2

As Christians, we know that the real apocalypse is a lot weirder and more awful than the robot apocalypse. But as our StackExchange overlords apparently want to immanentize the robot eschaton, I guess we're not supposed to mod-hammer delete and burninate users who do so. Oh well, I can still have my private hatreds and seethe with rage on this side of the monitor.

That being said, if someone's gonna post chatGPT generated stuff it better be good. This answer is not good. It picks one part of the question and then runs with it, doesn't really answer the question at hand it just picks one part of the question, unnecessarily explains the history behind it and then explains why it explained the history

The Council of Nicaea, convened in 325 AD, was called in response to the growing influence of Arianism, a theological doctrine proposed by Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria. Arius argued that the Son (Jesus Christ) was created by the Father, and therefore, was not co-eternal with the Father, essentially making Jesus less than God the Father.

Nobody asked about Arianism, they asked about the Nicene Creed which refutes Arianism, but it still in use and not just to refute Arianism, but to provide a model for what the Catholic Church and her offshoots believe to this day. So spending 4 paragraphs talking about the council and almost no time talking about the Bible is pointless.

So, I'll leave this for now, maybe another mod will delete it, but it is an example of a BAD answer, if you want to use generative AI to help you research a question, fine, but please don't post that as an answer.

3
  • 1
    When someone is making a new account to get around a suspension, you don't really need to second guess yourself.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Aug 2, 2023 at 0:23
  • 2
    To Peter and @curiousdannii . FWIW, by using ChatGPT with Christianity related questions from time to time (not for C.SE by the way, only for additional insights gleaned from the human data harvested by ChatGPT model engineers) I hope to notice genre signatures, telltale signs of ChatGPT output. We Bible exegetes should be really good at this; one Exegesis professor boasted that after a few months, he can tell which essay came from which student or from plagiarism! Aug 2, 2023 at 15:26
  • Wait, am I reading this right? Has the general Stack Exchange policy on ChatGPT changed? Are people allowed to use it now?
    – jaredad7
    Aug 11, 2023 at 13:32

1 Answer 1

3

There is good reason to flag up the need for alertness with regard to the entrance of ChatGPT into some answers here. The need is to spot where gleaning pertinent facts / figures in order to help form an answer ends, and just plonking ChatGPT answers in wholesale begins.

There's also a need to distinguish between an individual's answer where the point of the question has been missed, and they launch into things that the question is not asking about. That is usually innocent misunderstanding, and while it still needs to be flagged (and the answer deleted if none of it is relevant) the poster could be encouraged to have another go regarding the point of the question. Also, a little bit of historical background to set the scene before giving an answer can be helpful, though you rightly object to 4 paragraphs, as in the example you give!

However, if an individual has used ChatGPT to generate an answer, whether or not the point of the question is tackled, that bit should not be allowed to stay up. No matter how good the ChatGPT bit is, the poster of it should state the source - that it's a ChatGPT source - and not infer it is "all my own work". So, I'm just saying "No!" to robotic ChatGPT creeping in here, for if allowed, that will be the thin end of a wedge that will push out individual thinking and reasoning.

You must log in to answer this question.

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