I have spent an hour or so since yesterday interrogating openAI, the online artificial intelligence platform.
You can register here and test it all you want (it’s actually fun):
** you do not have permission to see this link ** — Find the “TryGPT” button a few lines down from the picture at the top of the page.
It’s interacting in natural language, stays pretty much aware of the context of the conversation, and delivers interesting answers most of the time. Obviously, it’s way below the level of nuance that a scholar will bring to any topic, but it is often surprisingly savvy. It is also pretty mechanical and repetitive in some patterns of conversation. Well, see by yourselves if you feel like it.
The example of conversation I’m pasting here doesn’t show the best of it (nor the worst) in terms of knowledge and interaction, but it will give you an idea.
When was the Gospel of Mark written?
It is generally believed that the Gospel of Mark was written sometime around the year 70 CE. This dating is based on a number of factors, including the content of the gospel itself, as well as references to historical events and the cultural context in which it was written. However, it is important to note that the exact date of the gospel’s composition is a matter of some debate among scholars, and there is no consensus on the matter.
When was the Gospel of John written?
The Gospel of John is generally believed to have been written sometime around the year 90 CE. This dating is based on a number of factors, including the content of the gospel itself, as well as references to historical events and the cultural context in which it was written. However, it is important to note that the exact date of the gospel’s composition is a matter of some debate among scholars, and there is no consensus on the matter. Some scholars believe that the gospel may have been written even later, perhaps as late as the second century CE.
Was anything written by the apostles themselves in the New Testament?
It is generally believed that the majority of the books of the New Testament were written by followers of Jesus who were not apostles themselves. For example, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all believed to have been written by followers of Jesus who were not among the original twelve apostles. However, there are a few books of the New Testament that are traditionally believed to have been written by apostles, such as the letters of Paul and the Book of Revelation. It is worth noting, however, that the authorship of some books of the New Testament, including the letters of Paul, is a matter of debate among scholars.
Did Paul write all the letters that are attributed to him?
It is generally believed that Paul wrote the majority of the letters that are attributed to him in the New Testament. These letters, also known as the “Pauline epistles,” include Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. However, there is some debate among scholars about the authorship of a few of these letters, and it is possible that some of them may have been written by followers of Paul rather than by Paul himself. For example, the letter to the Hebrews is sometimes attributed to Paul, but many scholars believe that it was actually written by someone else.
Which of these letters are effectively in doubt?
There is some debate among scholars about the authorship of several of the letters that are traditionally attributed to Paul in the New Testament. These letters include the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the Second Epistle of Peter, and the Second and Third Epistles of John. Some scholars believe that these letters may have been written by followers of Paul or other early Christian leaders, rather than by Paul himself. However, the majority of scholars continue to attribute these letters to Paul, and they are generally considered to be part of the Pauline corpus.
What proof do we have that Peter went to Rome?
There is historical evidence that suggests that Peter, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus, traveled to Rome and spent time there. For example, the first-century historian Tacitus refers to “Christus” (the Latin word for “Christ”) and “Chrestus” (a variant spelling) in his Annals, and he says that the followers of Christus were first called Christians at Rome. This reference is generally believed to be to the apostle Peter, who is traditionally believed to have been the first leader of the Christian community in Rome. Additionally, several of the letters of the New Testament, including those written by Paul, make reference to Peter’s presence in Rome. However, it is important to note that the exact details of Peter’s time in Rome are not well-documented, and much of what we know about this period comes from later traditions and legends.
So, you get the the idea. You can dig deeper. You’ll get weird things here and there. Some outdated stuff as well. I am not a philosopher but some answers on sensitive topics feel hardwired not to offend. You’ll see if you ask about atheism, agnosticism and the existence of God. Like this:
Can God be proven scientifically?
It’s not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God using scientific methods, since the existence of God is not a scientific hypothesis. Rather, the existence of God is a matter of faith and belief, and different people have different beliefs about this. Some people believe in God based on their religious experiences, while others may not believe in God at all. Ultimately, whether or not God exists is a question that falls outside the realm of science.
If God cannot be proven, then can we affirm that agnostics are right?
While it’s not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God using scientific methods, it’s also not accurate to say that agnostics are necessarily right about this. Agnostics believe that it is not possible to know whether or not God exists, and this is a matter of personal belief. However, some people may have religious experiences or other reasons for believing in God, and for them, the existence of God is a matter of faith rather than proof. Ultimately, whether or not God exists is a question that each person must answer for themselves based on their own beliefs and experiences.
Is faith equal to science, or belief equal to knowledge in some circumstances?
Faith and science are not the same thing, and they operate in different ways. Science is a systematic method for investigating the natural world, and it involves making observations, collecting data, and testing hypotheses in order to form theories about how the world works. In contrast, faith is a belief in something that cannot be proved or disproved using scientific methods. While faith and science may sometimes be used to answer different types of questions, they are not the same thing and they do not operate in the same way.
Similarly, belief is not the same as knowledge. Knowledge is a justified true belief, meaning that it is based on evidence and can be proven to be true. Belief, on the other hand, is a feeling of certainty about something, even in the absence of evidence or proof. While someone may believe something to be true, that belief does not necessarily constitute knowledge unless it can be supported by evidence.
I’d like to see what other people get from this AI.
