The Large Language Models" all scrape text heuristically from many sources, try some sort of weighting, and then regurgitate -- my verb here is chosen intentionally -- it back. GIGO still applies.
To "believe" in the LLMs seems rather foolish:
Google Gemini AI Stuck In Self-Loathing: ‘I Am A Disgrace To This Planet’The Glossary of cognitive science (1993) offers a language distinction that 'knowledge' and belief' are two ends to a range of propositions. One end is well proven empirically, and the other far less.Google's AI, Gemini, Is Literally Depressed: 'I Am A Failure'
Why Grok called itself ‘Mecha-Hitler’, then posted a racist image; X responds
Racism and AI: "Bias from the past leads to bias in the future"
Covert Racism in AI: How Language Models Are Reinforcing Outdated Stereotypes
The Grok chatbot spewed racist and antisemitic content : NPR
Is AI Fueling a New Wave of Misogyny and Harassment?
AI girlfriends, sex robots and sexism — Laura Bates on the new tech-driven misogyny
While one cannot 'prove' there is no God, likewise within the purview of science as we use it, one cannot 'prove' there is. Ergo, belief. Even the atheist is obligated to argue using the word, God, to try to prop up a 'belief' in no God. It is the failing of our understanding of language as of consciousness.
Beliefs, by definition, are less supported than knowledge in the sense of science, a facet of man's pursuits which is also by definition incomplete.
This forum has advocates for varying and competing beliefs, as an example, when we read views from Protestant and 'non-denominational' evangelicals, as distinct from Roman Catholics, as distinct from Seventh Day Adventists, and so on. All appear in the FR forum.
Which is right? When arguing belief, one argues against another belief. It's quite an arena, when all is said and undone. And elbows get thrown in the tussle, to be sure.
Though all will not be fully said and fully done, until....
AI -- Large Language Models -- haven't yet been asked which religion, denomination or "non-demonimation" is 'right.' That would be an interesting tussle or more.
Or Gemini? Or Perplexity or Claude? Or DeepSeek? As I don't "believe" in any of the Large Language Models, I'll not enter the field as a player in the arena.
29 Hilariously Wrong Answers That Prove Google’s AI Overview Is A Joke Posted 12/7/2025, 1:19:54 PM · by Leaning Right
“Who’s Right and Who’s Wrong?”
.
Interesting question to ‘AI’.
AS search engines they are FAST!!
But coming up with CONCLUSIONS from a boatload of varying data is the major weakness.
Yes, but atheists deny that their position is one of faith, while overall defining the latter as belief in the absence of evidence. However, aside from being like a baby who cannot believe milk comes from a cow since he is not capable of such reasoning nor has knowledge of such, in order to logically be an atheist as a person capable of deciding to believe in what he/she is taught, then to be a atheist is a position of faith, even blind faith in the case of a ignorant communist who simply believes what he/she is taught, and more so when faced with evidence that challenges his position.
Beliefs, by definition, are less supported than knowledge in the sense of science, a facet of man's pursuits which is also by definition incomplete. This forum has advocates for varying and competing beliefs, as an example, when we read views from Protestant and 'non-denominational' evangelicals, as distinct from Roman Catholics, as distinct from Seventh Day Adventists, and so on. All appear in the FR forum. Which is right? When arguing belief, one argues against another belief. It's quite an arena, when all is said and undone. And elbows get thrown in the tussle, to be sure.
Comparing the debate btwn theists and atheists being analogous to debates btwn religious flying the Christian label, In former, using scientific discoveries alone means debating the meaning of physical evidence and extrapolations from such, however limited.
In the latter, the fundamental debates btwn evangelicals and Catholics is not due to what Scripture itself teaches using sound principals of exegesis out of a quest to follow that Word of Truth wherever it leads, but the debate is effectively due to the Catholic belief that it alone authoritatively defines what Divine revelation consists of and means. And she defines that body of Truth as also existing on Oral Tradition, and both of which are cited here to support her premise that she alone authoritatively defines what Divine revelation consists of and means
Thus, those defending the Catholic position in which their one true church is itself an object of faith, when seeking to validate distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, and with Acts through Revelation especially revealing how the NT church understood the gospels), then such are compelled to force Scripture to validate their beliefs.
While atheists can charge that creationist do the same with scientific evidence (and both see bias confirmation), yet they can support their basic position (that, not only do effects have a cause, but that ultimately an Uncaused Cause is required, that being a Creator-God) and more via secular sources. And proceed from there to compare competing identities of that cause.