!!!VERY IMPORTANT FOR ALL TO READ*********

[PS95]

This might be a good example of AI, because if you look up various pastors sermons you will fall on those that share the similar name of the ministry, it will have a picture of the pastor (in this case John MacArthur) but this one doesnt really say AI generated in the more section through the main channel (and its a video in two places)

It does say in the more section under the video this

How this content was made
Altered or synthetic content
Sound or visuals were significantly edited or digitally generated. Learn more

Although, I cannot tell if the words are altered not being initially familar with a teaching I cannot compare the video two.

So that is a tough one to discern (individually) concerning teachings (as far as being familar with what is really taught by them (versus what is digitally generated). It could change anything within the video to say what it likes using the voice of any pastor.

So its always better to know our shepherds voice and not be reliant on mens voices

It's easy- just don't go to utube.
All of the pastors like Graham, Stanley, MacArthur etc have their own websites where their videos can be viewed. I have never been a fan of google and the own utube. They keep taking down certain videos pertaining to Charlie Kirk's murder- one that is particularly damning.. why?

Here are a few- I am not 100% on board with these men on everything- but that doesn't mean they don't have some very good teachings-

MacArthur- gracetoyou.org
Stanley- intouch.org
Graham- billygraham.org

Seems that all of them are now in drawn out legal battles in trying to get AI videos removed..with no success so far which is ridiculous.
It's just plain wrong to be allowed to do this to anyone. It's slander. I don't care if you put it in fine print. It doesn't detail where they doctored it.. It's wrong.
A world that is ok with this is disturbing.

 

[Muna]

It's easy- just don't go to utube.
All of the pastors like Graham, Stanley, MacArthur etc have their own websites where their videos can be viewed. I have never been a fan of google and the own utube. They keep taking down certain videos pertaining to Charlie Kirk's murder- one that is particularly damning.. why?

Here are a few- I am not 100% on board with these men on everything- but that doesn't mean they don't have some very good teachings-

MacArthur- gracetoyou.org
Stanley- intouch.org
Graham- billygraham.org

Seems that all of them are now in drawn out legal battles in trying to get AI videos removed..with no success so far which is ridiculous.
It's just plain wrong to be allowed to do this to anyone. It's slander. I don't care if you put it in fine print. It doesn't detail where they doctored it.. It's wrong.
A world that is ok with this is disturbing.

I dont typically watch any of the pastors online but I was involved on a thread where a certain pastor was being discussed, and I did want to familiarize myself on what that person said before jumping in and one of those was John Macauthur. So I pulled his up being just a tad familar with his voice, but you can detect the AI in that one faintly, as if someone knitted together words from the scripture while imposing his voice onto them.

If you follow the man (or any man) because people do that, in politics they do that as well (where they run to get elected on a policy they abandon as soon as they are elected). Similarly one might abandon the doctrine of Christ also, but if they are man focused (not a stickler to the policy, or a stickler for the doctrine) they also would rest on the arm of the flesh alone trusting in them (over that) which they might have enjoined to the people (through themselves) if that makes any sense. I am bad with my own words.

So even if it might not actually be "the man" (for example) not the doctrine of, or the man of John Macauthur it can mean very little on the one hand (I know this sounds crazy) because what if the one behind the whole AI knit the scriptures together better than John Macauthur? Its still deception (don't get me wrong). It would matter in an online dispute concerning what Macauthur might have said (and what he did not say) when these are put out there like that though.

So removing the man from the equation (the messenger, altogether) and listening to he words (or doctrine) becomes of greater importance, even more now than ever.

I think I had listened to some of his videos (before AI) on godliness and I loved them.

But I think he had also said something off at other times (which I had not even listened to) that others will often point out (especially when they can find fault) whether justified or not.

I love online, because you can chose what you desire to learn more of, as far as others perspectives through searching the titles (to get specifics) and not sit through long drawn out sermons (unless its good and you want you).

 

[PS95]

I dont typically watch any of the pastors online but I was involved on a thread where a certain pastor was being discussed, and I did want to familiarize myself on what that person said before jumping in and one of those was John Macauthur. So I pulled his up being just a tad familar with his voice, but you can detect the AI in that one faintly, as if someone knitted together words from the scripture while imposing his voice onto them.

If you follow the man (or any man) because people do that, in politics they do that as well (where they run to get elected on a policy they abandon as soon as they are elected). Similarly one might abandon the doctrine of Christ also, but if they are man focused (not a stickler to the policy, or a stickler for the doctrine) they also would rest on the arm of the flesh alone trusting in them (over that) which they might have enjoined to the people (through themselves) if that makes any sense. I am bad with my own words.

So even if it might not actually be "the man" (for example) not the doctrine of, or the man of John Macauthur it can mean very little on the one hand (I know this sounds crazy) because what if the one behind the whole AI knit the scriptures together better than John Macauthur? Its still deception (don't get me wrong). It would matter in an online dispute concerning what Macauthur might have said (and what he did not say) when these are put out there like that though.

So removing the man from the equation (the messenger, altogether) and listening to he words (or doctrine) becomes of greater importance, even more now than ever.

I think I had listened to some of his videos (before AI) on godliness and I loved them.

But I think he had also said something off at other times (which I had not even listened to) that others will often point out (especially when they can find fault) whether justified or not.

I love online, because you can chose what you desire to learn more of, as far as others perspectives through searching the titles (to get specifics) and not sit through long drawn out sermons (unless its good and you want you).

One clue is they are a still pic of the pastors not live videos. None of the pastors put their videos out that way. I just avoid youtube for anything Christian. I only listened to about 10 seconds of your video and knew AI.
I agree with you on his talks on godliness- he had a lot of good teachings- I just parted ways with on eschatology and his extreme osas views- same with Stanley.
I can' think of a SINGLE reason why these AI faked videos are helpful or serve a purpose in any way other than to harm.
And top that off with deleting comments of anyone who points out that it's AI and nothing is left but pure deception.
WHO sits around making these? WHY Is this legal? I hate AI because of that alone. The vast majority of people never click to read that portion and they know it. But why is it allowed at all?

Side note-- this Charlie stuff- I no longer buy the narrative.. I can't. I did try.. but truth always has a way..

 

[Muna]

One clue is they are a still pic of the pastors not live videos. None of the pastors put their videos out that way. I just avoid youtube for anything Christian. I only listened to about 10 seconds of your video and knew AI.
I agree with you on his talks on godliness- he had a lot of good teachings- I just parted ways with on eschatology and his extreme osas views- same with Stanley.
I can' think of a SINGLE reason why these AI faked videos are helpful or serve a purpose in any way other than to harm.
And top that off with deleting comments of anyone who points out that it's AI and nothing is left but pure deception.
WHO sits around making these? WHY Is this legal? I hate AI because of that alone. The vast majority of people never click to read that portion and they know it. But why is it allowed at all?

You can make a profit with views, so they will hyjack a mans face and the voice and any proceeds which might have gone to the ministry whose face it is others reccognize (and who they might trust) would be pocketed by these AI creators.

It is a kind of identify theft

I heard something like, no law could be passed against AI, but I am not sure whether that was changed or not, which might be why?

Side note-- this Charlie stuff- I no longer buy the narrative.. I can't. I did try.. but truth always has a way..

I have a hard time with anything official myself, I hear ya.

 

[PS95]

You can make a profit with views, so they will hyjack a mans face and the voice and any proceeds which might have gone to the ministry whose face it is others reccognize (and who they might trust) would be pocketed by these AI creators.

It is a kind of identify theft

I heard something like, no law could be passed against AI, but I am not sure whether that was changed or not, which might be why?

That was taken out of the big beautiful bill, so states can still make laws against AI.

I have a hard time with anything official myself, I hear ya.

yeah..

 

[Muna]

That was taken out of the big beautiful bill, so states can still make laws against AI.

I wouldnt know the first thing about how those laws are worked out online, or stuff like publishers and platforms and/or those who might upload from another country onto Youtube and how all such laws are worked out. Because I think Youtube is based in California, but what would be the difference (if there would be any) between the video uploaders location in Ohio (and maybe that jurisdiction)? Or how do our state laws apply to someone who might upload from the UK, things like that, stuff I would get a headache even thinking about. I would be entirely lost on all those legal webs.

 

[PS95]

I wouldnt know the first thing about how those laws are worked out online, or stuff like publishers and platforms and/or those who might upload from another country onto Youtube and how all such laws are worked out. Because I think Youtube is based in California, but what would be the difference (if there would be any) between the video uploaders location in Ohio (and maybe that jurisdiction)? Or how do our state laws apply to someone who might upload from the UK, things like that, stuff I would get a headache even thinking about. I would be entirely lost on all those legal webs.

yeah that's why I didn't elaborate. no clue!