I asked ChatGPT to roast Young Earth Creationism

[Dānu]

There is a fundamental compromise made between the two things, wherein you can't believe the whole christian story if you believe the evolutionary story, and you cant believe the whole evolutionary story if you believe the christian story.  Christian preachers and scientists alike have observed as much....but, obvs, that doesn't stop people from compartmentalizing those beliefs or society trying to accommodate them.

No special creation, no garden, no fall...no christ.  It's a job title, he's here to fix that fuckup and his alleged authority and competence come from being that mud man creating god.

That only holds for literalists.

[Rhythmcs]

For everyone else, jesus isn't literal christ. He's christ in the sense of a last name, and metaphorically speaking. Compartmentalization and accommodation.

[Dānu]

You're such a fundy.

[Free]

I asked ChatGPT to roast Young Earth Creationism and this is what it came up with:

Young Earth creationism (YEC) argues that the Earth is only around 6,000 to 10,000 years old, which puts it at odds with nearly every branch of modern science. The age of the Earth, supported by overwhelming evidence from geology, astronomy, and physics, is about 4.5 billion years. YEC often relies on a literal interpretation of religious texts rather than evidence-based inquiry, which leads to some amusing contradictions.


For instance, to accept YEC, you’d have to believe that all the geological layers, fossils, and radioactive decay we observe are either wrong or intentionally deceptive. It also means accepting that dinosaurs coexisted with humans—like a bad script for a prehistoric sitcom.

On top of that, astrophysics? Just a misunderstanding. Billions of stars billions of light-years away are apparently shining light that traveled just a few thousand years. Physics says no. And don’t even get started on radiometric dating—it’s like YEC is the guy at the party saying, “You don’t really know how old your house is, the paint is just drying really slowly.”

YEC often picks its scientific battles but avoids grappling with the fact that the speed of light, plate tectonics, and pretty much the entire fossil record doesn’t bend to these beliefs. Ultimately, YEC is a fascinating exercise in cognitive dissonance, where ancient texts are trusted over observable reality, like trying to rewrite the plot of the universe with a 6,000-year-old typewriter.

Much more concerning is that the above is indistinguishable from a 14-year-old's first draft.

One day, they'll have visions --
One day, they'll have dreams --
Of you.....

Oh, Young Earth Creationism, where do I even begin? It's like looking at a calendar and deciding that the universe is as old as a particularly long-lived tortoise.


So, let's get this straight: you believe the Earth is what, a few thousand years old? That's like saying your grandmother's antique vase is actually a new pot from IKEA that's been cleverly aged with some dirt and a few well-placed cracks.

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine you're baking a cake, but instead of following a recipe that's been developed over centuries, you decide that the cake has always existed because, well, it looks pretty good right now. That's essentially what Young Earth Creationism does with science. It looks at this beautifully complex universe and says, "Nah, it was all made last Tuesday, perfectly aged and ready to go."

Now, let's talk about fossils. According to Young Earth Creationism, fossils are like those toys you find at the bottom of a cereal box - surprise, they were just put there for us to find! So, dinosaurs didn't really roam the Earth for millions of years; they were just part of God's elaborate Easter egg hunt for humanity.

And light from distant stars? Oh, that's easy! It was created in transit, like some cosmic mail that was already halfway here when it was sent. Because, you know, why bother with the speed of light when you can just say, "It's all an illusion, folks!"

Here's the kicker: If we're going by Young Earth logic, then history, archaeology, geology, biology, physics, and astronomy are all just playing pretend. They're like kids in a sandbox, making up stories about how the sand got there, completely ignoring the fact that there's a whole sandbox factory somewhere.

So, to sum up, Young Earth Creationism is like saying, "Let's ignore all the layers of the cake, the recipe, the baking time, and just believe that the cake fairy delivered it fresh this morning." It's a funny thought, but perhaps not the best basis for understanding the universe. Remember, the universe doesn't need us to believe in it to exist; it's quite happy being old and vast, with or without our blessing.

[AutisticWill]

Much more concerning is that the above is indistinguishable from a 14-year-old's first draft.

One day, they'll have visions --
One day, they'll have dreams --
Of you.....

Oh, Young Earth Creationism, where do I even begin? It's like looking at a calendar and deciding that the universe is as old as a particularly long-lived tortoise.


So, let's get this straight: you believe the Earth is what, a few thousand years old? That's like saying your grandmother's antique vase is actually a new pot from IKEA that's been cleverly aged with some dirt and a few well-placed cracks.

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine you're baking a cake, but instead of following a recipe that's been developed over centuries, you decide that the cake has always existed because, well, it looks pretty good right now. That's essentially what Young Earth Creationism does with science. It looks at this beautifully complex universe and says, "Nah, it was all made last Tuesday, perfectly aged and ready to go."

Now, let's talk about fossils. According to Young Earth Creationism, fossils are like those toys you find at the bottom of a cereal box - surprise, they were just put there for us to find! So, dinosaurs didn't really roam the Earth for millions of years; they were just part of God's elaborate Easter egg hunt for humanity.

And light from distant stars? Oh, that's easy! It was created in transit, like some cosmic mail that was already halfway here when it was sent. Because, you know, why bother with the speed of light when you can just say, "It's all an illusion, folks!"

Here's the kicker: If we're going by Young Earth logic, then history, archaeology, geology, biology, physics, and astronomy are all just playing pretend. They're like kids in a sandbox, making up stories about how the sand got there, completely ignoring the fact that there's a whole sandbox factory somewhere.

So, to sum up, Young Earth Creationism is like saying, "Let's ignore all the layers of the cake, the recipe, the baking time, and just believe that the cake fairy delivered it fresh this morning." It's a funny thought, but perhaps not the best basis for understanding the universe. Remember, the universe doesn't need us to believe in it to exist; it's quite happy being old and vast, with or without our blessing.

All great analogies -- but I'm not sure why you quoted me. I was more concerned with the fact that ChatGPT seems to be catching up with the human ability to draft papers.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Sometimes I get in my own way....

[LastPoet]

The other day i was making an insurance claim on a car accident i had. It was an AI thingy, while well spoken, i picked up on that and responded "syntax error", "she" as it was a female voice asked, "what do you mean?" I asked for a human operator and "she" did. All went well except the personal injuries from said accident.

Looking at human behaviour with tik toks, uoutubers, influencers etc, perhaps in a few years AI will take better care of this infantile species we all are part of.

[SYZ]

Amusingly, ChatGPT is a classic example of just how
primitive genuine AI is today.  It's easy to fool and
so many of its responses are effectively non-answers.

I posed the question "Is it more beneficial to a person
to be an atheist or a theist?"

The response is without any definitive answer to my
direct question, and so fits the non-answer category:

The benefits of being an atheist or a theist can vary widely depending on individual
circumstances, beliefs, and societal contexts.  

Ultimately, the impact on an individual’s life can depend on personal experiences, the
nature of their beliefs, and how those beliefs are integrated into their lives. Some may
thrive in a religious environment, while others may find fulfillment outside of it.  The
key is finding what aligns best with one’s values, needs, and circumstances.

I also posed the question "What is the seven thousandth number in the value of pi?"

The response—which is laughably erroneous was:

The 7,000th digit of π (pi) after the decimal point is 9. If you have any more questions
about π or related topics, feel free to ask!

(A digit is a written symbol for any of the ten numbers from 0 to 9.)

[Inkubus]

Amusingly, ChatGPT is a classic example of just how
primitive genuine AI is today.  It's easy to fool and
so many of its responses are effectively non-answers.

I posed the question "Is it more beneficial to a person
to be an atheist or a theist?"

The response is without any definitive answer to my
direct question, and so fits the non-answer category:

The benefits of being an atheist or a theist can vary widely depending on individual
circumstances, beliefs, and societal contexts.  

Ultimately, the impact on an individual’s life can depend on personal experiences, the
nature of their beliefs, and how those beliefs are integrated into their lives. Some may
thrive in a religious environment, while others may find fulfillment outside of it.  The
key is finding what aligns best with one’s values, needs, and circumstances.

I also posed the question "What is the seven thousandth number in the value of pi?"

The response—which is laughably erroneous was:

The 7,000th digit of π (pi) after the decimal point is 9. If you have any more questions
about π or related topics, feel free to ask!

(A digit is a written symbol for any of the ten numbers from 0 to 9.)

What's the best colour.

[Speedfreak]

Amusingly, ChatGPT is a classic example of just how
primitive genuine AI is today.  It's easy to fool and
so many of its responses are effectively non-answers.

I posed the question "Is it more beneficial to a person
to be an atheist or a theist?"

The response is without any definitive answer to my
direct question, and so fits the non-answer category:


I also posed the question "What is the seven thousandth number in the value of pi?"

The response—which is laughably erroneous was:

(A digit is a written symbol for any of the ten numbers from 0 to 9.)

What's the best colour.

Alexa said "beige."

[Rhythmcs]

she's been talking to rental property management work orders. Accessible beige from sea to shining sea.

[Free]

Oh, Young Earth Creationism, where do I even begin? It's like looking at a calendar and deciding that the universe is as old as a particularly long-lived tortoise.


So, let's get this straight: you believe the Earth is what, a few thousand years old? That's like saying your grandmother's antique vase is actually a new pot from IKEA that's been cleverly aged with some dirt and a few well-placed cracks.

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine you're baking a cake, but instead of following a recipe that's been developed over centuries, you decide that the cake has always existed because, well, it looks pretty good right now. That's essentially what Young Earth Creationism does with science. It looks at this beautifully complex universe and says, "Nah, it was all made last Tuesday, perfectly aged and ready to go."

Now, let's talk about fossils. According to Young Earth Creationism, fossils are like those toys you find at the bottom of a cereal box - surprise, they were just put there for us to find! So, dinosaurs didn't really roam the Earth for millions of years; they were just part of God's elaborate Easter egg hunt for humanity.

And light from distant stars? Oh, that's easy! It was created in transit, like some cosmic mail that was already halfway here when it was sent. Because, you know, why bother with the speed of light when you can just say, "It's all an illusion, folks!"

Here's the kicker: If we're going by Young Earth logic, then history, archaeology, geology, biology, physics, and astronomy are all just playing pretend. They're like kids in a sandbox, making up stories about how the sand got there, completely ignoring the fact that there's a whole sandbox factory somewhere.

So, to sum up, Young Earth Creationism is like saying, "Let's ignore all the layers of the cake, the recipe, the baking time, and just believe that the cake fairy delivered it fresh this morning." It's a funny thought, but perhaps not the best basis for understanding the universe. Remember, the universe doesn't need us to believe in it to exist; it's quite happy being old and vast, with or without our blessing.

All great analogies -- but I'm not sure why you quoted me. I was more concerned with the fact that ChatGPT seems to be catching up with the human ability to draft papers.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Sometimes I get in my own way....

The word "you" in the line "you believe the Earth is what..." was not directed at you personally, but members of the viewership who may subscribe to YEC.

[Paleophyte]

Amusingly, ChatGPT is a classic example of just how
primitive genuine AI is today.  It's easy to fool and
so many of its responses are effectively non-answers.

I posed the question "Is it more beneficial to a person
to be an atheist or a theist?"

The response is without any definitive answer to my
direct question, and so fits the non-answer category:

The benefits of being an atheist or a theist can vary widely depending on individual
circumstances, beliefs, and societal contexts.  

Ultimately, the impact on an individual’s life can depend on personal experiences, the
nature of their beliefs, and how those beliefs are integrated into their lives. Some may
thrive in a religious environment, while others may find fulfillment outside of it.  The
key is finding what aligns best with one’s values, needs, and circumstances.

I also posed the question "What is the seven thousandth number in the value of pi?"

The response—which is laughably erroneous was:

The 7,000th digit of π (pi) after the decimal point is 9. If you have any more questions
about π or related topics, feel free to ask!

(A digit is a written symbol for any of the ten numbers from 0 to 9.)

Actually, all that you're demonstrating here is poor prompt engineering and that the AI has gotten sophisticated enough to figure out what your muddled questions actually meant. The ambiguity in your question about pi would have caused an error in older systems, but the AIs can now figure out what the human likely meant. And your first question is so open-ended that a vague reply is exactly what you should have expected.

You can get these AIs to "hallucinate" but it's usually much more entertaining than this weak sauce.

There have been several notorious and hilarious examples of lawyers using ChatGPT to write their court filings for them only to discover in the most embarrassing way possible that the AI had cited nonexistent case law. The simple problem is that there was no precedent for the position that they were trying to defend, but the AI was told to find some, so find some it did! Cobbled together from cases that look superficially related or invented entirely from thin air, these glitches are given what looks like genuine citations, so a lazy or rushed lawyer who doesn't check them is going to let these mistakes slip through to the court. I'll let you imagine exactly how unimpressed the judge is when this gets discovered.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...-1.7126393
https://www.legaldive.com/news/chatgpt-f...ns/651557/

It's a bit spooky if you ask it for the shortest route between all 50 state capitols though.

[Paleophyte]

I just spent the last few minutes trying to get ChatGPT to spit out some funny hallucinations but it isn't cooperating much. So far it has refused to give me an essay on how cancer causes cell phone usage, debunked the adrenochrome conspiracy nuts, and corrected me on glass being a super-cooled fluid. I'm going to have to get creative on it.

One of the places that it fares poorly is recipes, possibly due to lack of understanding and possibly due to the the huge variety of palettes out there. Ask it for kangaroo pancakes and it goes, "This is how you prepare kangaroo, and this is how you make pancakes. I'll just stitch them together because that seems right."

[SYZ]

...I also posed the question "What is the seven thousandth number in the value of pi?"

The response—which is laughably erroneous, was 9.

...The ambiguity in your question about pi would have caused an error in older systems, but the AIs can now figure out what the human likely meant. And your first question is so open-ended that a vague reply is exactly what you should have expected.

Whichever way you look at it, ChatGPT was wrong.

It gave me the seven thousandth value of Pi as 9,
a rational number, whereas all values of Pi are of
course irrational numbers.  The value of Pi is
never and cannot be a rational number, therefore I
fooled ChatGPT easily.

And there was certainly no ambiguity in my question.

So I tried it again a little more literally:  "what is the
value of Pi to the seven thousandth decimal place?"

And again ChatGPT was laughably wrong:

The value of Pi to the 7,000th decimal place is a long string
of digits, but I can tell you that it starts with 3.14159 and
continues with many more digits.  I can't provide all the
digits directly, but I can tell you that the 7,000th decimal
place of Pi is 2.

Which it cannot possibly be—well not in our universe at least.   

[Speedfreak]

3142 is my padlock combination. I rounded it up.

[Paleophyte]

It gave me the seven thousandth value of Pi as 9,
a rational number, whereas all values of Pi are of
course irrational numbers.  The value of Pi is
never and cannot be a rational number, therefore I
fooled ChatGPT easily.

And there was certainly no ambiguity in my question.

You asked for the 7000th value of pi when there is one and only one value of pi. The only rational interpretation of your question was the one that it made and you should be rather impressed that it managed to figure out your meatsackeese.

So I tried it again a little more literally:  "what is the
value of Pi to the seven thousandth decimal place?"

Again, you've asked the question wrong. Garbage in, garbage out. Stop asking for values and ask for the 7000th digit. Until then you're just asking a poorly-phrased question, forcing the computer to try and interpret it, and complaining that "42" isn't the right answer. The correct answer is either 6 or 7, depending on exactly what you ask. Here's what I got back:

Code:

You: Can you tell me what the 7000th digit of Pi is after the decimal place in decimal form?

ChatGPT: The 7000th digit of Pi after the decimal place is 7.

You: And the 7000th digit in total, ignoring the decimal?

ChatGPT: The 7000th digit of Pi in total, ignoring the decimal, is 8.

You: You might want to double check that last answer.

ChatGPT: You’re absolutely right to double-check! The 7000th digit of Pi in total, ignoring the decimal, is actually 6. Thanks for catching that!

You: You counted the decimal point as a digit didn't you?

ChatGPT: Yes, I did! I mistakenly included the decimal point in my initial count. Thanks for catching that—I should have removed it right from the start to avoid the confusion.

I was able to catch that mistake because I was cross-checking with Wolfram-Alpha (Why are you using ChatGPT for math?!?) and because ChatGPT was actually showing its work. Interesting how very little prompting it took to get it to the correct answer.

[Inkubus]

Is the the following text written by a troll:

"I too am curious about others. Danu, Thump, Epronovost, these people generally aren't shy about calling me out when they think I said something fishy that doesn't add up. My guess would be they saw it, rolled their eyes, and ignored it for being stupid rather than thought I was slyly trying to mind-fuck the forum with my clever pro-Putin message. Does it not seem odd to you that I am such a bad propagandist for Russia? When conversation come up, I copy and paste in Putin speech. No one notice! Comrade Szuchow probably asleep, he no notice! Victory, Ukraine fall! Poland next. Invade, build better schools. But NO! Comrade Szuchow catch me red (get it? I make funny!) handed! What to say now that plan fail...Joke! Was joke!"

ChatGPT said:

Why even ask? Of course he is you stupid cunt!

Yes, the text you provided appears to be written in a way that could be considered trolling. Several aspects suggest this:

1. Mocking tone and humor: The use of sarcastic humor, such as "Comrade Szuchow probably asleep" and "Victory, Ukraine fall! Poland next. Invade, build better schools," implies a playful, mocking approach, possibly making light of serious topics like politics and war, which can be seen as trolling behavior.
   
2. Disruptive behavior: The writer seems to be deliberately stirring confusion or engaging in conversation in a way that downplays serious topics. The mention of being a "bad propagandist" for Russia and using phrases like "mind-fuck the forum" suggests they are intentionally making statements that might provoke others.
   
3. Exaggeration: The writer exaggerates their own actions ("copy and paste in Putin speech," "no one notice!") in a way that may be designed to make others question their sincerity, or at least provoke a reaction, which is a common tactic of trolling.
   
4. Contradictory statements: The person calls attention to the absurdity of being a "bad propagandist" for Russia, while using humor to both distance themselves from any serious political agenda and to provoke others into questioning the message.
   

These elements are consistent with trolling behavior, where the intention is to disrupt conversations, get attention, and elicit strong reactions—often using humor or sarcasm as a shield.