correct belief of young-earth creationists is 6,000 years, not 600. For the record I don't think that impacts my point at all. For the curious, that number is largely arrived at by working backward through time using the reported ages of the Old Testament prophets going back to Adam in the book of Genesis.
- nancyminusone 5mo ago
  -4004 earth not found?
- kloop 5mo ago
  > Radioactive decay shows that a young earth could not exist This is one of the worst arguments against young earth creationism. You have to posit a being who can create the universe, but can't create already decayed elements.
  - Ardren 5mo ago
    Creationism does not want to say "magic" and admit that God is intentionally trying to deceive people. So that's why some of these responses seem silly. I mean they are, but only because the pro-creationism arguments are silly.
  - dhosek 5mo ago
    Which then raises the idea that young earth creationism posits a God who would create a world that intentionally misleads people about its age. And yet if you ask many a young earth creationist about the dome in the heavens separating the waters above from the waters below, they will have no idea what you’re talking about¹ because they insist on literal interpretations of a text that they didn’t make it through the first page of. ⸻ 1. Based on firsthand experience.
    - coldtea 5mo ago
      >Which then raises the idea that young earth creationism posits a God who would create a world that intentionally misleads people about its age. Not such a good argument either. They're way ahead of you: "The lord moves in mysterious ways" and all that.
expedition32 5mo ago
So many different races and religions that it's best to stick to good old secularism.
- graemep 5mo ago
  Secularism can mean a wide range of beliefs. A secularist might be a communist of fascist or a libertarian or a socialist or..... How does race come into it at all? Religion is about belief and most religions welcome people of any race.
  - Cthulhu_ 5mo ago
    I suspect the comment means culture, which is frequently confused with race. But culture is also not uniform and will differ by individual etc.
    - graemep 5mo ago
      Then maybe my other point applies. Secularism can exist within many cultures
  - Starman_Jones 5mo ago
    In American English, “race and religion” is an old-timey expression that’s typically used as a broad identifier in a melting-pot context, eg. “We are a nation of many nationalities, many races, many religions…” ~FDR
- linhns 5mo ago
  Some people consider secularism a religion though.
  - Salgat 5mo ago
    Religion relies on assumptions that cannot be proven physically, secularism just avoids those assumptions (I say this as a Christian who finds secular biblical scholarship fascinating and helpful).
Cthulhu_ 5mo ago
I mean christianity is a major religion and the Bible considered a major source, but that's just one of many. Does AI even consider that in 1884, meridian time personnel met in Washington to change Earth time? First words said was that only 1 day could be used on Earth to not change the 1 day bible. So they applied the 1 day and ignored the other 3 days. The bible time was wrong then and it proved wrong today. This a major lie has so much evil feed from it's wrong. In other words, 4 Earth Quadrants simultaneously rotate inside 4 Time Cube Quarters to create 4 - 24 hour days within one Earth rotation.

skeeter2020 5mo ago

The analogy that jumps to mind immediately is "you get the wikipedia page by default, but have the option to explore the page's metadata (including conversations)." This feels reasonable, and how most people use wikipedia - which isn't surprising since you're often getting an LLM's output from the training on the exact same information. The complaints in the report seem to miss the point IMO, jumping to some form of artificial intelligence and applying it to what is text prediction that unsurprisingly reflects the body of human knowledge on which it is trained.

Tangurena2 5mo ago

> young earth creationists believe it’s 600 years old Ahem, 6000 years, approximately. > around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC, per the proleptic Julian calendar. While the Gregorian calendar was in use for about 70 years by the time of his "calculation" of the age of the Earth, the Gregorian calendar was a Catholic invention and Ussher was very Protestant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher Physical evident strongly supports the 13-ish billion year age. Radioactive decay shows that a young earth could not exist, as there would be lots of short-lived primordial radioactive isotopes. Instead, the only primordial radioactives are those with very long half-lives. If there were a different rate of radioactive decay (as some YECs try to suggest), the Earth would still be a molten ball of lava/magma with no solid surface. And definately no liquid water anywhere.

freedomben 5mo ago
Yes, the article had a typo in it (I quoted the article verbatim other than the [SIC] that I added). The correct belief of young-earth creationists is 6,000 years, not 600. For the record I don't think that impacts my point at all. For the curious, that number is largely arrived at by working backward through time using the reported ages of the Old Testament prophets going back to Adam in the book of Genesis.
nancyminusone 5mo ago
-4004 earth not found?
kloop 5mo ago
> Radioactive decay shows that a young earth could not exist This is one of the worst arguments against young earth creationism. You have to posit a being who can create the universe, but can't create already decayed elements.
- Ardren 5mo ago
  Creationism does not want to say "magic" and admit that God is intentionally trying to deceive people. So that's why some of these responses seem silly. I mean they are, but only because the pro-creationism arguments are silly.
- dhosek 5mo ago
  Which then raises the idea that young earth creationism posits a God who would create a world that intentionally misleads people about its age. And yet if you ask many a young earth creationist about the dome in the heavens separating the waters above from the waters below, they will have no idea what you’re talking about¹ because they insist on literal interpretations of a text that they didn’t make it through the first page of. ⸻ 1. Based on firsthand experience.
  - coldtea 5mo ago
    >Which then raises the idea that young earth creationism posits a God who would create a world that intentionally misleads people about its age. Not such a good argument either. They're way ahead of you: "The lord moves in mysterious ways" and all that.

expedition32 5mo ago

So many different races and religions that it's best to stick to good old secularism.

graemep 5mo ago
Secularism can mean a wide range of beliefs. A secularist might be a communist of fascist or a libertarian or a socialist or..... How does race come into it at all? Religion is about belief and most religions welcome people of any race.
- Cthulhu_ 5mo ago
  I suspect the comment means culture, which is frequently confused with race. But culture is also not uniform and will differ by individual etc.
  - graemep 5mo ago
    Then maybe my other point applies. Secularism can exist within many cultures
- Starman_Jones 5mo ago
  In American English, “race and religion” is an old-timey expression that’s typically used as a broad identifier in a melting-pot context, eg. “We are a nation of many nationalities, many races, many religions…” ~FDR
linhns 5mo ago
Some people consider secularism a religion though.
- Salgat 5mo ago
  Religion relies on assumptions that cannot be proven physically, secularism just avoids those assumptions (I say this as a Christian who finds secular biblical scholarship fascinating and helpful).

Cthulhu_ 5mo ago

I mean christianity is a major religion and the Bible considered a major source, but that's just one of many. Does AI even consider that in 1884, meridian time personnel met in Washington to change Earth time? First words said was that only 1 day could be used on Earth to not change the 1 day bible. So they applied the 1 day and ignored the other 3 days. The bible time was wrong then and it proved wrong today. This a major lie has so much evil feed from it's wrong. In other words, 4 Earth Quadrants simultaneously rotate inside 4 Time Cube Quarters to create 4 - 24 hour days within one Earth rotation.