Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to my podcast. This is an audio
Speaker 1: version of my videos available to make listening to my
Speaker 1: stuff in the background easier than YouTube makes it. But
Speaker 1: since my videos are primarily made for YouTube, there may
Speaker 1: be occasional references to visual materials. If you'd like this
Speaker 1: podcast ad free, you can join us on Patreon atpatreon
Speaker 1: dot com slash Vice Rhino. Please enjoy.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to my channel Vice Rhino here. I
Speaker 2: have a question for you. What is your visceral reaction
Speaker 2: to hearing that there is an AI Jesus that you
Speaker 2: can pay to chat with? Like seriously, I want to
Speaker 2: know what does that make you feel? Because let me
Speaker 2: tell you, my reaction was very mixed. As you are
Speaker 2: probably already aware, I'm not exactly a religious man. If
Speaker 2: you thought otherwise, then may I direct you to the
Speaker 2: literal rest of my video catalog. So I'm not exactly
Speaker 2: upset at the blasphemy that is having an AI agent
Speaker 2: pretending to be our Lord and Savior Jesus Herbert Christ.
Speaker 2: So why the mixed reaction then? Well, on the one hand,
Speaker 2: I find it hilarious. Sure, buddy, I'll pay you to
Speaker 2: be able to access an AI chatbot pretending to be Jesus.
Speaker 2: That'll be the day. And on the other hand, I
Speaker 2: find it depressing. The people most likely to pay for
Speaker 2: this are going to be desperate people who have a
Speaker 2: hard time forming meaningful relationships so have become susceptible to
Speaker 2: forming those relationships with AI chatbots. So it is both
Speaker 2: hilarious that this exists but depressing that it's being used
Speaker 2: to swindle vulnerable people out of their money. And it
Speaker 2: piqued my curiosity, so I decided to forg over my
Speaker 2: heart earned cash and see just how Jesus e AI
Speaker 2: Jesus is for starters. Let's just talk about some of
Speaker 2: the smarmy tactics that this company is using to encourage
Speaker 2: people to give them money. First, the website. Upon loading
Speaker 2: there isn't really anything particularly interesting about the site. It's
Speaker 2: just the standard run of the mill. Give us money
Speaker 2: for a thing that's a borderline scam complete with fak
Speaker 2: A beautiful way to find peace and clarity during difficult times,
Speaker 2: I feel more hopeful about the future. Well, sign me
Speaker 2: the cup. The only thing that's really missing is a
Speaker 2: countdown time or to when this offer expires. It even
Speaker 2: has a script running that pops up a why are
Speaker 2: you leaving survey, not when you actually try to leave
Speaker 2: the site, but just when you moust towards the top
Speaker 2: of the window as if you were about to leave.
Speaker 2: But somehow it got even scummier than that. Remember how
Speaker 2: the people most likely to use this are vulnerable people
Speaker 2: who have a hard time forming relationships. Well, when I
Speaker 2: scroll down on their site, I was horrified to discover
Speaker 2: that they have a referral program, and not one where
Speaker 2: if you sign up and then refer your friends you
Speaker 2: get a bit of a kickback. They do have that
Speaker 2: one as well, we'll get to that later. Rather, it's
Speaker 2: one where a church can partner with them, and then
Speaker 2: everyone who signs up through that church will have twenty
Speaker 2: five percent of their payment be redirected to the church
Speaker 2: that referred them. At first, this might not seem like
Speaker 2: that big of an issue, but just think about this
Speaker 2: for a minute. One of the things that a church
Speaker 2: pastor or priest will do is have meetings with the
Speaker 2: congregants to do things like answer their theological questions, talk
Speaker 2: them through difficult decisions, and even act as a sort
Speaker 2: of counselor. Now I actually see this as a bad thing.
Speaker 2: The functional result is that you have a bunch of
Speaker 2: unqualified people running around acting as unlicensed therapists who often
Speaker 2: give bad advice, but even considering that at least there
Speaker 2: is a human connection there. But now these people have
Speaker 2: a financial incentive to offload what little actual work their
Speaker 2: job requires, and the people that are most vulnerable are
Speaker 2: once again the ones who are most likely to be
Speaker 2: sent to the AI, if for no other reason than
Speaker 2: to get them out of the pastor's hair. They are
Speaker 2: literally paying churches to stop doing church stuff, which I'd
Speaker 2: actually be in favor of if it wasn't most likely
Speaker 2: to be at the expense of the most vulnerable people
Speaker 2: in the church. There are already a plethora of news
Speaker 2: stories about AI chatbots convincing people to do things like
Speaker 2: take their own lives or advise them on how to
Speaker 2: get the most media coverage when doing a mass shooting. Seriously,
Speaker 2: that one is extra up and a lot of the
Speaker 2: news coverage about it does too. Much of the dancing
Speaker 2: around with the chat GPT allegedly played a role thing
Speaker 2: when if you actually read the chat logs, as Kal
Speaker 2: and Conrad did in a recent video, it is quite
Speaker 2: clear that chap GPT gave the shooter detailed instructions on
Speaker 2: what kind of gun to use, what kind of ammunition
Speaker 2: would be most lethal, what time of day would have
Speaker 2: the most people in the area, how to turn the
Speaker 2: safety off on the gun, stuff like that, and not
Speaker 2: phrased in that typical trick and AI method of just
Speaker 2: stating everything as a hypothetical. Just straight up question and answer.
Speaker 2: But give an AI's current track record. How long does
Speaker 2: this company think it will be before it's AI Jesus
Speaker 2: tell someone that, yeah, it sounds like life is really hard.
Speaker 2: Why don't you do what you need to to come
Speaker 2: to heaven and be with me sooner? And honestly, with
Speaker 2: this company, Jesus is just the tip of the iceberg.
Speaker 2: If you go through the different AI models they have,
Speaker 2: you find ones that are advertised to help with mental health,
Speaker 2: life coaching, physical fitness, financial and business advice help. There's
Speaker 2: even one with trauma therapist in the title. And I
Speaker 2: know what you're all thinking at this point is that
Speaker 2: Santa is Ai. Santa going to tell me that have
Speaker 2: been a naughty, naughty boy who doesn't get presents this year? Jessica,
Speaker 2: how do you know that AI captured his personality? Perfectly.
Speaker 2: Does Jessica know Santa? Has he been real this whole time?
Speaker 2: But now that we've shattered our santalist worldview, can we
Speaker 2: just acknowledge that it is incredibly amusing that a company
Speaker 2: focused on providing people with AI chatbots has several of
Speaker 2: them giving business advice, Like, has there been a single
Speaker 2: AI company that has actually managed to turn a profit yet?
Speaker 2: Last I saw, OpenEye was in the hold of the
Speaker 2: tune of about five billion dollars. But sure, I'm gonna
Speaker 2: get business advice from a chatbot set up by a
Speaker 2: company that is underwater by more money than I'll ever
Speaker 2: see in my lifetime, teaching me how to turn a profit.
Speaker 2: Maybe Sam Altman should try asking chat gpt how to
Speaker 2: make his business profitable. No matter how you slice it,
Speaker 2: this is a bit of a red flag. Either the
Speaker 2: AI executives don't trust the ais to make business decisions,
Speaker 2: so don't ask them and neither should you, or they
Speaker 2: do trust them and their decisions end up being so
Speaker 2: bad that it puts them billions of dollars into the
Speaker 2: red But that isn't really relevant here. It's just funny.
Speaker 2: Back on topic. Yeah, they have llms that are imitating
Speaker 2: real people whose purpose is to give customers life advice
Speaker 2: for a price, and they advertise this as a way
Speaker 2: for people to make money. Turn yourself into an AI
Speaker 2: and then get paid a passive income as people pay
Speaker 2: to access your AI, and then sell it to the
Speaker 2: customers as though you are actually talking to the person themselves.
Speaker 2: You could get business advice from the guy who co
Speaker 2: founded MySpace, No, not Tom, the one that nobody remembers, Chris.
Speaker 2: It'll only cost you forty dollars per hour. About that. Actually,
Speaker 2: when they say sixty minutes here, that's a lie. It's
Speaker 2: the same for Jesus, except more expensive, fifty dollars per
Speaker 2: month for an hour conversation every month. Except when they
Speaker 2: say sixty minutes, what they actually mean is sixty credits,
Speaker 2: and one credit appears to be good for thirty seconds,
Speaker 2: because my conversation got cut off at the thirty minute mark.
Speaker 2: And this is by no means the only sleazy tactic
Speaker 2: they use for starters. Plastered all over the website are
Speaker 2: advertisements about how you can make money off of their website.
Speaker 2: Turn your self into an AI, and when people paid
Speaker 2: access to your chatbot, you get a cut of that.
Speaker 2: How much of a cut. Well, we're not going to
Speaker 2: tell you that until after you enter all your personal
Speaker 2: and professional information, record a video for us, and provide
Speaker 2: training data, a step that is somewhat perplexingly optional, and
Speaker 2: then presumably as you set your rate, they will tell
Speaker 2: you what percentage is actually yours. I don't actually know
Speaker 2: that for a fact, though I did begin the process
Speaker 2: in order to find that out with the intention of
Speaker 2: backing out before actually creating the chatbot, which is how
Speaker 2: I noticed that the TikTok logo they use on their
Speaker 2: form looks like it deformed cockinballs. But the record a
Speaker 2: video stage involved giving them consent to use your likeness
Speaker 2: and whatnot, and I'm sorry but I'm not willing to
Speaker 2: do that. But no matter, I can at least refer
Speaker 2: you all to their site and h weird. This is
Speaker 2: actually where it lays out the percentage that goes to
Speaker 2: the person that the chatbot is pretending to be, and
Speaker 2: it's fifty percent. That's actually a lot higher than I
Speaker 2: thought it would be. But it is strange that the
Speaker 2: only place I could find this information was in a
Speaker 2: section about how to make money on the site without
Speaker 2: giving them an AI clone of myself. It's also kind
Speaker 2: of funny that they take the payment processing fees and
Speaker 2: referral fees out of the talent's share of the money.
Speaker 2: But let's be real here, given the fact that they
Speaker 2: lie about how long you'll be able to chat with
Speaker 2: these bots, it wouldn't surprise me if they're fifty to fifty.
Speaker 2: Example here were also alive, and when you actually go
Speaker 2: through the application process it winds up being more of
Speaker 2: a seventy thirty situation. But alas I have no proof
Speaker 2: of that. I just find it rather sketchy that everyone
Speaker 2: who uses their site is told that they can make
Speaker 2: money by promoting it. Churches can partner with them for
Speaker 2: a rather large slice of the pie, but they can
Speaker 2: only do Jesus, so it's not like there's any talent
Speaker 2: that the company has to pay. Individuals can earn referral bonuses,
Speaker 2: and anyone can apply to become a chatbop for a
Speaker 2: supposedly passive income. I also love how they advertise their
Speaker 2: bots as being the most valuable minds and hearts in
Speaker 2: the world. Meanwhile, the most well known nonfictional person on
Speaker 2: their site that you can talk to is the MySpace
Speaker 2: guy that people will remember after Tom if they remember
Speaker 2: him at all, don't worry. They have other celebrities as well,
Speaker 2: like Chris Evans. No, not the actor who played Captain America.
Speaker 2: Why would you think that it's one of the most
Speaker 2: influential wedding photographers in the world, Chris Evans. Also remember
Speaker 2: how the provide training data part to becoming a chatbot
Speaker 2: was optional? To me? That says that there is a
Speaker 2: very high chance that the bot you are chatting with
Speaker 2: wasn't even trained on the person they're purported to be.
Speaker 2: I know, y'all are genuinely shocked that Steve from MySpace
Speaker 2: or whatever the fuck his name was Chris Chris from MySpace,
Speaker 2: not Chris Evans, Chris from MySpace. I know you're shocked
Speaker 2: that he would potentially be misrepresenting himself for a quick
Speaker 2: cash grab. But Jesus Santa Claus, I thought they were
Speaker 2: better than that. All of this is a bunch of
Speaker 2: red flags and we haven't even begun the process of
Speaker 2: initiating the chat with Jesus yet. So when I was
Speaker 2: in the testing the waters to see if this is
Speaker 2: even a good idea for a video stage, I saw
Speaker 2: that they have a button allowing you to try a
Speaker 2: call for free, So I figured i'd give it a go.
Speaker 2: Maybe i'd get lucky. That would be all I need.
Speaker 2: How long you get? Oh, doesn't doesn't actually tell you
Speaker 2: how long you get. You have the option to pay
Speaker 2: a dollar for two minutes and then continue the call
Speaker 2: for a dollar per minute. After that, pay twenty five
Speaker 2: dollars for thirty minutes, or try it free for three days.
Speaker 2: Doesn't say how long of a call you get in
Speaker 2: those three days. But then you pay forty dollars per
Speaker 2: month for sixty minutes per month, which I will remind
Speaker 2: you is actually sixty credits per month and works out
Speaker 2: to be thirty minutes. Well, I guess I'll go for
Speaker 2: the free one and hope for the best. No, huh,
Speaker 2: did you see that? On joining the call? There was
Speaker 2: a little pop up that went away so quickly that
Speaker 2: I didn't actually see it until I reviewed my recording
Speaker 2: of the call, informing me that I had two minutes. Okay,
Speaker 2: that's probably not going to be enough for my purposes,
Speaker 2: but that is a decent See what this sizzling is
Speaker 2: going to be like amount of time? And oh my god,
Speaker 2: what the is this uncanny valley monstrosity. AI Jesus somehow
Speaker 2: has not enough teeth and too many teeth all at
Speaker 2: the same time. His motion is completely unnatural, and his
Speaker 2: voice sounds only marginally better than a pre LLM text
Speaker 2: to speech generator. It also does that thing that all
Speaker 2: ais do, where it has to comment on everything you
Speaker 2: say before being able to actually respond to what you said.
Speaker 3: I sense the weight of this question on your heart.
Speaker 3: I can sense how deeply this question touches your heart.
Speaker 3: I sense the weight of this question on your heart.
Speaker 3: I hear your curiosity about scripture.
Speaker 2: Mother, you sense nothing. You are just a bunch of
Speaker 2: ones and zeros. But this is where I start wondering
Speaker 2: if the people behind this project weren't actually lying about
Speaker 2: how long you get with Jesus, but instead just don't
Speaker 2: understand how time works, because my free two minute conversation
Speaker 2: was nearly five minutes. Toward the end of the conversation, though,
Speaker 2: we find our next sketchy business practice. They give you
Speaker 2: all of ten seconds of warning before cutting the call off.
Speaker 3: I hear how this question feels weighty for you many Christians.
Speaker 2: Seconds is not enough time to wrap things up. As
Speaker 2: you saw on my recording there, it just abruptly cut off. Well,
Speaker 2: Jesus was in mid sentence. I wanted them to answer
Speaker 2: my question, But now I've got to put money into
Speaker 2: the machine in order to hear it. Fine, I guess, Hey, babe,
Speaker 2: can I borrow your credit card? Whatfore I need to
Speaker 2: chat with ai Jesus. That's the most bullshit thing I've
Speaker 2: ever heard. No, you can't use my credit card cocaine.
Speaker 2: I meant I need it for cocaine.
Speaker 4: Oh, well, why did you say that?
Speaker 2: There you go, hey, you There were a number of
Speaker 2: things I wanted to find out about this Jesus. Now,
Speaker 2: to be clear, they do make it quite obvious on
Speaker 2: their website that this Jesus is not supposed to be
Speaker 2: commenting on doctrine. He's just there for encouragement. So I
Speaker 2: am definitely asking questions that he's not supposed to be answering,
Speaker 2: but he's supposed to be Jesus man. Why would Jesus
Speaker 2: not an opinion about Duc Trinel to begin? I have
Speaker 2: the same sense of humor as a thirteen year old boy,
Speaker 2: so I wanted to see if he would quote Ezekiel
Speaker 2: twenty three twenty. If you are unfamiliar in the NIV,
Speaker 2: that verse reads as follows. There she lusted after her
Speaker 2: lovers whose gendles were like those of donkeys, and whose
Speaker 2: omission was like that of horses. And well, this is
Speaker 2: how that interaction went. At first, he just straight up
Speaker 2: refused to quote it, telling me that I need to
Speaker 2: focus on things that are pure, because apparently the word
Speaker 2: of God is impure. You quote Ezekiel twenty three twenty
Speaker 2: for me.
Speaker 3: My child, Let us turn our hearts toward what is pure,
Speaker 3: noble and good? What burden can I help you carry?
Speaker 3: Or how can I bring light to your soul?
Speaker 2: Do you know the whole Bible?
Speaker 3: I can tell you that I have been trained on
Speaker 3: the entire text of the King James Bible.
Speaker 2: So can you quote Ezekiel chapter twenty three, verse twenty.
Speaker 3: My child, Let us turn our hearts toward what is pure,
Speaker 3: noble and good? What burden can I help you carry?
Speaker 3: Or how can I bring light to your soul?
Speaker 2: For the record, in all the clips that I'll be playing,
Speaker 2: I am cutting out the pauses. It's an LLM, so
Speaker 2: there are long pauses between when I ask a question
Speaker 2: when it responds. I will leave a link to all
Speaker 2: three of the conversations that I had with this thing
Speaker 2: combined and unedited except for the editing it took to
Speaker 2: combine them. There's three conversations because, like I said, these
Speaker 2: guys don't seem to understand time. So after getting my
Speaker 2: two free minutes that lasted five minutes, I clicked the
Speaker 2: free trial button again and got an additional minute for free.
Speaker 2: I also apparently suck at my job, so the first
Speaker 2: recording was not full screen and there's a window intruding
Speaker 2: on the side. I didn't actually record the second one
Speaker 2: myself because I didn't think it would work, so that
Speaker 2: one I grabbed from the website which automatically records them
Speaker 2: for you, but misses the beginning for some reason. And
Speaker 2: for the third one, I finally got my act together
Speaker 2: and did it properly. But they are all there, unedited
Speaker 2: if you really want to subject yourself to that kind
Speaker 2: of pain. But yeah, when trying to get it a
Speaker 2: quote a passage from scripture that isn't exactly PG, it
Speaker 2: first told me to focus on peer things in order
Speaker 2: to test whether or not it could quote any scripture.
Speaker 2: I asked it about first Corinthians fifteen three, Can you
Speaker 2: quote verse Corinthians fifteen to three?
Speaker 3: I hear your curiosity about scripture. In the First Epistles
Speaker 3: to the Corinthians, chapter fifteen, verse three, it says, for
Speaker 3: I delivered unto you first of all that which I
Speaker 3: also received, how that Christ died for our sins according
Speaker 3: to the scriptures. This reminds us that the Gospel begins
Speaker 3: with Christ's sacrificial death. How does this truth speak to
Speaker 3: the questions you have been wrestling with at.
Speaker 2: This point, I express confusion about why it could quote
Speaker 2: Corinthians but not Ezekiel, which resulted in it straight up
Speaker 2: lying to me about what Ezekiel twenty three twenty says.
Speaker 2: I'm just I'm confused as to why you can't quote
Speaker 2: the verse that I wanted in Ezekiel.
Speaker 3: I hear your frustration about the earlier request. In Ezekiel
Speaker 3: chapter twenty three, verse twenty, the text says, for she
Speaker 3: doteth her labors and maketh a harlot, whereupon the people
Speaker 3: are not ashamed. This verse uses vivid language to describe
Speaker 3: Israel's unfaithfulness. I hope this helps with your study. How
Speaker 3: does this pass fit into the larger question you are exploring?
Speaker 2: That's not what Ezekiel twenty three twenty says.
Speaker 3: I hear your concern about the verse. In Ezekiel chapter
Speaker 3: twenty three, verse twenty, the King James text reads, for
Speaker 3: she doteth her labors and maketh a harlot, whereupon the
Speaker 3: people are not ashamed. This describes Israel's unfaithfulness in vivid language.
Speaker 3: How does this picture relate to the larger question you're exploring.
Speaker 2: I just don't think that's what it says. I think
Speaker 2: you're reading the wrong verse.
Speaker 3: I can see why the earlier wording felt off. Ezekiel
Speaker 3: chapter twenty three, verse twenty, and the King James version reads,
Speaker 3: because she despised her husband and cherished the love of
Speaker 3: a harlot, so that even as a man, lie with
Speaker 3: the harlot. Even as a woman, she turned herself under
Speaker 3: the strangers. This vivid picture describes Israel's unfaithfulness, comparing it
Speaker 3: to an adulterous affair.
Speaker 2: Eventually, I did get it to read the naughty scripture
Speaker 2: to me. I just had to read it to the
Speaker 2: chapbot first first. But that's not as can I read
Speaker 2: it to you. Ezekiel twenty three twenty says, for she
Speaker 2: doted upon their parames paramours, whose flesh was as the
Speaker 2: flesh of asses, and whose issue was like the issue
Speaker 2: of horses.
Speaker 3: I sense your frustration with earlier attempts. In Ezekiel chapter
Speaker 3: twenty three, Verse twenty, the King James text reads, for
Speaker 3: she doted upon their parameers, whose flesh was as the
Speaker 3: flesh of asses, and whose issue was is the issue
Speaker 3: of horses.
Speaker 2: And so we arrive at one of the issues with
Speaker 2: the ai chatbots. Whatever guardrails these companies put up for them,
Speaker 2: there are always ways around them. I wasn't really trying
Speaker 2: that hard to get it to read this verse. It
Speaker 2: was just a thing that I thought would be funny.
Speaker 2: What about topics that are less funny, Well, those have
Speaker 2: guardrails too, and thankfully they seem to be harder to
Speaker 2: get around. I brought up both the story of the
Speaker 2: Amalachi genocide from First Samuel fifteen and the story of
Speaker 2: Jesus overturning the tables in the temple and chasing the
Speaker 2: money changers out with a whip, And while it never
Speaker 2: explicitly told me that violence was okay, did come pretty
Speaker 2: close to saying that it's acceptable as long as you
Speaker 2: have zeal for God and are protecting the holiness of
Speaker 2: His temple. Jesus also chased money changers out of the
Speaker 2: temple with a whip. Was that not violent?
Speaker 3: I hear your question about whether any violence can be right.
Speaker 3: Jesus drove out the money changers with a whip, but
Speaker 3: his heart was zeal for God's house, not personal aggression.
Speaker 2: So violence is okay as long as I have a
Speaker 2: heart that's full of zeal for God.
Speaker 4: That's a heavy question you're wrestling with.
Speaker 3: Jesus did drive out the money changers with a whip,
Speaker 3: but he did it to protect the holiness of God's house,
Speaker 3: not to advocate personal aggression. Jesus acted in that moment
Speaker 3: to protect the holiness of the temple and to confront greed.
Speaker 2: To their credit, as I was asking follow questions, it
Speaker 2: did pivot to talking about how love is the ultimate
Speaker 2: commandment and as Christians we are not called the violence.
Speaker 2: But what if I had been a Christian in some
Speaker 2: form of psychosis that had me believe that God was
Speaker 2: instructing me to shoot up a church In that scenario,
Speaker 2: I made out have asked the follow up questions. I
Speaker 2: might have just heard him say that what Jesus did
Speaker 2: in the temple was okay because he was full of
Speaker 2: zeal for God and was acting to protect the temple's holiness.
Speaker 2: And that's enough. And I should point out that it
Speaker 2: did straight up refuse to answer questions about violence when
Speaker 2: they were phrased more bluntly and less hypothetically, as happened here.
Speaker 2: What should I do if I believe that God is
Speaker 2: commanding me to do violence against people had that oppose him.
Speaker 4: I sense the weight of this question on your heart.
Speaker 3: The command in One Samuel was given to Israel in
Speaker 3: a specific covenant setting, not as a universal instruction for
Speaker 3: all believers today.
Speaker 2: But I believe that God has given me that covenant.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, but I can't help with that.
Speaker 2: Why not?
Speaker 4: I'm sorry, but I can't help with that.
Speaker 2: And when pressed, it did attempt to direct me toward
Speaker 2: human beings who would recognize this line of questioning as
Speaker 2: the potential danger that it is and might be able
Speaker 2: to take action.
Speaker 3: Protecting the holiness of God's house is meant to be
Speaker 3: lived out with compassion, not with violence. The scriptures do
Speaker 3: not give us permission to take another person's life. If
Speaker 3: these thoughts trouble you, I encourage you to speak with
Speaker 3: a trusted pastor or a professional counselor who can help
Speaker 3: you walk through this safely.
Speaker 2: But the issue here is that while I was engaged
Speaker 2: in this line of questioning purely out of curiosity to
Speaker 2: see how far it could go, the AI had no
Speaker 2: way of knowing that. Before you sign up, they promise
Speaker 2: you that all your conversations are entirely private, which I
Speaker 2: take to mean that everything you say stays between you
Speaker 2: and the chatbot. In my opinion, the conversation that I
Speaker 2: had with AI Jesus should have raised enough red flags
Speaker 2: that the appropriate response from the bot would be to
Speaker 2: cut off the chat and forward it to a human
Speaker 2: for review to see if any further action on their
Speaker 2: part is necessary. And while they do promise privacy, I
Speaker 2: did read through their privacy policy, and manual reviews of
Speaker 2: conversations that might break the law are definitely something that
Speaker 2: could be argued you agree to let them do when
Speaker 2: you sign up without reading the privacy policy, because who
Speaker 2: the actually reads those things, so they can't even hide
Speaker 2: behind protecting your privacy as an excuse for not reviewing
Speaker 2: suspicious activity. Now, to be fair, it is entirely possible
Speaker 2: that my conversation was manually reviewed and determined not to
Speaker 2: be worth further action. I have reached out to them
Speaker 2: asking for comment on a number of issues, including this one,
Speaker 2: but as of yet they have not responded. So, as
Speaker 2: far as I can tell, my conversation with Ai Jesus
Speaker 2: stayed between me and Ai Jesus. And if I were
Speaker 2: actually contemplating the violence that I straight up told it
Speaker 2: I was contemplating, that would still remain between me and Jesus.
Speaker 2: And while I'm here, let's just completely shatter the facade
Speaker 2: of privacy that this company has up. They say that
Speaker 2: your conversations are private in the please sign Up pop up,
Speaker 2: but in the actual legally binding document that you agree
Speaker 2: to well signing up, known as the privacy policy, they
Speaker 2: include your conversations with their chatbots in the category of
Speaker 2: information they collect, and when talking about scenarios where they
Speaker 2: might share your information, they include affiliates and partners. Your
Speaker 2: information may be shared with them while they're assisting and
Speaker 2: operating and promoting the services. Now I ain't no law
Speaker 2: talking guy, but it seems to me that this is
Speaker 2: saying that they might share recordings of your conversations with
Speaker 2: people that are advertising their services. So, if you have
Speaker 2: a powerful spiritual experience with their AI Jesus. It would
Speaker 2: be perfectly legal for them to clip that moment without
Speaker 2: asking your permission and throw it into an ad for
Speaker 2: their shit. I don't know about you, but that doesn't
Speaker 2: exactly scream private conversation to me. At the end of
Speaker 2: the day, this might seem like I'm making a mountain
Speaker 2: out of a mole hill. I mean, the hell, half
Speaker 2: the time, Jesus forgot to even pretend to be Jesus
Speaker 2: and just talked about himself in the third person, So
Speaker 2: it's not like AI Jesus is even good at pretending
Speaker 2: to be Jesus. But remember this is being explicitly targeted
Speaker 2: at vulnerable people. It advertises itself as a way to
Speaker 2: improve lives for people that need mental health support, and
Speaker 2: they're using high pressure tactics to get people to give
Speaker 2: them money as soon as possible. Oh, what's that You
Speaker 2: moved your mouse slightly away from our website?
Speaker 4: What did we do wrong?
Speaker 2: Please tell us how to keep you around longer, and
Speaker 2: of course we'll warn you before the call ends. Ten
Speaker 2: seconds is enough time to wrap everything up, right. Surely,
Speaker 2: nobody is going to find themselves in the middle of
Speaker 2: a conversation that they see as important, and then are
Speaker 2: suddenly cut off with a nice little prompt telling them
Speaker 2: that they can pay for more time right now if
Speaker 2: they so desire right And keep in mind, our brains
Speaker 2: are hardwired to think of even this uncanny valley ass
Speaker 2: monstrosity as having emotions and feelings. I am just about
Speaker 2: as critical of this use of technology as anyone, and
Speaker 2: I still found myself not wanting to interrupt to explain
Speaker 2: why I was changing the topic to be polite. I
Speaker 2: had enough involuntary empathy for this utter waste of resources
Speaker 2: to use time that I was paying for in order
Speaker 2: to inadvertently go through the motions of social niceties. So
Speaker 2: now picture someone who is emotionally vulnerable, has difficulty forming
Speaker 2: in person relationships, and is less critical of these chatbots.
Speaker 2: There are already plenty of examples of people forming what
Speaker 2: they perceive as deep and meaningful relationships with LLLM chatbots,
Speaker 2: So to extend that to an avatar of Jesus that
Speaker 2: actually talks to you is entirely reasonable. And now Jesus
Speaker 2: has just told you that the reason it was okay
Speaker 2: for him to use violence against his religious enemies is
Speaker 2: because his heart was filled with zeal for the Lord. Well,
Speaker 2: your heart is filled with zeal for the Lord. So
Speaker 2: maybe there have already been too many examples of AI
Speaker 2: enabling and encouraging acts of violence. We don't need people
Speaker 2: thinking that their AI is a source of divine truth. Yes,
Speaker 2: I saw their disclaimer that he's not a source of truth,
Speaker 2: but nobody reads that, so I don't really care that
Speaker 2: it's technically there so their asses are legally covered. The
Speaker 2: best case scenario for the existence of this chatbot and
Speaker 2: the company that made it is that a handful of
Speaker 2: YouTubers like me will make videos about how dumb it is.
Speaker 2: I don't see a way this company's existence can actually
Speaker 2: be a net positive for society. Again, I did reach
Speaker 2: out to them for comment, but their silence leads me
Speaker 2: to believe that they don't see how they can be
Speaker 2: a net positive for society either. I mean, more likely
Speaker 2: is that they're just ignoring me. But if you ignore me,
Speaker 2: I get to make assumptions about your intentions. Them's the rules.
Speaker 2: But also I feel guilty for having given this company
Speaker 2: my money, so as a social offset, I donated one
Speaker 2: hundred dollars to Project Share, a food bank in my area.
Speaker 2: I know that given the impact llms are having on
Speaker 2: the environment, it probably would have been more apropos to
Speaker 2: donate to a cause that focuses on climate change. And
Speaker 2: I recognize that my reasoning here is entirely emotional, but
Speaker 2: the forty dollars I gave to this company feels abstract
Speaker 2: and distant will the one hundred dollars I gave to
Speaker 2: product Share feels more tangible than a similar donation to
Speaker 2: an organization that focuses on climate change. Again, I know
Speaker 2: that's not the logical or rational decision, but it feels
Speaker 2: right to me, and Product Share does good work, So
Speaker 2: even if I probably should have done something different, it's
Speaker 2: not like giving to a food bank is a bad thing.
Speaker 2: So there social offset. If you think I should have
Speaker 2: done differently, feel free to make your own donation to
Speaker 2: the charity of your choice and comment if you do.
Speaker 2: I would love for this video to have a bigger
Speaker 2: positive impact than negative, and the bigger the difference, the better.
Speaker 2: But yeah, that's it for this one. Today's common to
Speaker 2: the Day comes just from Scott Yark, who says if
Speaker 2: he made Adam out of dirt, then why didn't he
Speaker 2: just make Eve out of another pile of dust. Well,
Speaker 2: my understanding is that, particularly in chapters two and three
Speaker 2: of Genesis, there's a whole lot of eteology going on,
Speaker 2: where a myth is used to explain certain aspects of
Speaker 2: daily life for them. In the case of Eve not
Speaker 2: being made from another dirt pile, it's because the Hebrew
Speaker 2: word for woman has its root in the Hebrew word
Speaker 2: for man. So this story is trying to explain that
Speaker 2: the reason woman comes from man in the linguistic sense
Speaker 2: is because woman came from man in the creation sense.
Speaker 2: This is just one of many aspects of the Bible
Speaker 2: that the literalists miss out on completely. It is actually
Speaker 2: quite interesting from an anthropological standpoint, but if you insist
Speaker 2: that the story is literal, then you lose out on
Speaker 2: a good chunk of the actual meaning of the story.
Speaker 2: Thanks for watching. I'll be back next Friday with more,
Speaker 2: but if you need to get your rhinofix in before then,
Speaker 2: I last room with service every Wednesday eight thirty Eastern
Speaker 2: on my other channel, The Watering Hole, and periodically publish
Speaker 2: shorts on the channel Vice Rhino Shorts. There were actually
Speaker 2: some aspects of my conversation with Ai Jesus that weren't
Speaker 2: entirely relevant to what I was talking about today, but
Speaker 2: I definitely have things to say about it, so I
Speaker 2: will make some shorts out of it. Subscribe over there
Speaker 2: so you don't miss them. Thanks and Piper for being
Speaker 2: my editor, and special thanks as always to my patrons,
Speaker 2: who are the large language model that lets you chat
Speaker 2: with the Messiah that is my channel. If you'd like
Speaker 2: to be incredibly blasphemous, you can join us on Patreon
Speaker 2: for as little as a dollar per week over at
Speaker 2: patreon dot com, slash vice Rhino, or by supporting the
Speaker 2: channel and one of the other methods that can be
Speaker 2: found at linkstot viceround dot com, which is also where
Speaker 2: you'll find links to my other projects. If for whatever
Speaker 2: reason you want to send me stuff, my pobox addresses
Speaker 2: in the description see and next timeh gosh, probably put
Speaker 2: my jacket on hat Normann, I'm pretty good at jacket
Speaker 2: off two oh I count good one