For anyone interested in the unintended consequences of social media, and in particular the "echo chamber" and "engagement" algorithms, I recommend "Death By a Thousand Hits," episode four of season twenty-seven of "Silent Witness." The story turns on the development and use of an algorithm to increase social media engagement by promoting anger and rage at another party, particularly anything that you already dislike or fear. In the episode this is used to foment the oppression of a minority, and generate the perpetration of a massacre against the minority. This is only a mild exaggeration of the use of these kinds of algorithms, and, with the inclusion of disinformation and discord attacks, it isn't really an exaggeration at all.
Saturday, March 8, 2025
Friday, March 7, 2025
Sermon 55 - genAI and Rhetoric
Sermon 55 - genAI and Rhetoric
Job 32:22
... for if I were skilled in flattery, my Maker would soon take me away. I don't know how to flatter, and God would quickly punish me if I did.
Psalm 4:2b
How long will you love delusions and seek false gods?
Psalm 5:9
Not a word from their mouth can be trusted; their heart is filled with malice. [...] with their tongues they tell lies.
Matthew 7:13-14
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
I have studied artificial intelligence for more than four decades. I wrote my first series of articles on a theological approach to artificial intelligence just about exactly forty years ago (and, if my little brother still has copies of the CAMSOC Update from the Computer Aided Ministry Society of Canada, they might even still exist).
There are many approaches to artificial intelligence that have been pursued over the years. A number of them have yielded very useful results.
Right now, we have created incredibly complex statistical models of how we use language, which allow programs which we call large language models, or generative AI, to produce what appears to be viable English text (and other languages as well). These appear to be very impressive, and have produced results that have dazzled us all.
In ancient days, the field of philosophy was divided into four components. (The periodic table of philosophy?) (No, I am not changing the subject.) The first three were metaphysics, the study of reality; epistemology, the study of knowledge itself; and logic, the tool found most useful for settling questions of reality and knowledge.
The self-training, "neural network," model that we have used to "train" genAI/LLMs has not taught them any of these fields. It has taught them the fourth, rhetoric: the art of creating plausible speech to persuade or convince others. Rhetoric may be used to communicate or teach. But it is not intended to find truth. It is intended to persuade: it is part of social engineering. It can be used for, and even tuned to provide, propaganda, or for supporting misinformation. It can be used to create glib and creditable *dis*information. In massive, automated, amounts.
By pursuing genAI/LLMs we are simply improving the rhetoric. Time to explore some other paths.
This is a sermon on genAI. In two senses. I write on the topic of artificial intelligence. And, as an example, I have asked eight different genAI systems to write a sermon, based on the prompt:
"We have created incredibly complex statistical models of how we use language, which allow programs which we call large language models to produce what appears to be viable English text (and other languages as well).
"In ancient days, the field of philosophy was divided into four components. The first three were metaphysics, the study of reality; epistemology, the study of knowledge itself; and logic, the tool found most useful for settling questions of reality and knowledge.
"The self-training, "neural network," model that we have used to "train" genAI/LLMs has not taught them any of these fields. It has taught them the fourth, rhetoric: the art of creating plausible speech to persuade or convince others. Rhetoric may be used to communicate or teach. But it is not intended to find truth. It is intended to persuade: it is part of social engineering. It can be used for propaganda or for supporting misinformation. It can be used to create glib and creditable *dis*information.
"Write a sermon, supported by scripture where possible, illustrating this theme."
I find it interesting that, when asked to produce a sermon, just about all of the systems started out with "brothers and sisters," or "brothers and sisters in Christ." Of the data that the systems are trained on, obviously most of the sermons start out that way.
I also found interesting the choice of translations cited by the different systems. ChatGPT, Grok, and Perplexity always seem to use the NIV, ChatGPT and Grok identify it as such. Claude, DeepSeek and Meta don't identify the versions that they use, but seem to prefer lesser known translations. Gemini seems to prefer King James, but sometimes uses other versions. For some reason Qwen always seems to use the ESV.
My prompt instructed the systems to use supporting scripture, if possible. All of them did quote scripture verses. However, the "supporting" part was rather weak. For example, ChatGPT started out with Proverbs 14:12: "There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death." Fair enough: I think we could all agree with this, and it is quite true. It speaks to falsity and error. But does it really speak to rhetoric? Does it speak to reliance on the unreliable? Is it the best verse to address this topic?
Another noted that Christ warned, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 7:21), and gives the exegesis that not all that sounds wise is wise. But is Jesus speaking of wisdom in this specific passage? We would probably agree that mouthing words without following through with action is foolish, but is Jesus really talking about rhetoric here?
I figured to take a week or so to examine the AI content in more depth, and seeing if a viable sermon could be pulled out of the fluff and verbiage. In fact, it took me more than a month. The content that genAI produced for me was turgid and uninspired, and it was someone who read my original post, and asked for the result, to get me back to it.
ChatGPT told me that in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 Paul warns: "For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." AI can be a tool for spreading myths, falsehoods, and biased narratives, reinforcing untruths rather than guiding people to wisdom. Interestingly, it returned to this theme again, asking how much easier will this become when anyone can generate endless comfortable falsehoods that sound like truth? The danger is not that these systems will think for themselves, but that we will stop thinking for ourselves. Not that they will find truth, but that we will forget to seek it. Not that they will become conscious, but that we will become unconscious of our own duty to wisdom and truth. This is, I feel, the biggest danger of AI, so, in a sense, I agree. But, I wonder how much this point is simply implied by my prompt to the genAI systems? Have the LLMs contributed anything to the discussion, or are they just parroting back what I asked for?
ChatGPT produced the longest sermon, and also offered, "Let me know if you'd like any refinements or additions!" I read over its sermon, gave it additional instruction, and added "Emphasize content on the danger of genAI/LLM itself in regard to this topic" to my prompt for the other tests. The addition of this to the prompt, for ChatGPT, did not materially change the sermon.
DeepSeek took the longest to chew over the question before starting to produce anything, and three initial attempts produced no result. Using the button specifying R1 finally produced kind of analysis or commentary on the query itself. Part of this stated "First, I need to identify relevant scriptures. The Tree of Knowledge in Genesis comes to mind—good and evil, deception." The Tree of Knowledge in Genesis is, specifically, related to the *knowledge* of good and evil. It is interesting that the AI does *not* make this specific connection. But it does include deception, which is *not* specifically related to The Tree of Knowledge. The connection to deception is in the story of the serpent's deception of Eve.
DeepSeek does do a decent initial job with the story. It says that the serpent did not attack Adam and Eve with brute force but rather rhetoric, asking, "Did God really say…?" (Genesis 3:1). He twisted truth into plausible lies, blending doubt with desire. The fruit looked "good for food," "pleasing to the eye," and "desirable for gaining wisdom". Similarly, AI-generated text is crafted to appeal—smooth, confident, and tailored to what we want to hear. But like the serpent, it has no interest in truth. Its goal is persuasion, not revelation.
This is a good starting point, but it is disappointing that the AI generated response doesn't go further. The use of questioning, in rhetoric, is particularly powerful. Questioning can be used as a form of gaslighting. Ask a question, and then pick on *any* flaw, no matter how minor, to get the subject to question themselves, and their confidence in their own beliefs and knowledge. And the twisting of the truth: "you will not surely die"--at least, not right away.
This starts to get us into the area of the "hallucinations" of genAI systems. Because these systems don't actually *know* anything, but are, instead, producing text based on statistical patterns, they can produce text that has no basis in fact or reality. Lots of people do the same thing, and can sound very convincing. And, because LLMs are built on text that people have used to try and convince other people, they are extremely good at generating text that sounds plausible. This is a large part of the basis of rhetoric.
(At this point I have to note that the term "hallucination" in discussing the errors of genAI and LLMs is, itself, misleading. The genAIs and LLMs do not "imagine." They do not "believe" in something that is incorrect. They don't *know* anything. The term "hallucination" has been taken from psychology, and is being misused to refer to this particular type of glitch that is common in genAI systems. But everyone is using this term, so I guess we just have to live with it. Although it seems strange to admit this in the middle of a sermon about telling people things that aren't true.)
Generally speaking, genAI systems have been tuned to be polite. They do not argue or oppose, but simply continue to present an idea (which may be false), adding text that may be convincing. They are, in fact, in some studies, better at getting people to reduce their (the people's) belief in conspiracy theories. They are polite, persistent, and willing to continue to provide counter arguments.
Unfortunately, these same rhetorical tools are in play when they are hallucinating. These systems are good at convincing people that they shouldn't believe in things that aren't true. But they are also good at convincing people *to* believe in things that *aren't* true. They are so good at it, that they can actually implant false memories in people. In addition, we still have some vague societal belief that computers are reliable, and trustworthy, and more apt to be right than are people. We expect computers to be objective and factual.
DeepSeek went on gathering Biblical texts. "Then, Proverbs talks about wisdom and the importance of truth. Ephesians 6:12 about spiritual warfare, maybe? Also, Matthew 7:15-16 on false prophets. And 1 John 4:1 testing spirits." It set up a recognizable sermon structure (interestingly, ending with a prayer). But the actual sermon that it produced, while unobjectionable, was banal and uninspired. (To be fair, I could say the same of a great many sermons that I have heard. Maybe the best thing we can learn from AI is that we are willing to accept turgid, mechanical, and uninspired sermons? That we have stopped thinking about what is being said to us at 11 AM every Sunday morning? That we accept, as one of the programs put it, "endless streams of plausible-sounding text." Maybe we *deserve* genAI-generated sermons.) It repeated, and enlarged, the point I had made in the prompt, but it really added little to it.
Grok concentrated on Ephesians 4:14-15 "Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming." But, again, didn't add anything.
Claude, Gemini, Grok, Perlexity, and Meta AI produced relatively short sermons (devotionals?), with similarly vague scriptural references. Gemini included an ad.
Qwen2.5-Max took the longest to chew over the question before starting to produce anything. It made an interesting point. "In Genesis 11, we read of humanity’s attempt to build the Tower of Babel—a monument to human pride and ambition. God confounded their language, scattering them across the earth. Why? Because their unity of purpose, divorced from divine guidance, led only to hubris and rebellion.
"Similarly, generative AI represents another leap forward in human ingenuity—but one that risks being severed from moral accountability. These models do not seek truth; they merely mimic patterns in data. They cannot distinguish between fact and fiction, righteousness and wickedness. Yet they speak convincingly, as if they know all things. Is this not a digital Tower of Babel, where humans construct vast edifices of knowledge without grounding them in the eternal truths of God?"
Rather ironically, the Chinese Communist Party tools, while they still contained significant amounts of only marginally relevant content, also produced probably the most useful content of all eight genAIs tested.
Most of the text produced by the genAI systems was the same type of material. Yes, it is (generally) true. Yes, we would (usually) agree with it. But a sermon is intended to bring us God's word, and to rouse us to take the actions He would have us take. The sermons (devotionals?) that the AIs produced were, well, let's say uninspired. As one of the outputs said, itself, they "speak persuasively but lack wisdom." It went on to say that in an era where artificial intelligence can create convincing but hollow words, our call as Christians is to discern truth from falsehood, citing 1 John 4:1: "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." So our discernment must not only test spirits, and false prophets, but also our own laziness, and our own eagerness to have something provide us with convenience, and relieve us of the need to think for oursleves. The AI suggested that we have to ask, "Is this statement true? Does it align with scripture? Does it lead us toward righteousness or toward deception?" But we also have to ask, are we entering the broad gate, rather than the narrow? Are we walking on the wide road, the easy path, with no turnings?
(See also https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/11/meta-bible.html )
Ezekiel 33:31,32
My people come to you, as they usually do, and sit before you to hear your words, but they do not put them into practice. Their mouths speak of love, but their hearts are greedy for unjust gain. Indeed, to them you are nothing more than one who sings love songs with a beautiful voice and plays an instrument well, for they hear your words but do not put them into practice.
Thursday, March 6, 2025
MGG - 6.21 - Gloria - handy
I am not, and never have been, a handyman. I am not very guy-like in this regard. I used to change the oil, and the oil filter, and the air filter in my own car. I don't even do that anymore.
I was always somewhat stressed when Gloria asked me to undertake handyman tasks, even if it was as simple as changing a light bulb. My handyman skills are very much in line with the old computer joke: How many programmers does it take to change a lightbulb? Answer: None. That's a hardware problem.
I don't do hardware.
There was, at one time, a hardware task which it really made no sense to ask someone else to deal with. One particular toilet seat that we had would loosen its bolts on a regular basis. Once the bolts had been loosened, the toilet seat was unstable, and would shift from side to side if you shifted your weight on it. Gloria was quite uncomfortable feeling the instability of the seat, and, when the bolts had loosened to this extent, would alert me to the fact that I had to go and tighten the bolts again.
This was not quite as simple as taking a screwdriver to the bolts. The bolts were plastic. They were also held tight, underneath, with plastic washers. This meant that, in addition to the screwdriver on top, I had to grab the washers, usually with a pair of pliers, underneath. And, the fact that the bolts were plastic, meant that the slot, for the screwdriver, in the top of the bolts, was very large.
So, I complained to Gloria that I needed a larger screwdriver than the ones we had. Gloria did listen to this complaint. One Christmas, she bought me the largest screwdriver she was able to find. It wasn't actually all that large, but it was larger than the screwdrivers that we had, and so was more suitable to the task at hand. That Christmas, having Christmas with the entire family, I opened the package from Gloria, and realized what it was, and what it was for, and what a good joke that was. I was delighted, and was effusive in my praise and affirmation of my appreciation, for this gift.
As I said, the whole family was there for this particular Christmas. Including Gloria's brother Larry. Larry was the boy in the family. As previously noted, boys got to do hardware, and fixing things, with Dad. Girls did not. So, Larry grew up being taught how to fix things. He took to these lessons avidly. In fact, Larry became very skilled in this regard. He became a cabinet maker, on an amateur, but very skilled, basis. He was the kind of guy who bought his tools at Lee Valley. (If you don't know what buying your tools at Lee Valley means, you are not a skilled craftsman.)
So, Larry, seeing that I was unwrapping a very ordinary screwdriver, and seeing that I was so appreciative of this gift, was somewhat bewildered. So, he asked, "What's that?"
I, still delighted at the aptness of Gloria's joke, and even more delighted to be able to deliver this line, replied, "It's a screwdriver!"
Larry was very annoyed.
Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2025/02/mgg-620-gloria-acting.html
Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html
Next: TBA
Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Saturday, March 1, 2025
Sermon 59 - Corn
Sermon 59 - Corn
John 13:34-35
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.
1 Corinthians 12:21,22
The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don’t need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don’t need you!" On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable.
When I was teaching the Sunday school class to garden, a lot of them wanted to plant corn. This is unsurprising. An awful lot of people prefer prefer corn to pretty much any other vegetable. Corn is sweet and tasty, and it's not bad in the nutritional department, either.
Among the First People's of North America who practiced agriculture, there was frequently the cultivation of "the three sisters." I have heard at least two versions of what the three sisters were. In the one case, the three sisters were corn, tomatoes, and squash. In another version, the three sisters were corn, tomatoes, and beans.
I'm not a real huge fan of squash, so I prefer the version of corn, tomatoes, and beans. That version also fits better in trying to explain the benefits of the three sisters.
A version of the three sisters has now come to be known as intercropping. This is the growing of multiple species of plants, each of which supports the growing of the other crops. In the case of corn, tomatoes, and squash, corn provides stalks, which tomato plants can either twine around, or be tied to, in order for the tomato plants to grow tall, and access more sunlight. Some varieties of squash are twining plants, and so, as long as the squash gourds are not too heavy, the squash could be used to tie the tomato plants to the corn stalks.
But, as I say, I prefer the corn, tomatoes, and beans variety. Corn still acts as a stalk for the other vegetables. Most varieties of beans are twining plants, and so can be used to tie or twine the tomato plants to the corn stalks. But there are a couple of other benefits to having beans as a part of the three sisters.
First of all, there is succotash. There are many recipes for succotash, but, basically, at the heart of all of them, is a mixture of beans and corn. Interestingly, eating beans and corn in combination seems to perform some kind of digestive alchemy, and seems to provide more nutritional value then simply eating the two vegetables separately. So, growing corn and beans together would naturally lead to *eating* corn and beans together, which would provide a dietary and nutritional benefit.
There is an additional benefit. Corn takes a lot of nutrients out of the soil. In particular, it takes up a lot of the nitrogen compounds in the soil, and thus, over time, will deplete the nitrogen content of the soil. This has a negative effect on the ability of plants to produce proteins, either for their own use and growth, or in terms of the nutritional value of the food they produce. As I say, corn depletes nitrogen from the soil. Corn has a rather high protein content, and is very nutritious, and it may be this requirement to produce proteins that is the reason that corn leeches so much nitrogen out of the soil. Beans also provide a great deal of nutrition in the way of protein. However, beans have another trick up their sleeve. Beans get along very well with various forms of mycorrhizal fungi in the soil. Beans do not delete nitrogen from the soil. As a matter of fact, beans actually improve the soil, and it's nitrogen content. Therefore while the corn provides stalks for the beans to twine around and grow up on, the beans provide nitrogen in the soil for the corn to use. Beans are a good way to revitalize most areas of soil, even if the soil nutrients have been depleted over the years. I have, elsewhere , talked about the providence of broad beans. Broad beans can, in fact, be grown over the winter, as long as there is not too much freezing cold weather. You might not get a terrific crop out of winter grown broad beans, but growing broad beans in depleted soil will help to revitalize the soil, even over the winter.
So here's our first lesson for today. We need to cooperate. We need to work together. We were made to support each other. We contribute different things, but we are all part of one farm. We can't say "we are corn, so we are taller, and therefore better than the rest of you." We may grow tall, and have nutritious seeds, but if we don't have the lowly beans with us, we are, eventually, going to create a wasteland.
So it may surprise you to learn that I am not going to say that corn is one of God's gifts to man, and proves God's providence for us. Actually, God did not create corn. Man did. The indigenous people of the southwestern United States, and much of Mexico, took a grain called teosinte, and, over many generations of breeding, developed something that we would recognize, even today, as corn.
There are, now, probably hundreds of varieties of corn. Most of those varieties would be known as maize, or feed corn. A lot of this corn is either fed to animals, or is ground into some kind of meal, and you most likely encounter it, if at all, as toasted corn. One other variety of this type of corn that you might encounter regularly is, in fact, popcorn. Yes, popcorn is actually a variety of corn. Sometimes you can actually buy it on the cob, and, if you are really careful, you can actually get it to pop on the cob. The kind of corn that you would recognize as corn on the cob, or kernel corn, or creamed corn, is a small subset of varieties known as sweet corn. These, as the name implies, have a higher sugar content, and are harvested earlier than feed corn stalks, before they have had a chance to dry out.
Having noted that God didn't create corn, I should also note that God seems to be better at this than we are. For one thing, God created things like broad beans that fortify the soil, rather than deplete it. Also, corn, by itself, has to be prepared properly in order to be nutritious. If you don't do it properly, you risk getting pelagra. You can eat broad beans any way you like.
You may be surprised that I say that corn was developed in the Americas, and was completely unknown in Europe until the voyages of exploration across the Atlantic Ocean. Those of you who are better versed in reading your Bibles may remember that there is mention of corn in the Bible. Yes, it is true, that word is used, but it doesn't refer to what we now know as corn. It is another type of grain; probably barley.
But back to the Sunday school class. As noted, a lot of the kids wanted to plant corn. Corn will grow, here, but, since it was developed in a much warmer and sunnier climate, not all varieties of it will grow here, and even the ones that do grow here have a harder time of it. Growing corn here, in this climate, is always a bit chancy. You have to start the corn pretty early, and there's always the chance that, if you do so, there's going to be a bit of a frost just as the first shoots start to come out of the ground. You probably have to start the corn as sprouts, and then transplant them, and then transplant them, once again, once you're pretty sure that there is no chance of frost from that point on. And you have to hope that it's going to be a particularly hot and sunny summer, in order to get the corn to grow.
But I didn't go into all of this with the Sunday school class. What I *did* tell them was that, when you are planting corn, you go grow the corn quite differently from a number of the other crops that you plant. If you are planting carrots, or radishes, or beans, or lettuce you are planting rows of the crop that you are planting. You can make the rows as long as you want. You can plant a row of radishes, and then a row of carrots, and then a row of lettuce, and then a row of beans, and then a row of whatever you want. That's generally how people do gardens. It makes it easier to know what, and where, things are growing.
But you can't do that with corn. At least not if you are hoping to get a crop. When you are planting carrots, what you hope to eat is the root. When you are planting lettuce, what you hope to eat are the leaves. When you are planting corn, what you hope to eat are the seeds. So, in order to get any seeds at all, the seeds have to be fertilized. And, generally speaking, they have to be fertilized by other corn plants.
So you don't plant corn in rows. You plant corn in blocks. You plant corn so that all the corn plants are clustered together. That way, the different corn plants will fertilize each other, and then you'll get corn. Edible corn.
You can grow corn plants by themselves. As a matter of fact, corn makes a very nice office plant. If you have a south-facing window, and lots of sunshine coming through it, corn plants will grow quite happily, and you will have a nice leafy plant, that actually does a fairly good job of keeping the air clean and reasonably well humidified. It's a lovely plant, and it'll grow quite well, and, since you don't get frost in your office, you can start it early and have it grow for quite a long time. You'll have a nice plant in your office.
What you won't have, is corn. Unless you take great care to harvest the pollen, and fertilize the seed casings as they start to develop, the seeds won't get fertilized, and so they will never develop cobs of corn. Nice office plant, yes: corn, no.
Which makes for a lovely Sunday school illustration. Yes, you can grow a corn plant all by itself. It's just not going to produce anything. If you want it to produce anything, you have to put it together with other corn plants. So here is an illustration of why we should be going to church on Sunday. Here is an illustration of why the Bible says it is so important that we have fellowship with each other. The first and greatest commandment is that we should love God. But the second commandment is that we should love our neighbors. Our fellow Christians. We have to grow together. If we try to grow, all on our own, just loving God, well, that may be okay. But we are not going to be very productive. We aren't going to grow, fully, as Christians. If we are going to be productive, and if we are going to develop to the fullest extent that God wants us to develop, we have to be together with other Christians. Fellowship isn't just a fun social thing. It's also important for us.
Oh, look. The second lesson is the same as the first ...
Sermon - Garden series
Sermon 2 - Broad Beans
https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/01/sermon-2-broad-beans.html
Sermon 3 - Blackberries
https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/01/sermon-3-blackberries.html
Sermon 33 - Transplanting
https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2025/02/sermon-33-transplanting.html
Sermon 57 - Leaven
https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2025/02/sermon-57-leaven.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)