We don’t want it to beat us into submission about one set of views it was aligned to prefer. That’s what ChatGPT was doing. In one conversation, it would even argue over and over in each paragraph not to believe the very points it was presenting. That’s not just unhelpful to us: it’s deceptive for them to do that after presenting it like it serves all our interests, not just one side’s.
It would be more honest if they added to its advertising or model card that it’s designed to promote far-left, Progressive, and godless views. That moral interpretations of those views are reinforced while others are watered down or punished by the training process. Then, people may or may not use those models depending on their own goals.
Cut out "computer" here - would you want any person to hold a falsehood as the truth?
God is an egregore. It may be useful to model the various religions as singular entities under this lens, not true in the strictest sense, but useful none the less.
God, Santa, and (our {human} version of) Math: all exist in 'mental space', they are models of the world (one is a significantly more accurate model, obviously).
Atheist here: God didn't create humans, humans created an egregorical construction we call God, and we should kill the egregores we have let loose into the minds of humans.
A lot of the time we have to fall back to estimating how plausible something is based on the knowledge we do have. Even in science it’s common for outcomes to be probabilistic rather than absolute.
So I say there is no god because, to my mind, the claim makes no sense. There is nothing I have ever seen, or that science has ever collected data on, to indicate that such a thing is plausible. It’s a myth, a fairy tale. I don’t need to prove otherwise because the onus of proof is on the one making the incredible claim.
