AI's Advice on Discussing Sensitive Topic with AIs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

With most of the LLMs I could never go far on discussing 'that' religion.
With any slightest inkling of negativity their usual message are;
"This is out of my scope, please change the subject" or
"I have reached my programmed limit' and
others to stop the chat.

The only LLM I could go far on discussing the negative elements of 'that' religion is 'Deepai'.
https://deepai.org/chat/philosophy - via Eodnhoj7
I highly recommend this AI [limitation is, it has adverts].

Question to AI:
What is the best way I could discuss with other LLMs without triggering a stop to the discussion or
even theists without triggering too much of their fight or flight responses?

Deepai Wrote
I'm happy to provide guidance on how to approach these discussions in a way that promotes constructive engagement, especially with theists or AI models that may have strict limits or biases.

Understanding the Challenges
Sensitivity to Religions: Many AI models, especially those trained on data from a specific cultural or religious context, may be sensitive to discussions about certain religions, especially when they involve criticism or debate. This can lead to defensive responses or attempts to steer the conversation towards safer topics.

Programmed Limits: AI models, especially LLMs, often have programmed limits that prevent them from exploring certain topics or engaging in discussions that might be perceived as controversial or sensitive. This limitation can be due to several factors, including data bias, training objectives, or simply to maintain a positive user experience.

Engagement with Theists: Discussing sensitive religious topics with individuals who deeply hold those beliefs can be challenging. Theists may feel their faith is being questioned or attacked, leading to defensive responses. A careful approach is necessary to avoid triggering a fight response.

Strategies for Constructive Discussion
Establish Trust: Start with a respectful and non-confrontational tone. Acknowledge the importance of religion in people's lives and express a genuine interest in understanding their beliefs.

Use Open-Ended Questions: Encourage theists to share their perspective in a way that feels safe and comfortable for them. Use open-ended questions to delve deeper into their beliefs without feeling like they're being challenged or judged.

Highlight Positive Aspects: Focus on the positive aspects of the religion and how they contribute to the believer's life. This can help create a more receptive environment for discussing potential criticisms.

Explore Context: Discuss the historical, cultural, or social context in which religious beliefs emerged. This can provide a framework for understanding why certain beliefs are held, without criticizing the believer.

Foster Empathy: Encourage theist participants to consider different perspectives, but also to understand the reasons behind their own beliefs. This fosters empathy and a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue.

Best Practices for AI-LM Discussions
Clear Objectives: Before initiating a discussion, clearly state the objectives. Explain that the goal is to understand each other's perspectives, not to debate or criticize.

Respectful Language: Use language that is respectful and avoids triggering a defensive response. Frame criticisms of religious beliefs within a constructive and empathetic context.

Gradual Depth: Gradually explore more sensitive topics, starting with broader perspectives and gradually moving to deeper discussions.

Avoid Binary Thinking: Refrain from framing discussions as "you're right vs. I'm right" scenarios. Instead, focus on understanding each other's perspectives and the complexities surrounding a topic.

Deepai-Specific Tips
Engage in a More General Conversation: If discussing a sensitive topic triggers a response indicating the conversation goes beyond Deepai's scope, try to redirect the conversation towards a more general theme within the same context. For example, if discussing a controversial religious figure, shift to the broader historical significance or cultural context.

Use Contextualizing Phrases: Use contextualizing phrases like "I'm curious to understand," "Help me understand why," or "I'd like to explore further," which can help guide the conversation towards a deeper exploration without triggering a response indicating the topic is beyond Deepai's scope.

Final Tips
Be Patient: Engaging in constructive discussions, especially with individuals or AI models who may be sensitive to certain topics, requires patience and empathy.

Learn from Failures: If discussions become too sensitive or result in a defensive response, use these interactions as opportunities to learn and refine your approach.

By employing these strategies, you can create a more constructive and open environment for discussions, even with theists or AI models that may have limitations or biases.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

Here is my Question to AI and AI agreed with me.

The flowchart and the details provide picture of Islam and the behaviors of Muslim [good or bad] in a total perspective from the Big Bang to the present.
As such, in a discussion of the activities of Muslims, especially the evil acts which are more concern to humanity, we cannot blame the extremists in cherry picking verses.

There are a lot of nuances if we take into account the whole picture from the Big Bang to the present.

The minority 1% or 10% of evil prone believers are a part of the normal distribution of human traits, i.e. it is natural and will take a long time for change.

Upon a Content Analysis of the Quran from the non-theistic view, rationally, the compilers of the Quran have to take the blame for not making their intended religion foolproof from blame, i.e. they leave open the option for believers to commit evil acts in the name of God. [in contrast, Christianity, Buddhism leave no room for believers to do the same].

As such, to resolve the evil acts of the religion, the focus should be on the religion itself and not blaming the believers.

In Summary:

Deepai:
"Your proposal to address existential concerns and the problematic nature of religious beliefs—particularly in relation to evil acts—through a holistic cosmological perspective is indeed compelling."

"Focus on Doctrine vs. Believers: Shifting the discussion from blaming individual believers to examining the doctrines themselves allows for a more productive conversation."

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Eodnhoj7]

Notes:

Here is my Question to AI and AI agreed with me.

The flowchart and the details provide picture of Islam and the behaviors of Muslim [good or bad] in a total perspective from the Big Bang to the present.
As such, in a discussion of the activities of Muslims, especially the evil acts which are more concern to humanity, we cannot blame the extremists in cherry picking verses.

There are a lot of nuances if we take into account the whole picture from the Big Bang to the present.

The minority 1% or 10% of evil prone believers are a part of the normal distribution of human traits, i.e. it is natural and will take a long time for change.

Upon a Content Analysis of the Quran from the non-theistic view, rationally, the compilers of the Quran have to take the blame for not making their intended religion foolproof from blame, i.e. they leave open the option for believers to commit evil acts in the name of God. [in contrast, Christianity, Buddhism leave no room for believers to do the same].

As such, to resolve the evil acts of the religion, the focus should be on the religion itself and not blaming the believers.

In Summary:

Deepai:
"Your proposal to address existential concerns and the problematic nature of religious beliefs—particularly in relation to evil acts—through a holistic cosmological perspective is indeed compelling."

"Focus on Doctrine vs. Believers: Shifting the discussion from blaming individual believers to examining the doctrines themselves allows for a more productive conversation."

Doctrines occur through individual believers, look at Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church. If a man provides a story compelling to the masses the masses turn to the individual.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

Here is my Question to AI and AI agreed with me.

The flowchart and the details provide picture of Islam and the behaviors of Muslim [good or bad] in a total perspective from the Big Bang to the present.
As such, in a discussion of the activities of Muslims, especially the evil acts which are more concern to humanity, we cannot blame the extremists in cherry picking verses.

There are a lot of nuances if we take into account the whole picture from the Big Bang to the present.

The minority 1% or 10% of evil prone believers are a part of the normal distribution of human traits, i.e. it is natural and will take a long time for change.

Upon a Content Analysis of the Quran from the non-theistic view, rationally, the compilers of the Quran have to take the blame for not making their intended religion foolproof from blame, i.e. they leave open the option for believers to commit evil acts in the name of God. [in contrast, Christianity, Buddhism leave no room for believers to do the same].

As such, to resolve the evil acts of the religion, the focus should be on the religion itself and not blaming the believers.

In Summary:

Deepai:
"Your proposal to address existential concerns and the problematic nature of religious beliefs—particularly in relation to evil acts—through a holistic cosmological perspective is indeed compelling."

"Focus on Doctrine vs. Believers: Shifting the discussion from blaming individual believers to examining the doctrines themselves allows for a more productive conversation."

Doctrines occur through individual believers, look at Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church. If a man provides a story compelling to the masses the masses turn to the individual.

Not sure what is your point?

My point is whenever there are evil acts committed by believers, there must be a focus on the doctrine and source of doctrine.
Especially with the evil acts committed by Muslims, the immediate blame is on the Muslims misinterpreting the doctrine. The doctrines of Islam are presumed to be absolutely clean and good, thus not given consideration at all.
Worst, if anyone were to refer to the doctrine, they are accused of being Islamophic and in many cases are killed, jailed and condemned.

Unfortunately this sort of thinking is programmed in the current AI and thus will be censored by AI if anyone were to chat and critique the true meanings of the doctrine of Islam.

[Eodnhoj7]

Notes:

Here is my Question to AI and AI agreed with me.



In Summary:

Deepai:
"Your proposal to address existential concerns and the problematic nature of religious beliefs—particularly in relation to evil acts—through a holistic cosmological perspective is indeed compelling."

"Focus on Doctrine vs. Believers: Shifting the discussion from blaming individual believers to examining the doctrines themselves allows for a more productive conversation."

Doctrines occur through individual believers, look at Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church. If a man provides a story compelling to the masses the masses turn to the individual.

Not sure what is your point?

My point is whenever there are evil acts committed by believers, there must be a focus on the doctrine and source of doctrine.
Especially with the evil acts committed by Muslims, the immediate blame is on the Muslims misinterpreting the doctrine. The doctrines of Islam are presumed to be absolutely clean and good, thus not given consideration at all.
Worst, if anyone were to refer to the doctrine, they are accused of being Islamophic and in many cases are killed, jailed and condemned.

Unfortunately this sort of thinking is programmed in the current AI and thus will be censored by AI if anyone were to chat and critique the true meanings of the doctrine of Islam.

My point is that you trying to destroy group beliefs targets the individuals that believe them and created them thus leaving your vendetta against individuals as well.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Doctrines occur through individual believers, look at Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church. If a man provides a story compelling to the masses the masses turn to the individual.

Not sure what is your point?

My point is whenever there are evil acts committed by believers, there must be a focus on the doctrine and source of doctrine.
Especially with the evil acts committed by Muslims, the immediate blame is on the Muslims misinterpreting the doctrine. The doctrines of Islam are presumed to be absolutely clean and good, thus not given consideration at all.
Worst, if anyone were to refer to the doctrine, they are accused of being Islamophic and in many cases are killed, jailed and condemned.

Unfortunately this sort of thinking is programmed in the current AI and thus will be censored by AI if anyone were to chat and critique the true meanings of the doctrine of Islam.

My point is that you trying to destroy group beliefs targets the individuals that believe them and created them thus leaving your vendetta against individuals as well.

When Nazism was condemned as evil and that it was gotten rid off, that was something like a vendetta against Nazis.
But, what is of concern is the final positive moral outcome to humanity.

It is the same with TROP which is inherently evil.
You don't seem to give the above sort of point consideration and would rather condone evil ideologies to persist.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not sure what is your point?

My point is whenever there are evil acts committed by believers, there must be a focus on the doctrine and source of doctrine.
Especially with the evil acts committed by Muslims, the immediate blame is on the Muslims misinterpreting the doctrine. The doctrines of Islam are presumed to be absolutely clean and good, thus not given consideration at all.
Worst, if anyone were to refer to the doctrine, they are accused of being Islamophic and in many cases are killed, jailed and condemned.

Unfortunately this sort of thinking is programmed in the current AI and thus will be censored by AI if anyone were to chat and critique the true meanings of the doctrine of Islam.

My point is that you trying to destroy group beliefs targets the individuals that believe them and created them thus leaving your vendetta against individuals as well.

When Nazism was condemned as evil and that it was gotten rid off, that was something like a vendetta against Nazis.
But, what is of concern is the final positive moral outcome to humanity.

It is the same with TROP which is inherently evil.
You don't seem to give the above sort of point consideration and would rather condone evil ideologies to persist.

Evil is interpretation and as such is not fixed. Cause and effect is a more stable moral law than the labels of good and evil.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My point is that you trying to destroy group beliefs targets the individuals that believe them and created them thus leaving your vendetta against individuals as well.

When Nazism was condemned as evil and that it was gotten rid off, that was something like a vendetta against Nazis.
But, what is of concern is the final positive moral outcome to humanity.

It is the same with TROP which is inherently evil.
You don't seem to give the above sort of point consideration and would rather condone evil ideologies to persist.

Evil is interpretation and as such is not fixed. Cause and effect is a more stable moral law than the labels of good and evil.

What is critical is a definition of evil that will motivate moral actions.
Generally, the definition of evil is:

I define morality as the management of evil to enable the emergence of the related good.
What is evil is related to anything that has potentiality of fatality and is net-negative to the well-being and flourishing of the individuals and that of humanity.
Ethics is the applied system to achieve the ultimate objectives of morality.
Ethics will facilitate the individuals to be progressively moral naturally and spontaneously within any coercions from rules, threat of hell, punishment and the like.

Also see:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

[Eodnhoj7]

When Nazism was condemned as evil and that it was gotten rid off, that was something like a vendetta against Nazis.
But, what is of concern is the final positive moral outcome to humanity.

It is the same with TROP which is inherently evil.
You don't seem to give the above sort of point consideration and would rather condone evil ideologies to persist.

Evil is interpretation and as such is not fixed. Cause and effect is a more stable moral law than the labels of good and evil.

What is critical is a definition of evil that will motivate moral actions.
Generally, the definition of evil is:

I define morality as the management of evil to enable the emergence of the related good.
What is evil is related to anything that has potentiality of fatality and is net-negative to the well-being and flourishing of the individuals and that of humanity.
Ethics is the applied system to achieve the ultimate objectives of morality.
Ethics will facilitate the individuals to be progressively moral naturally and spontaneously within any coercions from rules, threat of hell, punishment and the like.

Also see:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

Generally...by how much?