Page 17 of 17
Re: Basic reason why the name of Pilate was absent in the Earliest Passion Story extrapolated from Mark
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2024 12:54 pm
by Giuseppe
I have asked to ChatGBT:
Giuseppe:
Do you know what "causatively" means with respect to Hebrew verbs?
ChatGPT:
Yes, in Hebrew grammar, causative verbs are used to indicate that the subject of the verb is causing someone or something else to perform the action. For example, the causative form of the verb "to eat" would indicate causing someone to eat, rather than eating oneself.
Giuseppe:
Can פלט mean in Hebrew "to release, to deliver, to set one free"?
ChatGPT:
Yes, the Hebrew verb פלט (pālaṭ) can indeed mean "to release," "to deliver," or "to set one free." It is often used in contexts where someone is being freed from captivity, danger, or oppression
Neil was right in saying that ChatGPT is a more honest interlocutor than many human beings.
Re: Basic reason why the name of Pilate was absent in the Earliest Passion Story extrapolated from Mark
Posted: Thu Feb 29, 2024 12:16 am
by DrSarah
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 12:54 pm
I have asked to ChatGBT:
Okaaaaay, pause it right there. ChatGPT is well known for
not being reliable in its accuracy. It's an AI designed to simulate conversation, not to fact-check. There are many examples of ChatGPT stating inaccurate information with complete confidence. It is - and I cannot stress this enough - a
really bad idea to rely on ChatGPT for any information.
Re: Forever?
Posted: Thu Feb 29, 2024 9:29 pm
by billd89
DrSarah wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 12:16 am
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 12:54 pm
I have asked to ChatGBT:
Okaaaaay, pause it right there. ChatGPT is well known for
not being reliable in its accuracy. It's an AI designed to simulate conversation, not to fact-check. There are many examples of ChatGPT stating inaccurate information with complete confidence. It is - and I cannot stress this enough - a
really bad idea to rely on ChatGPT for any information.
Well, Yes and No. I myself have posted some examples of chatbox bollocks and replies to what has been -- to this point in time -- misuse of the technology. For now, I think it's more ... "overreach,"
caveat lector.
But ChatGPT is adapting, 'learning' advancing: certain deficits several months back may not be present now. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, not just yet. ChatGPT3.5 is/was a great improvement; so, who here knows how far it will advance in 3 years?
Historically speaking, such total, permanent rejections of new technology/adaptive tools have not proven not wise.
AI Chatbots are evolving fairly quickly. By the end of 2025, the current options might look (in retrospect) laughably weak, poor:
https://www.businessinsider.com/openai- ... ear-2024-5