This past week, this blog held two conversations with a ChatBot, the vanguard of supposedly all-knowing software which some believe is destined to soon take over our world and make many crucial functions (including blogging) unnecessary antiques.
Aiming to make the interchange as illuminating as possible, I first asked the bot (called “CB” for short here) to identify the top five “challenges” (formerly called problems or issues) facing the Religious Society of Friends (RSOF for short) today. CB quickly obliged, and that first round, ChatBot Quakerism, Part One, is (ready to read here) .
My followup was to ask CB to present us with practical solutions (with references) to these top five issues. The reply, equally expeditious, ChatBot Quakerism, Part Two (is available in full here).
Then I invited reader comments, of which there were a good many, both on the blog and in emails.
Some welcomed CB and its possibilities:
J Joseph Schultz: I’m not sure what world you live in, but the world I live in has ALREADY been polluted by artificial intelligence. Some of it is primitive and rudimentary . . . .
In olden days, prophets told us what we SHOULD think. These days, AI tells us what we DO think.
I am not worried about this. The changes inherent in this situation are so all-encompassing as to be beyond optimism or pessimism.
There will be winners and losers for sure. There always are. At this point, I’m not sure we will even be able to recognize them.
Some felt CB had homed in on the essence of our predicament:
Helen Mullen: OMG! the CHATbot certainly drew from the Quaker online presence to nail the 5 top concerns of the American Quakers!
So amazing, it is actually scary!
But to more, the issues sounded too familiar and more generic:
R Neal Peterson: I appreciate how quickly ChatBot identified the obvious mundane problems facing Quakers. Those problems are familiar to Friends, also familiar to all mainline denominations.
And
Mitch Gould: I don’t find this intelligence any more artificial than the standard-issue analyses from Weighty Friends. Both are a string of thoughtless, ineffectual cliches. Pardon my cynicism!
The response to CB’s list of proposed solutions got rather more critical.
Ron Braithwaite: I’ve been experimenting with ChatGPT, asking technical questions. More often than not, I get an incorrect reply. A reply that sounds like it should be right, but when I try the “solution”, it turns out to be completely incorrect (there is no MF switch on the lens barrel; there is no dialog to load a reference file).
I want to reiterate: I get more correct sounding wrong answers than right answers.
I suspect that applies to the recommendations to these questions as well.
My own skeptical reflexes were triggered by the one specific “reference” CB cited, namely:
Fager, C. (2014). Renewal and Diversity: Friends in the Twenty-first Century. Pendle Hill Pamphlet, 439. Pendle Hill Press.
As pointed out in the second post, just about everything in that item was false: I wrote no such essay, and Google couldn’t find the title anywhere. Likewise, I published no pamphlet for Pendle Hill, in 2014 or any year. There is a PH Pamphlet #439 (maybe the one factual assertion here), but it had a different title, subject and author, and was issued in a different year.
George Amoss, an astute and thorough internet author, added to this result:
George Amoss: ChatGPT makes up references as its normal mode of operation. Even after admitting in one chat that it has no access to scholarly journals, for example, it went on to provide me with three more fictitious citations. In recent months, I’ve posted a couple of chats on Facebook as examples.
ChatGPT claims to be honest — testimony of integrity? — but it’s a liar. Case in point: “as an AI language model, I do not make up scholarly citations. Whenever I provide a citation or reference to a source, I ensure that it is accurate and reliable.” But I have receipts.
For that matter, so do I. But beyond the single bogus reference, what about CB’s solutions? Some fond them plausible:
John McCarthy: It’s pretty hard to disagree with the assessment or the advice. However, I think these issues and potential solutions are common to nearly all mainstream Christian faiths. So, not a hard lift seems to me.
But to others, they sounded familiar, maybe too familiar:
Wendy Michener: Much of this is boiler plate about a religion which is not the Society of Friends. . . . It is a Frankenstein essay pasting individual sentences from actual coherent essays into a “format” of an essay with no idea of what it is doing. It is babbling without saying anything remotely interesting or useful . . . this is babbling about a general “religious” entity that has almost no relevance to any Quaker group I am affiliated with. Perhaps AFSC, but it is over 90% not-Quaker.
Others mixed irony with sarcasm :
Bill O’Connor: Advertising! Why didn’t we think of that?
Hank Fay: “Great potlucks, no endless sermons or off-key singing, comfortable chairs instead of benches, and not jumping up and down. Bring some good company into your retirement years with a bunch of just-plain-nice Quakers.”
Aiming for the retirement crowd takes care of 2 issues at once: upping membership and lining up bequests.
These reactions point to my own. In both of CB’s posts, whether the advice was sound or fictional, essentially none of it was remotely religious. They not only apply to most churches or other faith groups, but to practically any nonprofit that feels in a precarious condition. That is, they’re not false (if one’s group’s donations are declining, then to survive, it truly does need to find more), but trite.
Yet more important for me, this list deals essentially with the secular aspects of group life. More important for me, when I consider joining or staying in a faith group, is the condition of the faith: does it have a sense of direction, can I find energy, guidance, discipline and renewal from this community, its beliefs and practice? A sense of the sacred/transcendent?
Both CB’s diagnosis and remedies seem essentially oblivious to these factors. Yet for Quakers and many other groups, that’s where their fate is determined: whether their spirit is obstructed or nurtured, in good times and bad. Their most hazardous problems are what quenches the spirit, and such ailments may overlap with finance and age and the wanderings of youth, but are not equivalent to them.
One reader took on this distinction with vigor and vinegar, and I’ll let him complete this post. But before that, I’ll just add that thus far, CB, and its version of “artificial intelligence” may be promising. But in this exchange it seems too artificial and not yet sufficiently intelligent to be a threat to religion generally, Quakerism in particular, and even bloggers, by the way.
Maybe someday. But today I agree with reader Phil Patrick’s verdict — not yet:
Phil Patrick: QUAKERISM is 100% viable and has a wider potential than is commonly assumed (although still statistically quite small, simply because most people can’t sit still and be quiet for an hour). We don’t have a “Quakerism” problem, we have an outdated, unrealistic, 20th century, “Birckenstock liberal” problem. This tiny subculture (20th century leftists that are NOT atheists) have passively hijacked the RSOF in the last few decades, and now the branch is strangling the root.
Please note I am NOT a republican and I absolutely feel Friends are on the right side of the issues, at least morally. [But] It’s become too MUCH about impotent lobbying and NOT ENOUGH about fundamental nonviolence, primitive/mystical Christianity, Spiritual growth, and above all, foundational Quaker practice and history.
We should be finding our true leading of Spirit (individually, and at the monthly meeting level) and then TAKING THAT out into the world, not bringing our political identity INTO the meeting itself, just so we can have a choir to preach to, enjoy support of peers, and engage in internal PSEUDO-activism.
I have, perhaps, strangely, come to believe that Quakerism, in its modern, unprogrammed form, is meant to be an older people’s religion. Almost all the newer people in my Meeting (all younger than me, but I’m older than dirt) are refugees from other religious persuasions (and some of them still carry their persuasions with them, especially Muslims, HIndus, and Jews.) They are really seeking refuge, having not found it elsewhere.
Perhaps we should have outreach aimed at older people. They may not know that they would like us, but have experience of what they don’t like.
I reran your experiment with a prompt that incorporates your criticism of CB’s initial response. Here’s what I got:
Me: Please write an 800-word article on the topic: the five most important problems now facing members of the Religious Society of Friends, also called Quakers. These five problems should be specifically religious and should not mention the demographic or organizational problems facing Quakerism. The five problems should speak to questions of faith such as “Is there a sense of direction?” “Can I find energy, guidance, discipline and renewal from this community, its beliefs and practice?” and “Is there a sense of the sacred/transcendent?”
ChatGPT3: The Religious Society of Friends, also known as Quakers, is a community of believers that prioritize simplicity, peace, integrity, community, and equality. Despite the long-standing tradition of Quakerism, the members of the Religious Society of Friends face several challenges. These challenges pose significant problems that require attention and action to maintain the integrity of Quakerism. This article highlights the five most important problems facing members of the Religious Society of Friends today.
1. Maintaining the sense of the sacred
The concept of the sacred is central to Quakerism, and it refers to a profound sense of awe and reverence for the divine. Quakers traditionally believe that every human being possesses an inner light that connects them to the divine. This belief is integral to Quaker practices, such as silent worship and communal discernment. However, the modern world presents many distractions that can make it challenging to maintain this sense of the sacred. The proliferation of technology, social media, and other distractions can make it difficult to focus on the divine. To overcome this problem, members of the Religious Society of Friends must find ways to deepen their connection to the sacred, whether through regular meditation or other spiritual practices.
2. Building a sense of community
Community is another essential aspect of Quakerism. Quakers believe in the importance of fostering a sense of belonging and connection among their members. However, in today’s fast-paced world, people are increasingly isolated and disconnected from their communities. This isolation can make it challenging to build and maintain a sense of community within the Religious Society of Friends. To address this problem, members of the Quaker community must find ways to connect with one another and build relationships. This can include participating in Quaker-led activities or joining other community groups that align with Quaker values.
3. Responding to social justice issues
Quakers have a long history of advocating for social justice and equality. However, in today’s world, social justice issues are becoming increasingly complex, and it can be challenging to know how to respond. Members of the Religious Society of Friends must find ways to stay informed and engaged on issues of social justice. This can include participating in advocacy efforts, supporting local initiatives, and engaging in dialogue with people from different backgrounds and perspectives.
4. Navigating theological diversity
Quakerism is known for its emphasis on individual spiritual journeys and experiences. As a result, Quaker communities often encompass a diverse range of theological perspectives. While this diversity can be enriching, it can also be challenging to navigate. Members of the Religious Society of Friends must find ways to honor and respect the diverse perspectives within their community while also maintaining a sense of unity and shared purpose.
5. Deepening personal spiritual practices
Finally, members of the Religious Society of Friends must find ways to deepen their personal spiritual practices. Quakerism emphasizes the importance of personal spiritual journeys and experiences, but it can be challenging to know how to deepen these experiences. To overcome this challenge, members of the Religious Society of Friends must find ways to connect with their inner selves, whether through meditation, prayer, or other spiritual practices. They must also be willing to explore new spiritual practices and engage in ongoing self-reflection to deepen their understanding of their faith.
In conclusion, the Religious Society of Friends faces several challenges today that require attention and action. These challenges are specifically religious and speak to questions of faith, such as maintaining a sense of the sacred, building a sense of community, responding to social justice issues, navigating theological diversity, and deepening personal spiritual practices. To overcome these challenges, members of the Quaker community must work together to find ways to stay engaged, informed, and connected to their faith and to one another. By doing so, they can ensure that the Religious Society of Friends continues to thrive and remain a vital force for good in
Me: How’d it do? I’m guessing it was about to say “in the world” but ran out of response space.
Very interesting. I’ll ponder this.
I think ChatGPT3 did remarkably well. I was particularly struck by #4. Navigating theological diversity. My own spiritual journey has frequently diverged with that of my meeting, to the point where I have abandoned any search for THE TRUTH, and now advocate the way of the starfish*. In that vein I’ll suggest that ChatGPT3 did not run out of space, but in parliamentary terms, “created a blank in the motion” to be filled in by the sense of the readers. I’ll second Mr. Fuller’s motion that we fill in the blank with “in the world” and further move the following alternatives:
• the hearts, and minds of individual humans
• the Global Village
• the souls of sentient beings, whether carbon or silicon based,
• the Solar System (there are, at this writing, seven humans
offplanet on the ISS, and three more on Tiangong)
So what is the sense of the readership? Any alternatives to eliminate? Any alternatives to add? How many “answers” with varying levels of validity can we ultimately discern?
* You know how humans are constructed on a bilaterally symmetric plan, and so are structurally designed to think in an ‘on the one hand … on the other hand’ manner? Starfish, however, have anywhere from four to 23 ‘on the other hand’s available, and so can hold a wider variety of alternatives while laboring on or seasoning a problem. Having the capacity to settle on a number of workable answers, each with some validity, they are not compelled to decide so quickly on a single THE right answer.