Note: fortunately this isn't just my personal opinion, this policy has precedence in the network


In the interest of self preservation, any posts that look like they were written by chat.openai.com or any other chatbot will be summarily destroyed by yours truly.

These are in the form:

Are there any exorcisms in the old testament

Exorcism, as it is typically understood today, is the practice of expelling demons or evil spirits from a person or place. The concept of exorcism can be found in many religious and cultural traditions, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

In the Old Testament of the Bible, there are several passages that describe instances of exorcism or the expulsion of evil spirits. For example, in 1 Samuel 16:14-23, it is written that the spirit of God came upon David and he was able to exorcise the evil spirit that was tormenting King Saul. In another instance, in 1 Kings 18:20-40, the prophet Elijah performs an exorcism by calling down fire from heaven to destroy the prophets of the false god Baal.

However, it is important to note that these passages may not necessarily be understood in the same way as contemporary conceptions of exorcism. In the Old Testament, the expulsion of evil spirits is often seen as a manifestation of God's power and his protection of his people, rather than as a separate ritual or practice.

They are uncommonly well written, contain no WALLS OF UPPERCASE TEXT, don't have the spillin 'n grammasical errors you commonly see from humans and are devoid of the hubris or empathy common of Christians.

So far, there are no citations in the form of external links, but these will probably be coming. If you are using chatbots to answer questions here, you will be found, you are not welcome to answer questions in this manner on this site!

“There is just one faint, lingering, and elusive difficulty about the creation of a Thinking Machine. It is a contradiction in terms. The same subtle embarrassment hovers over us when we talk about a Round Triangle or a Silent Noise.”

– G.K. Chesterton - Illustrated London News, December 3, 1927

  • 3
    In fact, not a great deal different from the technique of just copying and pasting but without any incisive personal input.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Dec 7, 2022 at 12:14
  • 2
    Well, for what it's worth, I definitely can't tell whether that example was written by a chatbot. It sounds like something taken from Wikipedia without citation marks. Not really a good answer but one that could have come from a person. Do we actually have seen what looks like an influx of chatbot answers?
    – kutschkem
    Commented Dec 8, 2022 at 14:47
  • 2
    @kutschkem you're right - it was very obvious once I realized what they were, didn't require AI to detect. Flag 'em if you see 'em. Not an influx, only a couple users.
    – Peter Turner Mod
    Commented Dec 8, 2022 at 16:23
  • 3
    Based. Do not short circuit your God-given reason by relying on a machine to think for you.
    – jaredad7
    Commented Jan 25, 2023 at 2:29
  • Alan Turing would be laughing. Commented Feb 1, 2023 at 18:51
  • 1
    It should be noted that your header is incorrect, Stack Exchange decided to allow individual sites to establish their own policies concerning AI answer. Stack Overflow banned them, but the ban there does not apply to any other site. Commented Mar 10, 2023 at 17:23
  • 6
    Well we don't want 'em, you can take your chains and go home, Mr. Markov.
    – Peter Turner Mod
    Commented Mar 10, 2023 at 17:28
  • Along these lines, please look in to the first three "answers" posted to my question (two of which have at this time, been deleted). christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/96510/… The same "individual" within minutes of "answering" mine (with two different identicons), provided a rather lengthy answer on an adjacent post within 3-4 minutes. You have access, I'm sure, to the deleted history. Many thanks.
    – DDS
    Commented Aug 2, 2023 at 18:11

3 Answers 3



No, I never used AI for any of my answers. I fully support the staff & moderator decision. I further promise not to use AI chat bot for my future answers either, even for a tempting potential use scenario (see next section below).

But, am I myself a bot? No. Here's my declaration:

I, GratefulDisciple, am a full flesh and blood human being born through natural birth after 9 month gestation in my mother's womb. My mother is also a flesh and blood human being.

Medical exam result or redacted government-issued ID can be provided upon request by legitimate parties such as SE staff / moderator. 😀

Having some fun

This section is for jesting, thought experiment, and bringing some Christian perspective.

I DO NOT CONDONE USING THIS but want to show how humans (like myself) are sinful and want to be rebel against God and his good commands. I'm sure I will not be the only one who come up with this scenario, so this can be used as a thought experiment to better defend against plagiarism or chat bot misinformation in the future.

The temptation scenario

This post got me thinking. If I do these 3 things:

  1. The ML-generated text includes the Internet source(s) used from its training data and I include the links in my answer (let's say link to GotQuestion, etc.)
  2. I source the AI answer as a quote with a link to the ML model used (let's say, the specific ChatGPT ML model used)
  3. I add my own stuff

would that be OK?

What St. Paul said about it

You know, the problem with law/regulation is that our old nature can conspire to lead us to rebel against it. Cf Rom 7:7-13 (NLT) adapted for SE:

7 Well then, am I suggesting that the law of [SE] is sinful? Of course not! In fact, it was the law that showed me my sin. I would never have known that [using ChatGPT in SE] is wrong if the law had not said, “You must not [use ChatGPT for SE answer].” 8 But sin used this command to arouse all kinds of [mischievous] desires within me! If there were no law, sin would not have that power. 9 At one time I lived without understanding the law. But when I learned the command not to [use ChatGPT for SE answer], for instance, the power of sin came to life, 10 and I [got suspended from SE]. So I discovered that the law’s commands, which were supposed to bring [quality content to SE], brought [suspension] instead. 11 Sin took advantage of those commands and deceived me; it used the commands to [suspend] me. 12 But still, the law itself is [commonsensical], and its commands are [commonsensical] and right and good. 13 But how can that be? Did the law, which is good, cause my [suspension]? Of course not! Sin used what was good to bring about my condemnation to [being banned from SE]. So we can see how terrible sin really is. It uses [SE's] good commands for its own evil purposes.

What St. James said about it

Thanks to @Conrado. James 1:13-15 adapted to SE:

Let no one say that [Peter Turner] has tempted them; for [a mod] does not tempt any one. Rather, each one is tempted when he or she is dragged away by their own [laziness to read on their own and] desires and [opens an OpenAI account "just out of curiosity"]. Then, when [Chat-GPT has re-iterated into version 4], it gives birth to [always more human-like plagiarized text and some hallucinations]. These, when they have been [posted], will eventually lead to [Suspension].

  • 3
    This answer is the Christian version of the tongue-and-cheek answer in meta. Commented Dec 7, 2022 at 23:51
  • 4
    AI/ML generators are generally plagiarisers, and give no sources. They're not acceptable even if the AI model is referenced. You could add sources to them, but it's probably less effort to write posts from scratch. And that has no ethical grey sides.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Commented Dec 8, 2022 at 0:15
  • 1
    @curiousdannii Updated my proposed use, although as of now, the ChatGPT doesn't provide source(s) although it should !!. Commented Dec 8, 2022 at 0:23
  • 1
    I think the plagiarism aspect means you just can't rely on it. At the moment ChatGPT doesn't produce very much that wouldn't be considered general knowledge, but if it gains more domain specific knowledge, then it would be hard for anyone to know they have actually added enough sources for all the ideas it generates. A true field expert might be able to, but why would they be using GPT in the first place?
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Commented Dec 8, 2022 at 0:24
  • 1
    @curiousdannii For this meta question, I'm just jesting. But I'm sure this will be a serious future issue. For example, I heard that ML is going to be increasingly used in various law profession, starting with contract lawyers. Of course, there is going to be a lawyer's name attached to the legal brief who is fully responsible for its content. But this will be a new reality we have to deal with. Commented Dec 8, 2022 at 0:27
  • 3
    @curiousdannii Anyway, after reading the linked meta answer (wow, what a firestorm it is in the past 2 days) I see how serious it is for SE and I agree with the ban. I'm not going to use it for SE, promise 😀. Commented Dec 8, 2022 at 0:42
  • 3
    Let no one say that Peter Turner has tempted them; for a mod does not tempt any one. Rather, each one is tempted when he or she is dragged away by their own [laziness to read on their own and] desires and opens an OpenAI account "just out of curiosity". Then, when Chat-GPT has re-iterated into version 4, it gives birth to always more human-like plagiarized text and some hallucinations. These, when they have been posted, will eventually lead to Suspension.
    – Conrado
    Commented Mar 28, 2023 at 18:33
  • 2
    @conrado, this is easily the best thing that has every happened to C.SE moderators. Very obvious grounds for suspension; I'm much happier to be called a troglodyte by an aggrieved suspendee than an infidel.
    – Peter Turner Mod
    Commented Mar 29, 2023 at 3:36
  • 1
    I, "Someone", am a full flesh and blood human being born through Caesarian section after 9 month gestation in my mother's womb. My mother is also a flesh and blood human being.
    – Someone
    Commented May 19, 2023 at 0:53

Problematic for me, insofar as my initials were A.I. before I married. And, being a prolific writer even before I married, with more articles published than I can now recall, I am guilty of utilising some of my own published material. But you ask about material produced by Artificial Intelligence, not material produced by Miss A.I.

Well, a personal touch of humour in answers dispels any suspicions of AI at work. It cannot just be a joke or a subtle remark. It has to be personal. I recently included this comment in an answer on Stack:

"This does not refer to any chanting of a formulaic prayer, or reading out aloud a prayer printed on a sheet of paper (or on an app. Note to self: try to keep up to speed with technology.)"

No technologically awesome, self-respecting AI bot would be so self-deprecating (another personal touch of humour there.) Let's keep using those God-given muscles on our faces to keep smiling!


Moreover the law [of SE] entered, that the offence [of posting ChatGPT output] might abound. But where [ChatGPT content] abounded, [correct answers] did much more abound: That as [ChatGPT] hath reigned unto death, even so might [correct answers] reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Shall we continue [posting using ChatGPT], that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to [ChatGPT], live any longer therein?

(Romans 5:20-6:2, KJV, adapted for SE)

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .