Well, one can never argue about anything when everyone picks their own truth... (This is a post-Enlightenment trend that will last a few hundred more years until the tracked demographic trends play out).
I don't think that's really fair nor do i think is it a post-enlightenment trend (moral relavitism is...but i dont think that is the same thing).
So far you've claimed that gpt is "wrong" in its religious conception (comparing it to "reddit" in a condescending way). You presented an alternate view on what religion is. You missed the step where you show your view is more right than GPT's is, in context.
Which to be fair is a really hard step to show. If you know somebody's particular religious beliefs you can appeal to doctrine, but we dont know which denomination/doctrine for the gpt-3 story.
I don't think we can show that gpt-3 or your category mistake version is right based on the given information. Or even that one is slightly more right. But that is a different question from is the gpt-3 story "wrong". I'm not positing that "being among beings" is correct, only that there isn't any argument to conclude its any more wrong than any other conception, especially when we don't know the religious beliefs of the protaganist in the story, and thus its wrong to conclude he is "wrong" (being wrong is not the opposite of being right)
Thought experiment: An array of GPT-3 agents trained on decade or century intervals of philosophical text/literature would have different ‘views’. Assuming the existence of mistakes, the post-enlightenment mistake is to assume the correct output is the latest GTP-3 agent.
