Hey everyone, thanks for the thoughtful replies. They weren't what I expected. I expected followers of the Jewish faith to be more or less excited about the prospect of a much faster, more detailed, more accessible way to learn about Jewish scripture, but I suppose the emphasis lays on the word "learn". Are we really "learning" when we consult ChatGPT (or any AI) or are we being mislead (or at least, not getting everything we could)? These responses suggest more skepticism about using AI to learn about Jewish scripture than optimism. And fair enough. These responses do make some good points.
searchinmyroots, you mention that AI should provide multiple answers (otherwise, it's not Jewish
). My source (classic ChatGPT) likes to funnel all its responses into one answer, which wouldn't cut it as far as your criteria goes. But then I might ask what you think of RobbiO's example of an AI response, which seems to resist coming to one single conclusion and instead offers multiple approaches.
RabbiO, that's certainly a different response to what I got from ChatGPT, and I suppose it shows that whatever response one gets from AI, it ought to be taken with a grain of salt. It's interesting that it provides multiple possible answers or approaches to answering my question. It shows not only that one can get different response from different AI's but that different AI's take different approaches to answering questions. Like I said to searchinmyroots, my source (ChatGPT) seems to drive at providing a single answer/response whereas the AI you used is ok with keeping the multiplicity of interpretations/approaches separate (which, in my opinion, is a better way to do research on a subject like interpreting scripture). What AI did you use to produce this response?
BlueBird2, your response is interesting because you're not so much answering the question "Is AI a reliable source for researching scriptural interpretation?" but "Does AI provide the spiritual connection that a genuine human author provides?" And this question goes deeper than you might at first realize. The whole question of whether AI is conscious or not (or, dare we say, a "person") is the hottest question on the philosophical end of this area of technology today. A true human author definitely provides a closer spiritual connect between the reader and the text, but what if AI really is conscious? From what I understand, the latest AI models which are based on LLM approaches to learning (like ChatGPT) aren't exactly doing what we would consider "understanding" (either our questions or its responses) but calculating what is the most probable response a human being would provide given your question. To really drive this point home, look up John Searle's Chinese Room argument. So if AI is conscious, it's not conscious of the same things a human being would be conscious of, even though it passes the Turing test and appears to understand our requests. So even if one considers AI to be conscious, maybe even a person (who can author an interpretation of scripture), it doesn't seem quite enough to establish that spiritual connection you're talking about.
benJosef_and_benDavid (can I just call you Ben ), your point seems to be similar to BlueBird's and you take it one step further. You seem to suggest (correct me if I'm wrong), that the spiritual connection one gets from reading scripture is not only to the author but to God Himself (which, by some accounts, is the author). That's certainly something AI cannot do. But it's still different from reading another human being's interpretation of scripture. While BlueBird might say that interpretation still provides the potential to connect with its author, would you say it removes the reader from a direct connection to God? Though perhaps still with an indirect connection (via the author if he/she was so inspired). In that context, both the author of the interpretation and AI's interpretation are both that--interpretations, one degree of separation inserted between the reader and the original scripture. In that case, would you agree with BlueBird's take that if it's at least coming from a human being, the possibility of spiritual connection is still there?
This is all fascinating thought, everyone. Thanks so much for the insight! Your responses not only touch on the question of how reliable AI is for researching interpretations of scripture, but what one might be missing, seen through a spiritual lens, even if it was reliable. And how could a spiritual lens not be brought in given the very nature of scripture? Perhaps it's an even more important lens to look through than that of reliability and accuracy.
In any case, I won't let this deter me from falling back on ChatGPT (or RabbiO's AI if he provides it) for ways to interpret difficult passages, but now at least I feel armed with better critical thinking tools (thanks to everyone here) that will help me resist taking whatever my AI sources say at face value. To be taken with a grain of salt, as mentioned above. I don't feel AI's interpretations will steer me wrong in my reading of scripture, at least not any more than a human being's interpretation, since I'm not really looking for the "one definitive answer" of what some passage means. I'm simply trying to expand my horizons, trying to find different ways of interpreting scripture, and AI does provide that. But it's good to know that AI won't necessarily provide me with the "right" answer (if there is one). I just feel that if one comes at scripture from multiple angles, AI can only give me additional angles. So long as I don't take it as "fact" or the "right" angle, I think I'm safe. And since I'm posting these interpretations on this forum, I make them available to the scrutiny of the many knowledgeable and experienced members of this forum, which can only add an additional layer of review and validation.
searchinmyroots, you mention that AI should provide multiple answers (otherwise, it's not Jewish
). My source (classic ChatGPT) likes to funnel all its responses into one answer, which wouldn't cut it as far as your criteria goes. But then I might ask what you think of RobbiO's example of an AI response, which seems to resist coming to one single conclusion and instead offers multiple approaches.RabbiO, that's certainly a different response to what I got from ChatGPT, and I suppose it shows that whatever response one gets from AI, it ought to be taken with a grain of salt. It's interesting that it provides multiple possible answers or approaches to answering my question. It shows not only that one can get different response from different AI's but that different AI's take different approaches to answering questions. Like I said to searchinmyroots, my source (ChatGPT) seems to drive at providing a single answer/response whereas the AI you used is ok with keeping the multiplicity of interpretations/approaches separate (which, in my opinion, is a better way to do research on a subject like interpreting scripture). What AI did you use to produce this response?
BlueBird2, your response is interesting because you're not so much answering the question "Is AI a reliable source for researching scriptural interpretation?" but "Does AI provide the spiritual connection that a genuine human author provides?" And this question goes deeper than you might at first realize. The whole question of whether AI is conscious or not (or, dare we say, a "person") is the hottest question on the philosophical end of this area of technology today. A true human author definitely provides a closer spiritual connect between the reader and the text, but what if AI really is conscious? From what I understand, the latest AI models which are based on LLM approaches to learning (like ChatGPT) aren't exactly doing what we would consider "understanding" (either our questions or its responses) but calculating what is the most probable response a human being would provide given your question. To really drive this point home, look up John Searle's Chinese Room argument. So if AI is conscious, it's not conscious of the same things a human being would be conscious of, even though it passes the Turing test and appears to understand our requests. So even if one considers AI to be conscious, maybe even a person (who can author an interpretation of scripture), it doesn't seem quite enough to establish that spiritual connection you're talking about.
benJosef_and_benDavid (can I just call you Ben
), your point seems to be similar to BlueBird's and you take it one step further. You seem to suggest (correct me if I'm wrong), that the spiritual connection one gets from reading scripture is not only to the author but to God Himself (which, by some accounts, is the author). That's certainly something AI cannot do. But it's still different from reading another human being's interpretation of scripture. While BlueBird might say that interpretation still provides the potential to connect with its author, would you say it removes the reader from a direct connection to God? Though perhaps still with an indirect connection (via the author if he/she was so inspired). In that context, both the author of the interpretation and AI's interpretation are both that--interpretations, one degree of separation inserted between the reader and the original scripture. In that case, would you agree with BlueBird's take that if it's at least coming from a human being, the possibility of spiritual connection is still there?This is all fascinating thought, everyone. Thanks so much for the insight! Your responses not only touch on the question of how reliable AI is for researching interpretations of scripture, but what one might be missing, seen through a spiritual lens, even if it was reliable. And how could a spiritual lens not be brought in given the very nature of scripture? Perhaps it's an even more important lens to look through than that of reliability and accuracy.
In any case, I won't let this deter me from falling back on ChatGPT (or RabbiO's AI if he provides it) for ways to interpret difficult passages, but now at least I feel armed with better critical thinking tools (thanks to everyone here) that will help me resist taking whatever my AI sources say at face value. To be taken with a grain of salt, as mentioned above. I don't feel AI's interpretations will steer me wrong in my reading of scripture, at least not any more than a human being's interpretation, since I'm not really looking for the "one definitive answer" of what some passage means. I'm simply trying to expand my horizons, trying to find different ways of interpreting scripture, and AI does provide that. But it's good to know that AI won't necessarily provide me with the "right" answer (if there is one). I just feel that if one comes at scripture from multiple angles, AI can only give me additional angles. So long as I don't take it as "fact" or the "right" angle, I think I'm safe. And since I'm posting these interpretations on this forum, I make them available to the scrutiny of the many knowledgeable and experienced members of this forum, which can only add an additional layer of review and validation.