[darrmit]

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]

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.

[bmicraft]

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.

[darrmit]

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]

As far as I know it remains an unsolved problem.

[causal]

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]

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.

[FartyMcFarter]

> 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.

[jimbokun]

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.

[freedomben]

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]

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.

[rodary]

In the same boat here: 20+ years of hard core Christianity (Scottish Presbyterianism). Heavy, very heavy indeed studies lasting years and years. Regulative principle of worship, this kind of direction.

Was raised kinda an atheist though and converted in my 30s. A willful, well thought out decision to convert.

All came crashing down on me the moment I stopped ignoring some very obvious questions, e.g. who died on the cross?

Even some casual thinking about this lands you, inescapably, on the only conclusion you have available if you stick to the orthodoxy, and that is: a human nature died on the cross. Not God (cannot die) and, unfortunately for Christianity, not a human either (briefly: if JC is one person / two natures, you have to conclude his (human) nature died on the cross since JC the person, being God, cannot die).

At any rate, this is where it started for me and quickly escalated further. The entire New Testament, I'm convinced now, is a fraud and whoever pulled it off didn't even try to hide it. It's incredible how we can bullshit ourselves into believing what we (for whatever reason) want to believe. And not just religion.

In the end, the NT had to go leaving me with the Hebrew scriptures.

[datavirtue]

Agreed. The NT is a sloppy toddler scribble compared to the Torah's precision.

[BobaFloutist]

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]

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-tru...

[BobaFloutist]

Which is wild, because I'm an atheist and I believe in things that feel important even if I don't necessarily consider them "true" (mostly things about how I should treat other people and that I have agency over my life).

[jimbokun]

Well then your difference with Christianity is only one of degree.

[afpx]

Also, some people have 'religious experiences' that set their minds on certain paths. Whatever the underlying neuroscience is, it results in qualia that is hard to ignore.

I'm a 2nd generation atheist who suffers from depression. Years ago I read evidence that religious practices could alleviate it. I was kind of desperate so decided to brainwash myself into becoming a believer for about a half of a year. Overall, it was pretty effective. I had to eventually disengage because of the cognitive dissonance, but the positive effects have lingered.

[jimbokun]

Most atheists and agnostics struggle greatly to replace the meaning and moral guidance provided by religion.

First and foremost the community aspect. There are countless benefits to being part of an active faith community that atheists have had a very hard time replicating.

[podunkPDX]

Uh… no?

I replicate my community where I find it. Some of it is at a brunch spot I go to regularly. Some of it is a bar that I frequent. Some of it is in annual activities with my neighbors.

I don’t need to believe in a made up Sky Daddy to be a good person, I have plenty of examples in my communities.

[freedomben]

I'm also a very logical and evidence-driven person by nature who has gone through similar since losing my faith. It's not for everybody, but I've gotten a lot of enjoyment from Stoicism. There are tons and tons of books on the subject that vary in quality, and unfortunately I can't recommend any specific ones because at this point I've read so much of them that I don't remember where certain ideas came from, but I definitely recommend the writings of Seneca. Marcus Aurelius' writings are great too.

[darrmit]

It's so funny you mention that because I picked up the Daily Stoic a couple of years ago and have read it off and on. I have found it really enjoyable. Thanks for the rec!

[rolothrow]

Have you considered reading philosophy? The search of an ethics framework is pretty much one of the core topics.

[scotty79]

> now trying to find my way in between the two

What's your motivation for doing that?