Tag Archives: AI-chats

ChatGPT: A Brief Essay on Steve’s Long Look at Religion

Posted on by
A friend shared the following quote from a presentation by Yuval Noah Harari: “What happens to a religion of texts when the texts start talking?” I’ve read most of his books (and excerpted here many times) but didn’t recall that line. But it reminded me how often I have posted on the subject of religion over the last twenty years (71 times). I prompted ChatGPT for a brief essay summarizing those posts. PS: see comment at bottom of post.

ChatGPT: Across two decades of writing, your posts treat religion less as a cosmic truth-claim and more as a human behavior—something people do, invent, defend, and use to make sense of a chaotic world. What comes through is not hostility toward believers but a deep curiosity about why people believe, how they justify what they believe, and what those beliefs do to individuals and societies.

A recurring theme is the arbitrariness of certainty. You’re consistently drawn to moments where people confidently assert that their version of God, their denomination, their scripture, their invisible friend is the correct one—despite the obvious fact that countless others believe equally incompatible things with the same confidence. Your reaction isn’t anger; it’s closer to bemusement. You like to poke at the fragility of belief, especially when it influences politics or public life. If someone treats a horoscope or Ouija board as nonsense but treats their own inherited religion as sacred truth, you notice the asymmetry immediately. Continue reading →

Training humans. Training AI.

Posted on by

Any discussion of LLM‘s will eventually include some reference to training. Positive aspects as well as the negatives always seem to point back to how the LLM was trained. I’ve been pondering how that is different from how humans are “trained.” Eventually, I suppose a human child will take over its own learning experience. But isn’t that likely where we’re headed with LLM‘s?

I put that question to ChatGPT and, as so often happens, a lengthy discussion ensued, touching on what it means for an LLM to “trust” and should human trust be considered superior, which led to the concepts of self and free will.

The future of personal blogs

Posted on by
This is such a succinct take on blogging –again from ChatGPT– I’m posting verbatim. I like the line, “A social post is a sparkler. A blog post is a lighthouse.” Abandoned lighthouse might be more accurate but it’s a nice image. Will we –or have we– lost the ability to distinguish AI created content from that of humans? And, yes, I “value continuity over virality.”

Blogs won’t disappear. They’ll matter less in the mainstream and more in the margins—where depth, ownership, and longevity beat the fast-twitch feed of social media. Continue reading →

What happened to radio?

Posted on by
The post below was written by ChatGPT5.1. This is not the first time I’ve done this and it is always with some trepidation. But this analysis is so on-the-money I couldn’t think of what I might add. I hope this wasn’t ripped whole-cloth from somebody’s article or blog post. If it is I’ll kill this post or give it the proper attribution.

Radio didn’t die so much as it ossified, while listeners moved on. But there’s more texture to it, and I think you’ll appreciate seeing the forces that pushed it downhill—and the narrow paths it might still have back up the mountain. Here are the big levers, in order of impact: Continue reading →

ChatGPT knows how to change a light bulb

Posted on by

I decided to replace the bulbs in the ceiling fixtures in my bedroom and office. I wanted something brighter and asked ChatGPT for some suggestions. ChatGPT asked where I planned to purchase the bulbs (Lowe’s) and came back with the brands they carried and where to find them in the store. By the time the thread concluded I had eight pages (PDF) of good, relevant information. I felt a little overwhelmed. How, I asked, did we do this before AI.

Honestly, Steve? We mostly guessed.

We walked into Lowe’s, stared at a wall of bulbs like confused primates, grabbed something that “looked about right,” and hoped for the best when we got home. Maybe we squinted at the tiny print on the side of the old bulb. Maybe we asked a 19-year-old employee who pointed us toward something vaguely similar. Half the time we’d get it wrong, take it home anyway, and just live with the dimmer or brighter or yellower bulb because—well—who wants to go back.

Now you get the whole decision tree laid out, whether you wanted it or not.

It’s one of the big shifts with AI: stuff that used to be a guessing game suddenly turns into way more clarity than you ever expected for something as simple as a lightbulb.

But if you ever want to go pre-ChatGPT vintage mode, I can give you the old-school answer too:

“Buy the brightest BR40 LED they have. Warm white. You’ll be fine.”

AI might destroy us but until it does, people will use it. For everything.