Reminds me how folks have listened and read articles and results of studies great intellectual men/woman of God have published. I have been guilty of reading this material and because of my respect for them and their study, I accept their word and lock step with their belief in the matter and don't think twice about studying it for myself and "search the scriptures daily to see if what they say is true". Years ago, I was converted out of another religious belief and had to study my way into the Lord's Church; therefore, I don't usually accept anything someone reports without check it out myself. I strive to have a faith that is Mine, not someone else's, one I can defend if need be. I don't disrespect those learned christians, but maybe to some, they are the "old" AI.
I'm trying to get my head around the whole AI thing. My wife and her teacher colleagues have students who use AI (as well as good, old-fashioned plagiarism) and see no problem with it. Then there are the AI generated or enhanced works of "art." "Nothing is real," the Beatles said. With AI it seems to be a true statement.
I agree that preaching contracts should now include AI clauses. If not, maybe the workman isn't worth his wages and, instead, is guilty of dishonest gain.
I use AI to analyze my own thoughts on various subjects. For example, creationism theories. My thoughts not its results. I present from a biblical framework to interpret my ideas based on the Bible and explanation of evidence extant. I find it to be a useful tool though it heaps to much praise on me. I generally find I'm not the first to hold a particular view. It has yet to contradict scripture. I believe sermons and research papers are proper so long as the actual source is acknowledged. Same is true of an ordinary Google search. Don't take personal credit for the information.
Reminds me how folks have listened and read articles and results of studies great intellectual men/woman of God have published. I have been guilty of reading this material and because of my respect for them and their study, I accept their word and lock step with their belief in the matter and don't think twice about studying it for myself and "search the scriptures daily to see if what they say is true". Years ago, I was converted out of another religious belief and had to study my way into the Lord's Church; therefore, I don't usually accept anything someone reports without check it out myself. I strive to have a faith that is Mine, not someone else's, one I can defend if need be. I don't disrespect those learned christians, but maybe to some, they are the "old" AI.
I'm trying to get my head around the whole AI thing. My wife and her teacher colleagues have students who use AI (as well as good, old-fashioned plagiarism) and see no problem with it. Then there are the AI generated or enhanced works of "art." "Nothing is real," the Beatles said. With AI it seems to be a true statement.
I agree that preaching contracts should now include AI clauses. If not, maybe the workman isn't worth his wages and, instead, is guilty of dishonest gain.
Thank you for your insight, Jack.
I use AI to analyze my own thoughts on various subjects. For example, creationism theories. My thoughts not its results. I present from a biblical framework to interpret my ideas based on the Bible and explanation of evidence extant. I find it to be a useful tool though it heaps to much praise on me. I generally find I'm not the first to hold a particular view. It has yet to contradict scripture. I believe sermons and research papers are proper so long as the actual source is acknowledged. Same is true of an ordinary Google search. Don't take personal credit for the information.