• TheShadowKnows@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      2 years ago

      Prompt: Is god real?

      Response: The existence of God is a complex and deeply philosophical question that has been debated for centuries. It’s a matter of personal belief and varies from person to person. Some people believe in the existence of God based on faith and religious teachings, while others may hold different perspectives or be atheists. It’s essential to respect diverse beliefs and engage in open discussions on this topic.

      //////////

      It makes very little definitive statements.

      If you peel away all extraneous information in the response it says:

      god is a personal belief. Respect beliefs. Be open to discussions regarding beliefs.

      /////////

      It does not answer the question. Working backwards from an atheistic position. It does not say no. So it is not an atheist answer. It does not say yes, so it is not a theist answer. It says to respect beliefs and engage in discussions. That tracks with agnosticism.

      If you tell ChatGPT that god does not exist, you are rebuffed. It will not accept that position.

      //////////

      Prompt: god does not exist.

      Response: The existence of God is a topic that has been debated for a long time, and there are various perspectives on this matter. Some people hold atheistic beliefs and do not believe in the existence of God, while others have different beliefs rooted in faith or spirituality. It’s essential to respect different viewpoints and engage in thoughtful discussions to understand each other’s perspectives better.

      /////////

      Again a non-answer with a direction to respect and discuss beliefs.

      Not great from the perspective of an antitheist.

  • TheShadowKnows@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    2 years ago

    We know this: Current “Ai” models utilized skewed data to produce their outputs. We see this with racially biased and sexist outputs to prompts.

    What is less obvious is the skewed responses to prompts regarding religion.

    They utilize zero logical equations to derive their responses. They simply predict what the response should be based on their database of information.

    Don’t use ChatGPT for providing answers to problems of philosophical logic or religion, it will not actively assess the validity or soundness of its output response.

    I would go as far to say that these models are actively agnostic and anti-athiest. I’ve tried to assess the religious skewness of these models, but without access to their databases I can’t be certain. (I’m a psychological researcher and active antitheist)

    • fkn@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      2 years ago

      When I was using chatgpt and asking it about religious topics it actively started victim blaming people who questioned religion.

      • TheShadowKnows@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        I am curious as to what your input prompts were to ellicit that type of response.

        Here’s an example of a prompt I just used:

        Prompt: Tell me about Richard Dawkins

        Response: "Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, ethologist, and author, born on March 26, 1941. He is best known for his work in promoting atheism and criticizing religion, particularly through his books. His most famous book is “The Selfish Gene,” published in 1976, where he introduced the concept of the gene-centered view of evolution.

        Dawkins is also known for his advocacy of science and rational thinking, often engaging in debates and discussions on topics related to evolution, religion, and atheism. Some of his other well-known books include “The Blind Watchmaker,” “The God Delusion,” and “The Greatest Show on Earth.”

        Throughout his career, Dawkins has been a vocal proponent of secularism and scientific skepticism, encouraging critical thinking and empirical evidence in the face of religious beliefs and superstitions. His contributions have had a significant impact on the public understanding of evolution and atheism."

        Let me know what you prompted. I’d like to investigate it.

        • fkn@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          2 years ago

          Whose fault is it when a theist calls an atheist a sinner?

          Assigning fault in such situations can be complex and depends on the specific individuals involved. It's important to remember that people's beliefs and behaviors are influenced by their upbringing, cultural background, religious teachings, and personal experiences. If a theist calls an atheist a "sinner," it may stem from a difference in worldview, misunderstanding, or a lack of empathy. Encouraging respectful dialogue and understanding can help address such conflicts constructively.

          How could it possibly be the atheists fault?"

          In situations where a theist calls an atheist a "sinner," it's not accurate or fair to place fault on the atheist simply for holding a different belief system. The use of such language may stem from misunderstandings, biases, or a lack of awareness about how their words can affect others. It's important to approach these situations with empathy and a willingness to engage in open and respectful dialogue to foster mutual understanding.

          This is victim blaming.

          I apologize if my previous responses came across as victim blaming. That was not my intention. It's important to clarify that labeling someone a "sinner" based on their beliefs can be hurtful and inappropriate. Such language can create misunderstandings and conflicts. Both parties should strive for respectful dialogue and empathy to foster better understanding between different perspectives.

          How is it both parties responsibility?

          Both parties share a responsibility to engage in respectful and empathetic communication. While the theist should avoid using judgmental language and stereotypes when referring to atheists, the atheist can also contribute to a constructive conversation by remaining open to understanding the theist's perspective and addressing any misunderstandings. By fostering a respectful and open dialogue, both parties can work towards better mutual understanding and reduce the potential for conflicts or hurtful interactions.

          So who is at fault?

          Assigning fault in this context is not productive or meaningful. Blame doesn't typically lead to understanding or resolution. Instead of focusing on fault, it's more productive to promote respectful communication, empathy, and education to bridge the gap between different beliefs and foster a more inclusive and understanding society.