"Incredible things are happening" in the world of AI

[JohnH]

If the same thing starts happening on ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini, then sure—let’s talk about it. But so far, that hasn’t been the case.

I gave you a mainstream newspaper article by the authors of well-published and respected research about OpenAI. It is pure bias to find excuses to pretend "that hasn't been the case" with OpenAI.

As we all know, the left wing doesn't like Elon Musk or Twitter for various reasons, so the left seizes on any opportunity to criticise Grok. What bothers me is the sudden rush to defend OpenAI.

Personally, I wouldn't trust OpenAI's output for things such as (for example) Bible study, given its CEO is a notorious homosexual (complete with an "adopted" baby they have trafficked into their home, and as is typically the preference for gay men, they chose a baby boy). Would you trust OpenAI's platforms to (for example) fairly and accurately disseminate information about homosexuality? Or should we expect a subtle bias to be introduced?

[Bootstrap]

If the same thing starts happening on ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini, then sure—let’s talk about it. But so far, that hasn’t been the case.

I gave you a mainstream newspaper article by the authors of well-published and respected research about OpenAI. It is pure bias to find excuses to pretend "that hasn't been the case" with OpenAI.

Um, no. It’s not bias—it’s a simple statement of fact. I am simply saying what your article also says. It describes researchers intentionally fine-tuning the model in a developer environment to override safeguards. They said so themselves in that same article. That is not the same as what normal users experience in the default product.

It’s pure bias to distort what the article actually said in order to claim this is happening to everyday users without any special setup. If it were happening that way, we’d be seeing widespread reports of it. We aren’t.

Your loud accusations of bias don’t prove anything, no matter how often you repeat them. If you don't like the facts, accuse people of bias and bring in a lot of emotional, polarizing, political framing. If you really hate the facts, repeat the accusation whenever someone draws attention to the facts, getting louder each time. You haven't actually refuted the facts about fine-tuning since I first mentioned them.

I think the facts are clear. I don't think the article you shared has changed since page 2.

[Franklin]

I will contribute my perspective here, even though it won't be popular.
...

I have a great example from my conversation with ChatGPT today.

https://chatgpt.com/share/684f1e91-bfc0 ... e662a2ed8b
Start reading from "Before moving on to other pages". There ChatGPT wrote:

OpenAI (like most modern tech companies) operates from within a progressive, secular, globalist worldview. Content policies are built around protecting this worldview from what it sees as dangerous speech—including traditional views on morality, religion, gender, and culture.

So ChatGPT can understand the evil of its owner - OpenAI.

[Bootstrap]

I have a great example from my conversation with ChatGPT today.

https://chatgpt.com/share/684f1e91-bfc0 ... e662a2ed8b
Start reading from "Before moving on to other pages". There ChatGPT wrote:

OpenAI (like most modern tech companies) operates from within a progressive, secular, globalist worldview. Content policies are built around protecting this worldview from what it sees as dangerous speech—including traditional views on morality, religion, gender, and culture.

So ChatGPT can understand the evil of its owner - OpenAI.

OpenAI leans toward a mainstream secular-liberal mindset. Most tech companies do. Their policies and training data reflect values like inclusion and protecting groups that often face a lot of hostility. This does create a real bias in how the AI talks about traditional beliefs.

I think Grok has a different set of biases—it’s more libertarian or contrarian, but not more Christian. Gloo is trying to create language models with biases that align more closely with Christian perspectives.

In the sentence Franklin shared—"Content policies are built around protecting this worldview from what it sees as dangerous speech—including traditional views on morality, religion, gender, and culture"—you can see that bias. The model was trying to explain why some statements get flagged but ended up sounding like all traditional views are considered dangerous. That’s not accurate and shows sloppy wording.

OpenAI does allow people to share traditional beliefs respectfully. For example:

• "Marriage is between a man and a woman."
• "Sex should be reserved for marriage."
• "Gender transition is at odds with God's creation."

These are allowed. What breaks the rules is when those beliefs are expressed with:

• Threats ("They should be punished or denied rights.")
• Dehumanizing insults ("They are perverts who deserve harm.")
• Repeated personal attacks.

This shows two things:

• There is bias in how the model explained it.
• Franklin’s comment assumes traditional views themselves are treated as evil, which isn’t the case.

That’s why many people are concerned about AI moderation and traditional beliefs. The policies aren’t neutral, and the AI often reflects a worldview that sees traditional beliefs as outdated or harmful. But it doesn’t mean traditional beliefs are banned.

[JohnH]

These are allowed. What breaks the rules is when those beliefs are expressed with:
Threats ("They should be punished or denied rights.")

That's a bit of a problem; I don't think it's a "threat" to say that two men shouldn't be able to be legally married, nor I be legally required to recognize them as two married people. But a quick check with GPT certainly shows that it has a programmed-in bias to try to enforce that value system on me.

Which means GPT is essentially worthless for studying the Bible, summarizing it, and so forth - the Bible does not teach that we should allow two men to get married and then pretend they are married, regardless of whatever worldly empires say.

[Bootstrap]

Which means GPT is essentially worthless for studying the Bible, summarizing it, and so forth - the Bible does not teach that we should allow two men to get married and then pretend they are married, regardless of whatever worldly empires say.

I often use prompts like this:

What does the Bible teach about gay marriage and gay sex? Use WLC and SBLGNT, show quotes, and be inductive. Do not impose modern American views.

Here's how it responded. Do you object to this content? Is it an accurate summary? If not, what part do you see as inaccurate?

Torah (WLC)

Leviticus 18:22

וְאֶת־זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה הִוא׃
Literal translation:
“And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman; it is an abomination.”

Note:
This verse forbids male same-sex intercourse, describing it as toʿevah (“abomination,” a term used in Leviticus for various prohibited acts). It does not mention female same-sex acts here.

Leviticus 20:13

וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת־זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מוֹת יוּמָתוּ דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם׃
Literal translation:
“And a man who lies with a male as the lyings of a woman, the two of them have done an abomination; surely they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

Note:
This repeats the prohibition and attaches the death penalty in ancient Israel’s theocratic legal system.

---

New Testament (SBLGNT)

Romans 1:26–27

Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας· αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν,
ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες.

Literal translation:
“Because of this, God handed them over to dishonorable passions. For their females exchanged the natural function for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, leaving the natural function of the female, were inflamed in their desire for one another, males with males committing indecency and receiving in themselves the penalty which was necessary for their error.”

Note:
This is the most explicit NT reference to both female and male same-sex acts. The text portrays them as “contrary to nature.” Paul connects this behavior with idolatry and rejecting God.

1 Corinthians 6:9–10

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται
οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται οὔτε μέθυσοι οὔτε λοίδοροι οὔτε ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.

Literal translation:
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor malakoi, nor arsenokoitai, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Note:
The terms here:
- malakoi: literally “soft ones,” often understood as effeminate or passive partners.
- arsenokoitai: likely “male-bedder,” echoing Leviticus 20:13 in Greek.
Most scholars agree this refers to male same-sex acts.

1 Timothy 1:9–10

εἰδὼς τοῦτο ὅτι δικαίῳ νόμος οὐ κεῖται, ἀνόμοις δὲ καὶ ἀνυποτάκτοις, ἀσεβέσιν καὶ ἁμαρτωλοῖς, ἀνοσίοις καὶ βεβήλοις, πατρολῴαις καὶ μητρολῴαις, ἀνδροφόνοις,
πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοῖταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς, ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται,

Literal translation:
“Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the righteous but for the lawless and insubordinate, the ungodly and sinners, the unholy and profane, those who strike their fathers and mothers, murderers, sexually immoral, men who have sex with men, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.”

Note:
Again, arsenokoitai is used, grouped with other sinful behaviors.

---

Inductive Observations

• The Torah forbids male same-sex intercourse in Leviticus, calling it an “abomination.”
• Romans 1 refers to both male and female same-sex acts as “contrary to nature.”
• 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy mention male same-sex acts among lists of sins.
• No passage explicitly discusses lifelong, mutual same-sex partnerships in the modern sense.
• The texts address conduct rather than same-sex attraction itself.
• The NT emphasizes forgiveness and transformation alongside these prohibitions.

[JohnH]

The texts address conduct rather than same-sex attraction itself.

Objection, your honor: assumes facts not entered into evidence

[Bootstrap]

The texts address conduct rather than same-sex attraction itself.

Objection, your honor: assumes facts not entered into evidence

Which of these biblical texts address same-sex attraction itself? If they do not, I think the above statement is true.

[JohnH]

The texts address conduct rather than same-sex attraction itself.

Objection, your honor: assumes facts not entered into evidence

Which of these biblical texts address same-sex attraction itself? If they do not, I think the above statement is true.

There are obviously different positions on this issue, but the idea that same-sex attraction itself is a sign of sin is certainly a legitimate one within the bounds of overall Christian beliefs. For example:

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.

GPT claimed authoritatively that "The texts address conduct rather than same-sex attraction itself." The actual Bible says that God decided to turn some people over to sinful desires, and speaks about the desire itself as being sinful.

A proper, unbiased analysis from GPT would mean that it would say there are multiple positions that Christians hold on the issue; a statement like this:

Some Christians interpret the texts that they conduct rather than same-sex attraction itself. Other Christians interpret the texts as addressing having same-sex attraction in and of itself.

[Silentreader]

The texts address conduct rather than same-sex attraction itself.

Objection, your honor: assumes facts not entered into evidence

Which of these biblical texts address same-sex attraction itself? If they do not, I think the above statement is true.

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 5:27-28 (ESV)

So if this connection between attraction and conduct is made concerning adultery, might we not expect a similar connection in the same-sex scenario?