That is quite a website. It looks like a similar layout for a number of different cults.
I have no idea who put it up. It looks like it was done with a bot or LLM tool. For every claim they state they cite a source. So even if some of the claims seem exaggerated they literally have a source where a leader or account verifies the statement.
This type of activity is a great counter to the whitewash movement. With sources for everything it is protected legally as well as it shows what really occurred as opposed to a leaders spin on what occurred.
In other words, this website is a great model for TWI where they could learn about footnotes, bibliographies, and other modern methods in the publishing and academic industries. You know, the things missing from all of VPs “research”.
The website also with footnotes make it harder for the TWI leadership to deny claims and justify actions.
I have no idea who put it up. It looks like it was done with a bot or LLM tool. For every claim they state they cite a source. So even if some of the claims seem exaggerated they literally have a source where a leader or account verifies the statement.
Intriguing insight. Yes, my first impression was that it took a LOT of work to put it together. My second impression was that much of it could be exaggerated. Then again, maybe that was my first impression and that it took a lot of work was second.
Your insight, that it's likely whoever put it together, did so with AI, seems very intriguing.
You probably hit the nail on the head as far as what they could learn about how to more honestly handle "research." Will they? Maybe once they get people who know how to use the new AI chatbots.
Then again, maybe not.
My hunch is they'll see if their lawyers can figure out a way to get the page about them taken down before they get to the acceptance stage and decide to revamp the HQ corporate culture.
On what grounds would their lawyers try to take it down?
It’s not the only website/blog/podcast/stack/archive that makes the demonstrable claim that TWI, founded by the charlatan victor paul wierwille, is a cult. Also, First Amendment.
I admit a failure of imagination on my part, but I’m open-minded.
If the key word is “try,” then yeah, lawyers might gladly bill for hours to try.
Yes, that IS the key word. I certainly wouldn't venture a guess on any legal theory they might advance. Even if I had a guess, I wouldn't tell them.
Further, I would surmise they WILL have such a conversation with their legal advocates well before they'll reach the acceptance stage and resign themselves to having to address any lingering deficiencies in their practices. Imagine the kind of resistance to change Stephen King wrote into his alternative history novel 11.22.63 to demonstrate the past's resistance to Jake Amberson's efforts to change it.
So, the more we ponder this cult facts website, can we be more certain it was generated by an AI?
And will this computer science professor inadvertently provide TWI lawyers with legal theories on which to litigate over the matter?
It's hard to say right now.
As to being able to recognize the site was built using AI, I think back to 9/11/2001. When the first plane hit the first WTC tower, it wasn't immediately certain it was an act of terrorism. After the second plane hit the second tower, it was easy to infer it had been a coordinated terrorist attack.
I don't consider THIS (development of the cult facts website) to be a coordinated terrorist attack, but it's probably fair to surmise each of the cults included on the website will characterize it as such????
But heuristics and epistemology have been problematic for ages. Someone asserts a claim of fact. How do you know? I saw it on (insert social media of choice).
"John 10:10; therefore, there must be keys."
Huh?
Yeah, victor paul wierwille said so.
Oooooohhhhhh.... well, in that case...it MUST be true. Quick! Someone post this non sequitur to Facebook! Post it twice to establish it.
IDGAF how TWI characterizes that website or this one. I characterize TWI and victor paul wierwille as terrorists.
It is just amazing how with every claim they make of cult behavior they footnote it and cite the source. Look at all those (source) links.
This is not a manipulation this is real live sources presenting how a cult really functions as opposed to their brain numbing depiction of themselves as Jesus Christs personal representatives of “the truth” as opposed to a false prophets ministry based upon deception and manipulation. The closer you get to the so-called revelation from God about teaching VP “the Word” like it hasn’t been known since the first century the more you see that nobody in the first century was quite that gullible and would not accept VPs lazy research, lying and stealing, or aggrandized homiletics as anything other than a narcissist with opportunities to amass a fortune through aggrandized fictional tales. This mimics the way the Mormon cult amasses riches.
Thanks for bumping the thread. I just viewed this YT video from 60 MInutes coverage of AI, several segments, one of which is from 2109.
One of the important points 60 Minutes made, is that AI is NOT always correct.
When an AI makes mistakes and says things that are NOT true, the industry calls those instances "hallucinations."
IIRC, when I first (or shortly thereafter) saw the cultfacts website entry for TWI, my impression was 1) it was built by AI, and 2) it was not 100 percent correct, even though it had notes/citations for the claims it made.
Now, I am not as concerned about whether TWI will challenge the factual basis or legality of the claims. However, I still wonder how they've responded/reacted to it.
Thanks for bumping the thread. I just viewed this YT video from 60 MInutes coverage of AI, several segments, one of which is from 2109.
One of the important points 60 Minutes made, is that AI is NOT always correct.
When an AI makes mistakes and says things that are NOT true, the industry calls those instances "hallucinations."
IIRC, when I first (or shortly thereafter) saw the cultfacts website entry for TWI, my impression was 1) it was built by AI, and 2) it was not 100 percent correct, even though it had notes/citations for the claims it made.
Now, I am not as concerned about whether TWI will challenge the factual basis or legality of the claims. However, I still wonder how they've responded/reacted to it.
Ok first I am not 100 percent certain AI was involved at all with this site so I don’t know how AI hallucinations might come into play or not. It may be involved as a tool or not. Second the fact that generated items may not be true in < 5 percent of cases does not mean “discount the source if AI was involved”.
I’m sure though that TWI leadership finds ANY reason WHATSOEVER to discount external sources. JWs and Mormons do the same. First question is “is this an approved source?” If not they label it an “apostate” source and excommunicate any bringing it up due to superstition. Usually the response to new technologies are call them devilish and warn people away.
I am sure that “innies” will not like the “feel” of that site as it ties the current leaders to the past culture which they are so desperately trying to distance themselves from while retaining all the power.
This does not discount footnotes, sources, bibliographies as these are proof and factual.
Did you find even one example of a footnoted source that was inaccurate or are you just spreading false rumors?
“Up to 50 high ranking members coerced others into sex”.
I mean if TWI is feeling squirrelly there is a statement of fact that if proven wrong could sustain slander charges. Yet no action at all. Why? Because it is true and truth is a defense to slander.
This is similar to GSC. The Way leaders have tried multiple tactics to get this site torn down, kicked off its hosting platform, etc. However we tell the truth here and you can’t shut down truth. So they failed every time. Paw can tell plenty of stories there not sure if they have kept up these attacks recently.
Did you find even one example of a footnoted source that was inaccurate or are you just spreading false rumors?
I see them as exaggeration. Your dichotomy, IMO, doesn't represent the entire universe of possibilities.
That a "footnoted" source isn't a bona fide truth, in some cases (e.g. making a claim it says is fact, but not necessarily from a credible source. If a footnoted source references an actual legal/judicial ruling, it can reasonably be inferred to be factual) If a claim is just "my AI found it in writing on line somewhere" it's not nearly as credible.
That's how I, after mulling it over for a month or so, can reasonably infer some of the claims are exaggerations, some of them more exaggerated than others.
The first claim on the cultfacts site, regarding TWI, is "up to 50 high-ranking members conspired to coerce..."
Cannot be found to be credible on its face. "Up to..." is a rhetorical expression (often used in marketing contexts) reasonably understood to be vague enough to dismiss on its face (prima facie).
50-high ranking members? Legally speaking, there are no where near 50 "members" of TWI. In this context, one might reasonably expect the so-called members are voting members of the legal body known as TWI. Even IF there were 50 "high ranking" members, what's the likelihood of getting those 50 "members" to likemindedly conspire anything?
I mean if TWI is feeling squirrelly there is a statement of fact that if proven wrong could sustain slander charges. Yet no action at all. Why? Because it is true and truth is a defense to slander.
This is similar to GSC. The Way leaders have tried multiple tactics to get this site torn down, kicked off its hosting platform, etc. However we tell the truth here and you can’t shut down truth.
Yet cultfacts website notably differs from GSC. The cultfacts AI generated website doesn't have ANY first person accounts of the things it claims, does it?
We tell the truth here? For the most part, hopefully, YES. Most significantly, when a person tells her or his first person account, they aren't slandering twi, per se. They are telling THEIR OWN truth.
I see them as exaggeration. Your dichotomy, IMO, doesn't represent the entire universe of possibilities.
That a "footnoted" source isn't a bona fide truth, in some cases (e.g. making a claim it says is fact, but not necessarily from a credible source. If a footnoted source references an actual legal/judicial ruling, it can reasonably be inferred to be factual) If a claim is just "my AI found it in writing on line somewhere" it's not nearly as credible.
That's how I, after mulling it over for a month or so, can reasonably infer some of the claims are exaggerations, some of them more exaggerated than others.
The first claim on the cultfacts site, regarding TWI, is "up to 50 high-ranking members conspired to coerce..."
Cannot be found to be credible on its face. "Up to..." is a rhetorical expression (often used in marketing contexts) reasonably understood to be vague enough to dismiss on its face (prima facie).
50-high ranking members? Legally speaking, there are no where near 50 "members" of TWI. In this context, one might reasonably expect the so-called members are voting members of the legal body known as TWI. Even IF there were 50 "high ranking" members, what's the likelihood of getting those 50 "members" to likemindedly conspire anything?
IOW, twi will likely bristle a LOT over this, but eventually will get over it without these claims having any legal impact.
You may (reasonably) not be convinced the site was built by an AI, but I am convinced.
Actually, it's not a bad first effort to do so.
I appreciate your probing reflection on the situation.
There are no voting members of TWI outside the directors.
The explanation was in terms the general public would understand not an insider. To me the site looks like it was compiled by people who were not on TWI.
I am actually walking back my initial observation of AI here. It is definitely a website template that has similar pages per cult. Beyond that I think people were referencing accounts on the internet that are public domain.
Yet cultfacts website notably differs from GSC. The cultfacts AI generated website doesn't have ANY first person accounts of the things it claims, does it?
We tell the truth here? For the most part, hopefully, YES. Most significantly, when a person tells her or his first person account, they aren't slandering twi, per se. They are telling THEIR OWN truth.
This sounds like it needs a Grey Poupon reference. Does it bother you that the cult facts group was never involved in TWI (they are unfamiliar with innie jargon) and yet have done a better job collating personal accounts than any other site including your favorites? Does that devalue their work that it is not their personal account?
Does it bother you that the cult facts group was never involved in TWI (they are unfamiliar with innie jargon) and yet have done a better job collating personal accounts than any other site including your favorites? Does that devalue their work that it is not their personal account?
Why would it bother me?
AI wouldn't be familiar with how wayfers talk.
My favorites? What on Earth are you talking about.
I am convinced the website was built by an AI.
There was far more work that went into the site than any person or small group could have done.
And a large group would not have been able to do it either.
I also have no problem with you viewing the website differently than I do.
My favorites? What on Earth are you talking about.
I am convinced the website was built by an AI.
There was far more work that went into the site than any person or small group could have done.
And a large group would not have been able to do it either.
I also have no problem with you viewing the website differently than I do.
So your sole reason for believing AI was involved was the amount of work into the website?
In your mind what does “the website was built by an AI” mean?
Can you walk me thru the steps the human would take to do this? Or to build the website via AI?
Where would any inaccuracies come in there?
I have modified my view of this that whoever put this stuff up may have used AI or some form of search aid like Bard to collect the source quotes from victims. That is a simple collation from internet sites.
The cult pages themselves were done by people. People selected what to put on the title page and how to arrange the quotes and claims using a template. They did this to expose the facts about cults. They did a good job and are factual and thorough.
My favorites? What on Earth are you talking about.
I am convinced the website was built by an AI.
There was far more work that went into the site than any person or small group could have done.
And a large group would not have been able to do it either.
I also have no problem with you viewing the website differently than I do.
I don’t know why it would bother you. You said the site has “exaggerated claims”.
The site seems to present factual statements backed up by sources.
It seems like the word “exaggerated” means you disagree with some of the sites claims and facts. I asked for one example. I get nothing but double talk in response.
Let’s go back to “what do you feel is factually inaccurate about the site or is exaggerated exactly?”
Or is this just a fleeting commentary which was the first thing that popped into your mind and I shouldn’t take your words seriously or literally?
Somebody put A LOT of work into this linked website. Overall, the site is not limited in its research/claims/explanations of the cult with which we are most familiar.
However, the eye catching claim at the top of the page for TWI is "Up to fifty high-ranking members conspired to coerce followers into having sex with the leaders"
If you don't want to check it out, that's okay with me too.
Are you saying you don’t think that 50 of the Ways past leaders coerced people under their authority to have sex outside of marriage?
I would disagree. I probably could get to close to that account from stories I have heard where they are in a private enough setting where they are authentic. Not saying I have firsthand knowledge of that many. But internal rumors heard I would place at above that number.
It was a real problem in TWI history and leadership. VP and Howard would identify women who experienced sexual assault in their youth and childhood and victimize them and pass them around like a harem. So did many other high level leaders.
A very clear reference on this site are accounts of the John Schoenheit adultery paper that was a simple word study that caused a firing and excommunication apparently because VP vehemently disagreed with doing a word study on adultery.
I would actually say 50 would be a low number in my estimation.
So your sole reason for believing AI was involved was the amount of work into the website?
In your mind what does “the website was built by an AI” mean?
Can you walk me thru the steps the human would take to do this? Or to build the website via AI?
Where would any inaccuracies come in there?
I have modified my view of this that whoever put this stuff up may have used AI or some form of search aid like Bard to collect the source quotes from victims. That is a simple collation from internet sites.
The cult pages themselves were done by people. People selected what to put on the title page and how to arrange the quotes and claims using a template. They did this to expose the facts about cults. They did a good job and are factual and thorough.
What is your problem with the site exactly?
Are you asking me to justify to you how I view that site?
Why would you need me to do that?
Fine, you believe/view it differently than me. I don't see that as a problem to be overcome.
Let’s go back to “what do you feel is factually inaccurate about the site or is exaggerated exactly?”
Or is this just a fleeting commentary which was the first thing that popped into your mind and I shouldn’t take your words seriously or literally?
What makes you think I need to convince you on whether or not to take my words seriously or literally?
I write what I write. You read what you read. You're not in my head, you're in YOUR head. I'm not concerned with whether you believe me or not; whether you agree with me or not.
I'm not interested in controlling you or your perceptions.
Take what I write and either accept it or not. I don't care what you decide about it.
If you disregard my words, you will neither be the first nor the last person on Earth to do so.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
4
23
30
5
Popular Days
Jan 5
20
Jan 3
10
Dec 31
7
Jan 4
6
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 4 posts
Rocky 23 posts
chockfull 30 posts
Nathan_Jr 5 posts
Popular Days
Jan 5 2024
20 posts
Jan 3 2024
10 posts
Dec 31 2023
7 posts
Jan 4 2024
6 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
That is quite a website. It looks like a similar layout for a number of different cults. I have no idea who put it up. It looks like it was done with a bot or LLM tool. For every claim they st
oldiesman
This one was easy for me: "The Way reportedly teaches that members will suffer harm or death if they go into debt" Here's one from me: "The Way reportedly teaches that members will
chockfull
I can see the court interaction now. “That site is inaccurate and slanderous”. Judge: “Every statement on the website has a footnoted source. Which is more than you can say for your
Posted Images
chockfull
That is quite a website. It looks like a similar layout for a number of different cults.
I have no idea who put it up. It looks like it was done with a bot or LLM tool. For every claim they state they cite a source. So even if some of the claims seem exaggerated they literally have a source where a leader or account verifies the statement.
This type of activity is a great counter to the whitewash movement. With sources for everything it is protected legally as well as it shows what really occurred as opposed to a leaders spin on what occurred.
In other words, this website is a great model for TWI where they could learn about footnotes, bibliographies, and other modern methods in the publishing and academic industries. You know, the things missing from all of VPs “research”.
The website also with footnotes make it harder for the TWI leadership to deny claims and justify actions.
Every claim made is substantiated by a footnote.
Wow, what an earth shattering idea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Intriguing insight. Yes, my first impression was that it took a LOT of work to put it together. My second impression was that much of it could be exaggerated. Then again, maybe that was my first impression and that it took a lot of work was second.
Wired dot com says Large language models (LLM tools) like AI chatbots seem to be everywhere. If you understand them better, you can use them better.
Your insight, that it's likely whoever put it together, did so with AI, seems very intriguing.
You probably hit the nail on the head as far as what they could learn about how to more honestly handle "research." Will they? Maybe once they get people who know how to use the new AI chatbots.
Then again, maybe not.
My hunch is they'll see if their lawyers can figure out a way to get the page about them taken down before they get to the acceptance stage and decide to revamp the HQ corporate culture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
On what grounds would their lawyers try to take it down?
It’s not the only website/blog/podcast/stack/archive that makes the demonstrable claim that TWI, founded by the charlatan victor paul wierwille, is a cult. Also, First Amendment.
I admit a failure of imagination on my part, but I’m open-minded.
If the key word is “try,” then yeah, lawyers might gladly bill for hours to try.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Yes, that IS the key word. I certainly wouldn't venture a guess on any legal theory they might advance. Even if I had a guess, I wouldn't tell them.
Further, I would surmise they WILL have such a conversation with their legal advocates well before they'll reach the acceptance stage and resign themselves to having to address any lingering deficiencies in their practices. Imagine the kind of resistance to change Stephen King wrote into his alternative history novel 11.22.63 to demonstrate the past's resistance to Jake Amberson's efforts to change it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
This one was easy for me:
"The Way reportedly teaches that members will suffer harm or death if they go into debt"
Here's one from me:
"The Way reportedly teaches that members will suffer harm or death if they do not tithe or abs."
It can scare the living crap out of someone who takes this seriously.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I can see the court interaction now.
“That site is inaccurate and slanderous”.
Judge: “Every statement on the website has a footnoted source. Which is more than you can say for your main class PFAL”
Lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
So, the more we ponder this cult facts website, can we be more certain it was generated by an AI?
And will this computer science professor inadvertently provide TWI lawyers with legal theories on which to litigate over the matter?
It's hard to say right now.
As to being able to recognize the site was built using AI, I think back to 9/11/2001. When the first plane hit the first WTC tower, it wasn't immediately certain it was an act of terrorism. After the second plane hit the second tower, it was easy to infer it had been a coordinated terrorist attack.
I don't consider THIS (development of the cult facts website) to be a coordinated terrorist attack, but it's probably fair to surmise each of the cults included on the website will characterize it as such????
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It's one of the risks of AI. How does one know?
But heuristics and epistemology have been problematic for ages. Someone asserts a claim of fact. How do you know? I saw it on (insert social media of choice).
"John 10:10; therefore, there must be keys."
Huh?
Yeah, victor paul wierwille said so.
Oooooohhhhhh.... well, in that case...it MUST be true. Quick! Someone post this non sequitur to Facebook! Post it twice to establish it.
IDGAF how TWI characterizes that website or this one. I characterize TWI and victor paul wierwille as terrorists.
Hey! I didn't write the book.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Bumping this up again.
https://www.cultfacts.com/cults/the-way-international
It is just amazing how with every claim they make of cult behavior they footnote it and cite the source. Look at all those (source) links.
This is not a manipulation this is real live sources presenting how a cult really functions as opposed to their brain numbing depiction of themselves as Jesus Christs personal representatives of “the truth” as opposed to a false prophets ministry based upon deception and manipulation. The closer you get to the so-called revelation from God about teaching VP “the Word” like it hasn’t been known since the first century the more you see that nobody in the first century was quite that gullible and would not accept VPs lazy research, lying and stealing, or aggrandized homiletics as anything other than a narcissist with opportunities to amass a fortune through aggrandized fictional tales. This mimics the way the Mormon cult amasses riches.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Thanks for bumping the thread. I just viewed this YT video from 60 MInutes coverage of AI, several segments, one of which is from 2109.
One of the important points 60 Minutes made, is that AI is NOT always correct.
When an AI makes mistakes and says things that are NOT true, the industry calls those instances "hallucinations."
IIRC, when I first (or shortly thereafter) saw the cultfacts website entry for TWI, my impression was 1) it was built by AI, and 2) it was not 100 percent correct, even though it had notes/citations for the claims it made.
Now, I am not as concerned about whether TWI will challenge the factual basis or legality of the claims. However, I still wonder how they've responded/reacted to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Example of AI inaccuracies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
If one has the impression that the data is not 100% correct, the website offers a way to submit corrections.
https://www.cultfacts.com/contact-us
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Ok first I am not 100 percent certain AI was involved at all with this site so I don’t know how AI hallucinations might come into play or not. It may be involved as a tool or not. Second the fact that generated items may not be true in < 5 percent of cases does not mean “discount the source if AI was involved”.
I’m sure though that TWI leadership finds ANY reason WHATSOEVER to discount external sources. JWs and Mormons do the same. First question is “is this an approved source?” If not they label it an “apostate” source and excommunicate any bringing it up due to superstition. Usually the response to new technologies are call them devilish and warn people away.
I am sure that “innies” will not like the “feel” of that site as it ties the current leaders to the past culture which they are so desperately trying to distance themselves from while retaining all the power.
This does not discount footnotes, sources, bibliographies as these are proof and factual.
Did you find even one example of a footnoted source that was inaccurate or are you just spreading false rumors?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
“Up to 50 high ranking members coerced others into sex”.
I mean if TWI is feeling squirrelly there is a statement of fact that if proven wrong could sustain slander charges. Yet no action at all. Why? Because it is true and truth is a defense to slander.
This is similar to GSC. The Way leaders have tried multiple tactics to get this site torn down, kicked off its hosting platform, etc. However we tell the truth here and you can’t shut down truth. So they failed every time. Paw can tell plenty of stories there not sure if they have kept up these attacks recently.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I see them as exaggeration. Your dichotomy, IMO, doesn't represent the entire universe of possibilities.
That a "footnoted" source isn't a bona fide truth, in some cases (e.g. making a claim it says is fact, but not necessarily from a credible source. If a footnoted source references an actual legal/judicial ruling, it can reasonably be inferred to be factual) If a claim is just "my AI found it in writing on line somewhere" it's not nearly as credible.
That's how I, after mulling it over for a month or so, can reasonably infer some of the claims are exaggerations, some of them more exaggerated than others.
The first claim on the cultfacts site, regarding TWI, is "up to 50 high-ranking members conspired to coerce..."
Cannot be found to be credible on its face. "Up to..." is a rhetorical expression (often used in marketing contexts) reasonably understood to be vague enough to dismiss on its face (prima facie).
50-high ranking members? Legally speaking, there are no where near 50 "members" of TWI. In this context, one might reasonably expect the so-called members are voting members of the legal body known as TWI. Even IF there were 50 "high ranking" members, what's the likelihood of getting those 50 "members" to likemindedly conspire anything?
"A conspiracy, also known as a plot, is a secret plan or agreement between people (called conspirers or conspirators) for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder, treason, or corruption, especially with political motivation,[1] while keeping their agreement secret from the public or from other people affected by it."
IOW, twi will likely bristle a LOT over this, but eventually will get over it without these claims having any legal impact.
You may (reasonably) not be convinced the site was built by an AI, but I am convinced.
Actually, it's not a bad first effort to do so.
I appreciate your probing reflection on the situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Yet cultfacts website notably differs from GSC. The cultfacts AI generated website doesn't have ANY first person accounts of the things it claims, does it?
We tell the truth here? For the most part, hopefully, YES. Most significantly, when a person tells her or his first person account, they aren't slandering twi, per se. They are telling THEIR OWN truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
There are no voting members of TWI outside the directors.
The explanation was in terms the general public would understand not an insider. To me the site looks like it was compiled by people who were not on TWI.
I am actually walking back my initial observation of AI here. It is definitely a website template that has similar pages per cult. Beyond that I think people were referencing accounts on the internet that are public domain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
This sounds like it needs a Grey Poupon reference. Does it bother you that the cult facts group was never involved in TWI (they are unfamiliar with innie jargon) and yet have done a better job collating personal accounts than any other site including your favorites? Does that devalue their work that it is not their personal account?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Why would it bother me?
AI wouldn't be familiar with how wayfers talk.
My favorites? What on Earth are you talking about.
I am convinced the website was built by an AI.
There was far more work that went into the site than any person or small group could have done.
And a large group would not have been able to do it either.
I also have no problem with you viewing the website differently than I do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So your sole reason for believing AI was involved was the amount of work into the website?
In your mind what does “the website was built by an AI” mean?
Can you walk me thru the steps the human would take to do this? Or to build the website via AI?
Where would any inaccuracies come in there?
I have modified my view of this that whoever put this stuff up may have used AI or some form of search aid like Bard to collect the source quotes from victims. That is a simple collation from internet sites.
The cult pages themselves were done by people. People selected what to put on the title page and how to arrange the quotes and claims using a template. They did this to expose the facts about cults. They did a good job and are factual and thorough.
What is your problem with the site exactly?
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I don’t know why it would bother you. You said the site has “exaggerated claims”.
The site seems to present factual statements backed up by sources.
It seems like the word “exaggerated” means you disagree with some of the sites claims and facts. I asked for one example. I get nothing but double talk in response.
Let’s go back to “what do you feel is factually inaccurate about the site or is exaggerated exactly?”
Or is this just a fleeting commentary which was the first thing that popped into your mind and I shouldn’t take your words seriously or literally?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Are you saying you don’t think that 50 of the Ways past leaders coerced people under their authority to have sex outside of marriage?
I would disagree. I probably could get to close to that account from stories I have heard where they are in a private enough setting where they are authentic. Not saying I have firsthand knowledge of that many. But internal rumors heard I would place at above that number.
It was a real problem in TWI history and leadership. VP and Howard would identify women who experienced sexual assault in their youth and childhood and victimize them and pass them around like a harem. So did many other high level leaders.
A very clear reference on this site are accounts of the John Schoenheit adultery paper that was a simple word study that caused a firing and excommunication apparently because VP vehemently disagreed with doing a word study on adultery.
I would actually say 50 would be a low number in my estimation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Are you asking me to justify to you how I view that site?
Why would you need me to do that?
Fine, you believe/view it differently than me. I don't see that as a problem to be overcome.
I don't need you to agree with me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
What makes you think I need to convince you on whether or not to take my words seriously or literally?
I write what I write. You read what you read. You're not in my head, you're in YOUR head. I'm not concerned with whether you believe me or not; whether you agree with me or not.
I'm not interested in controlling you or your perceptions.
Take what I write and either accept it or not. I don't care what you decide about it.
If you disregard my words, you will neither be the first nor the last person on Earth to do so.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.