webbles

It is based off of this study - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.03271. The study is over a year old and based on the ChatGPT 3. The numbers in the study look all right. They grab actual datacenter water usage and the calculations from energy usage and water usage look sane. So, yes, 10-50 prompts with chatgpt probably consume about 500ml of water. That's why I talked about if this new datacenter is going to use water shares that are actively being used (so already being used and consumed), I don't have that much of a problem. But I have a problem with developing unused water shares for this.

I'm familiar with it. I would also bet that President Packer was familiar with it. So why would he ask to the see the Church's investments when he knows he isn't permitted to see it? That's what I find implausible. Or if he wasn't familiar with it, then Clark just had to point him to it. I don't see it as President Packer was trying to get around the rules or trying to see something that he knew he couldn't see or that he was angry/disappointed he couldn't see it. The way the story goes, it makes a big deal out of it but that is what I don't think happened.

The news article says that the water for the data center is from existing water shares. If those have previously been used and this is just redirecting its use, I don't have that big of a problem. But if those shares were currently not used and are being developed for the project (like a well is being dug or a pipe is being built to take water out of a river), then I would have problems. The use of the cross-state gas line to power it is interesting. It should have enough power for the data center without affecting other communities but who knows the future. The big push for data centers right now is because of AI. Both training AI and then using AI consume a lot of power. I doubt this data center would spy on people. Utah already has a data center that does that down near Lehi and Saratoga Springs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center. That is managed by NSA and stores a ton of data that probably includes everything about everyone.

Hide from the IRS? I haven't heard that before. How does this hide from the IRS and who said that? And I thought this wasn't hiding it from the SEC. This just affected the 13F form which is for public disclosure. I thought there were other forms that were being filled to the SEC and weren't hiding it. That is how the SEC noticed the issue. This story is from the IRS letter. And it was third hand at best. I have a hard time accepting because it is "too good to be true". It might have a kernel of truth but I doubt what happened is what was described.

I'm still trying out claude with the data but the D&C doesn't match the Book of Mormon. Sure, there are EModE things in the D&C but the usage differences between the Book of Mormon and D&C are apparently enough to make claude not think that they are enough evidence to say that Joseph was the EModE author of the Book of Mormon. Still trying it out. Sure, they might not have noticed that Joseph used archaic language, but it is really odd. That's what claude is really focusing on, the fact that there are multiple ways that the Book of Mormon doesn't match Joseph's other writings, the writings in his time period, and pseudo-archaic writings. It isn't just 1 or 2 things. It is a lot. That's what seems to be why claude finds it difficult to accept Joseph being the source of the EModE. It can't rule him out, but it considers him to be extremely unlikely.

One thing that came out in one of my attempts with claude is that the "Book of Pukei" should have been a perfect example for Joseph's dialect to show up. This is written by people who personally know him or his family, they live in the same environment, they read at least parts of the Book of Mormon, and were mocking Joseph. It has some archaic phrasing (like "it came to pass") but it uses modern phrases in places that the Book of Mormon would have used archaic. If Joseph really did use archaic language or those in his environment used archaic language, it should have shown up in the "Book of Pukei" as they had every reason to make Joseph look like a yokel.

I started from the assumption that EModE was a red herring. I thought it was easily refuted. But it isn't. I first asked claude what it's opinion of Carmack and it agreed with you. I then gave it Carmack's documents as well as documents from those that have refuted him. I then provided claude the eebo, ecco, evans, pseudo-archaic 19c literature, etc. And let it go through the documents, run analysis and look at what Carmack wrote and the refutation. Claude came back and basically said that the best explanation is an EModE original text with a thin layer of 19c on top. It said the vast majority was EModE and correctly written. I didn't believe it and pushed back on it. But it pointed to all of its data. So I started another instance of claude so it wasn't blinded by the first one. This time, I had it look for EModE in the Book of Mormon without giving it anything from Carmack (as I saw from the previous attempt, it is biased against Carmack). It found a bunch of potential EModE things. These were based on its own understanding of EModE as well as ngram analysis of the Book of Mormon. I then gave it all the files from before and asked it to verify that what it found was really EModE and what was the most likely path that Joseph learned these EModE. Everything it found could be shown to be EModE and several of them have extremely few 19c and 18c rates in the files. Many aren't in the KJV or the pseudo-archaic attempts. They aren't in Joseph's later writings, D&C, etc. And again, they were correctly written as if the person knew EModE intimately. I'm now trying a third attempt. I don't know what to make of it but it is not easily refuted. The Book of Mormon is full of EModE that can't be explained by a "local regional dialect" because it isn't anywhere except in the Book of Mormon. No one else around him spoke or wrote like that. At this point, the Occam's razor points to an EModE book that Joseph found and then modified it slightly or not at all. That's why I asked about direct quotations since that would refute it. I'm going to be using that in the third attempt to see what it would do, but I suspect it will give an answer similar to the first attempt as I tried bringing up how the Book of Mormon talks a lot about 19c religious issues. But one thing I have learned from this is that the Book of Mormon doesn't mimic the KJV. It exceeds it in pretty much every category. And it does it correctly. It isn't random attempts to inject archaic phrases. It is done correctly in ways that aren't obvious (like using "hath" for most situations but "has" for informal or emotionally charged areas)

I've actually been testing the EModE out with claude. It is a lot more surprising than I expected. I thought it would be easy to refute and show that Joseph could do it, but claude is convincing me otherwise. It is really weird to argue with claude and tell it that Joseph had to have been the author and then have claude point out multiple ways that he couldn't have done it, all using EModE data. I don't think it is stupid anymore. I don't know what to make of it, but it can't be easily refuted.

Oh, I doubt King Benjamin formulated it. He wouldn't be speaking in English. As for how it was translated into English, if we are talking about the EModE issue (which is what I was thinking of), then it could be someone at least a 100 years before Joseph since Boston formulated the English phrase.

Do you have a list of these usage shifts somewhere? I've gone through your Interpreter papers and I couldn't find any that documents these shifts.

I wonder how much older is a phrase like that? Because it is basically a merger of two KJV phrases from Pauline epistles: 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Which sermon is this?

I haven't heard about the Book of Mormon quoting published sermons. Do you have a link to the paper?

I found Heber C. Kimball's journal of the same day and it is really similar to what is in the History. It is printed 1845 so it is after the A-1 book is done and it is possible that he is copying from what is in the History https://archive.org/details/TimesAndSeasons18391846/page/n1763/mode/2up Interestingly, it doesn't mention Joseph Smith preaching anything.

George A Smith was involved in the creation of the History of the Church. He did a lot of the authoring and editing post 1850s. So, he easily could have used his own journals or his own memory. Edited to add: This is the A-1 book which was finished before leaving Nauvoo. So that would be before George A Smith was heavily involved. I wonder if the George A Smith's journal entry is actually quoting the History vs the History quoting him?

The Collesville letters are authored by both John Whitmer and Joseph Smith. That article just assumes that it is all Joseph Smith but what if it was mostly John Whitmer? We have other letters from Joseph Smith, do they show the ability to "seamlessly interweave passages"?

Per Joseph Smith Papers, the History of the Church was written in first person even when the original source wasn't in first person. I know this has caused some confusion previously where we thought Joseph did something himself and then when we finally found the original source, it wasn't Joseph who did it. Also, per Joseph Smith Papers (who is quoting Brigham Young), only the first 42 pages were read and revised by Joseph. So this page would have been done after his death. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/intro/introduction-to-history-1838-1856-manuscript-history-of-the-church

Are you sure it is George A Smith? That source indicates that it just from the "History of the Church". I looked in Joseph Smith Papers for the source of the information and even though I found the text itself (https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834/569), it has no indication of the original source of the text. Do you have a link to an actual book/journal of George A Smith that contains this information? I also found https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834/563 and https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834/488 which talks about the same thing but doesn't have the detail about how people found him to be a great reasoner.

I'm a little confused by that. He both says that the church asked him to never use the word Mormon and then also says that the church asked him to name the podcast Ex-Mormon or Post-Mormon. Maybe the "no Mormon" was in the initial start of mediation and then it changed to using "ex-mormon"? I do think that the initial ask was to stop using Mormon. The original letter sent to him (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.1.5.pdf) does say "For these reasons, we ask you to agree that you will remove and discontinue use of the Church’s trademarks and copyrighted materials on your platforms." and "Mormon" is trademarked by the church. And through the mediation, the two sides gave up ground. But, mediation fell apart (probably because Open Stories used a copyrighted image after promising not to do it and the church demanding something like "ex-mormon" rename) and so the lawsuit was filed. I think his mentioning the "light rays" is incorrect. The church is talking about specific "light rays". The "light rays" that MormonStories used to use is different enough that it would not trigger any trademark issue. But they then switched to a different "light ray" which is really similar to the church's.

It reads like the apologist is trying to prove that mesoamerica is the correct location vs hemispherical model along with trying to argue that the Book of Mormon fits mesoamerica. If it is going to argue mesoamerica (which I think is fine), it shouldn't worry about the hemispherical model. I think that might weaken its argument. I also think it is not using a lot of the data from Sorenson and others. I think it needs to bring in more of the evidence of Sorenson. I'm fine with committing to a mesoamerica location.

Yes, all those called into the Area Seventies or General Authority Seventies are also a High Priest. And there are lots of High Priests because the previous practice was for basically anyone over the age of 60 was ordained to the office of High Priest. Overtime, the amount will get less since now it is limited to those that are called into a position that requires to be a High Priest (bishopric, stake presidencies, stake high counselors, etc).

I think the apologetics side needs to bring up the issues with Joseph handling the internal consistency in that short period of time. I think that is a big factor in why internal consistency is brought up. For other similar novels, the author has multiple drafts and reworks locations. They go back to the beginning and change the location of things so that it fits with later story lines. I know you mention Sanderson a lot and he does that a lot. He is right now writing a trilogy at the same time so that he can edit all 3 to ensure consistency. Joseph didn't have that luxury. What ever he thought of at the beginning (Mosiah is the beginning in this case) has to work with the rest of what he is going to write. That is difficult for a single author to do in a single draft.

Sure lots of fictional books are internally consistent, but this is kind of like the parallel issue you brought up at the end. Joseph orally dictated this book in a few months. How many fictional books were written like the Book of Mormon (no notes, a few months, only one draft) have the same level of internally consistency. Just because lots of fictional books are internally consistent doesn't say that Book of Mormon is fictional. Just like saying 11th century Indians wrote on metal plates doesn't say that Mesoamerican's wrote on metal plates. I think your ledger will mostly average out the strengths/weaknesses of both of the ideas (internally consistent in just the text and relationship with real world locations). So I don't see a problem with doing both of them.

I think maybe doing it for both aspects is a good idea. Since the AI work is discussing what is in the text itself, talking about the internal consistencies in the text without trying to fit it to a specific location is, in my mind, a valid aspect in the discussion. Then include another point where the apologist says that it fits in mesoamerica using Sorenson's and Grant's model.

You can take it up with the mods on whether or not you posted temple content. I'm pretty sure they will disagree with you.