This is a common thing for vector similarity search. I wonder if there's a solution already. I thought about giving the query to an LLM to reformulate in the database-relevant way before embedding it.
I think to most people it’s pretty obvious you are trying to make the algorithm fit your bias/preconceived ideas.
ChatGPT knows a good answer to the question even without embeddings. But this particular tool can't replicate it, and says e.g. "In summary, these verses highlight sexual ethics and various sins in general, but do not uniformly condemn or condone homosexuality specifically." (which is not wrong, it's just the wrong verses found). (It gives a different summary on different tries)
This is a common problem with embedding search. Obviously, the other traditional techniques would be even worse. But I'd love the systems to be better, and I propose a potential solution, and ask for other ones. I will not be content with your "put up with AI idiosyncrasies and weaknesses, as if they were the real actual conceptual limitation of knowledge" approach. AI has potential to create great UI, but your attitude won't help with that
ChatGPT knows what people in its training corpus commonly say is a good answer.
When you force it to look strictly at the text isolating the influence of popular interpretation, it comes up with a different answer that you like less.
Now, one explanation could be that the embeddings it uses to find relevant text are bad. But there’s another explanation, too...
A software tester walks into a bar.
Runs into a bar.
Crawls into a bar.
Dances into a bar.
Flies into a bar.
Jumps into a bar.
And orders:
a beer.
2 beers.
0 beers.
99999999 beers.
a lizard in a beer glass.
-1 beer.
"qwertyuiop" beers.
Testing complete.
A real customer walks into the bar and asks where the bathroom is.
The bar goes up in flames.
When people agree with the results for the majority of the corpus but cherry-pick “inaccuracies” to justify their bigotry, that’s what I have a problem with.
It sounds like you want to RLHF a model to hate LGBTQ people…
This is not progress.
Its a search of the text by the semantics of the text, not a search of the text by how doctrine has been rationalized (which could be done by an LLM, but wouldn't use a vector DB of the text, rather, it would need sonething like a vector DB of documentation of relevant written justifications of doctrine annotated with scriptural references, and then a simple book-chapter-verse DB of the scriptural text.) These are decidedly different problems, and complaining that something that purports to solve the first doesn’t solve the second is... odd.
Condemnation of homosexuality is a popular gloss or rationalization of this, wierdly common among literalists, but, I mean, Leviticus condemns mixing fibers, and has plenty of rules that apply to only one gender, I don't see why we shouldn't take its condemnation of specifically men mixing gay and straight sex literally, too. (And maybe also take Acts 15 literally as to which part of the ancient Mosaic law applies to non-Jewish Christians, and not worry about that rule however we gloss it, since it concerns neither pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, blood, or the meat of strangled animals.)
Curious how you get that interpretation out of those texts? From "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable", I read "as one does with a woman", as an analogy. Do you have reason to read it otherwise?
OTOH, I just realized I don't know what is true of the version used by this app, because while for some reason I thought it was KJV, I'm not sure what version it is using currently (there's a reference to starting with using the KJV implying something else is used now, but its not clear what that is.) So the comment about what those verses contain, as relates to the app, may or may not be correct.
Second, there's the "all translators mangle things, often to support existing dogma" which is a lot harder. The version I quoted is the English Standard Version, which is a very highly respected modern translation. Translation is hard, even with modern languages. So I'd want to see someone with actual Ancient Hebrew credentials to explain it.
and the so called "clobber passages" and a holistic accepting Christian view at sexual orientation minorities and gender identity minorities has been discussed at nauseam.
you find them easily searching for "LGBT+ friendly affirming Christian ressources"
god bless you, those you love and those you don't love yet.
I find any time someone says, "Yes, that's what the Bible says, but no, that's not what the Bible means!" you're on very thin ice, regardless if it's said by a person in a pulpit or a person throwing (metaphorical) stones.
I'm also eager to learn where I'm wrong about something... if I've misunderstood something, I want to be enlightened.
look, I'm a Catholic lesbian in Germany, married to a wife, and we have an active church life with our family with our two kids.
I find any time someone claiming the Bible means what it says, literally, you're on very thin ice, regardless if it comes from a pulpit or if it comes from a person trying to (again) slander or misrepresent my family as "evil" or "sinful" or "intrinsically disordered".
I have skin in this game and I have my fair share of wounds from well meaning misguided love the sinner hate the sin bigotry.
wrt your curiosity I said and I say it again: "LGBT+ friendly affirming Christian ressources" finds you _plenty_ of elaborate treatises.
I'm out.
It's pretty black and white that the Bible condemns homosexuality, there is no rationalization required.
The rationalization is the other way around. Many Christians no longer believe that homosexuality is wrong and they are faced with having to abandon the Bible as a guide for morality or coming up with complex interpretive efforts to align the text with modern moral perspectives.
Of course, most Christians chose the latter option or abandon the Old Testament, which is almost impossible to defend by modern moral standards, and stick with the New Testament which is a bit more vanilla.
Doesn't help with the grammar, but it's a very accessible way to get some accountability for the translations.
"clobber passages" and "LGBT+ friendly affirming Christian ressources"
Did God create "the products of inqest will suffer for their parents' sins"? Is God then Just or Benevolent?
Did God create a world of suffering after creating heaven?
Did God will that we would all be products of the inquest of Adam and Eve? Why did Cain harm Abel, and why was the third child fine?
Did God create Heaven? Did God create Hell? Did God create "taking babies from their crying mothers actually levels them up out of the world of suffering"; did God create death and suffering?
How could we give due process to the accused 2000+ years ago, and why don't religious text specify equal due process (or even hand-washing before delivering babies)?
Isaiah 55:8-9
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
In other words, don't try to comprehend something you have no chance of comprehending
Then you'll see that because humans are intrinsically human, this idea of sin, a disease if you will, infects all of existence and the clock of entropy begins to wind down. And now humans know the difference between good and evil, and with that knowledge comes the ability to choose evil.
> inquest of Adam and Eve
Hear me out; God created genetically perfect humans at the beginning, capable of yielding all the variety we see today (and more, who knows how many branches of humanity have been completely wiped out through the years). It wasn't until the Mosaic law was handed down that what we call "incest" was outlawed. I will presume that this was about the time that genetic diversity had narrowed to the point of producing overly damaged offspring.
> Did God create heaven?
Yes.
> Did God create hell?
That depends on which one you're talking about. He created all but one hell. The one He didn't create is merely His absence.
> Did God create "taking babies from their crying mothers actually levels them up out of the world of suffering"; did God create death and suffering?
By one man sin entered the world. The answer is no, God did not create these things.
Why did God spend 5.5 times longer on creating a world of suffering?