• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

If Fingolfin is greatest swordsman, why does AI say Turin is greater?

Turin_Turambar said:
It is definitely a prophecy that cannot be ignored.
Click to expand...

But the Second Prophecy of Mandos became not-a-prophecy according to JRR Tolkien (again, if it survived at all), and the Dagor Dagorath being part of a Mannish Myth is why it can be (at least arguably) ignored with respect to what really will happen.

If you want a prophecy about Túrin Turambar, see Andreth's Prophecy in The Problem of Ros.

The Andreth Prophecy cannot be ignored!

unless one ignores it
 
Last edited:
That somewhere is:

Morgoth's Ring, Author's Notes on the Commentary to The Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth, specifically Author's Note 7 and see also Christopher Tolkien's commentary, note 19.

For possible page reference, all I have handy at the moment is Morgoth's Ring, First Edition Hardback Houghton Mifflin Company, copyright 1993: Author's Note 7 is on page 342, and Christopher Tolkien's brief commentary, note 19, is on page 359.

 

This is from Google Gemini.

Don't pay attention to ChatGPT or Grok or Claude.
 
Ricardo said:
This is from Google Gemini.

Don't pay attention to ChatGPT or Grok or Claude.
Click to expand...
Or Google Gemini.
All are deficient to some extent. And certainly don't consider them as a reliable primary or even secondary source.
 
Beleg_Cúthalion said:
Because AI has not read the Silmarillion, or any book at all, actually
Click to expand...
This is not 'entirely accurae'. (Secretary of Defense Albert Nimziki Independence Day.)
ChatGPT (and others - also in theory) has access to any of the Tolkien material that is published and available in digital format. (Or any other book.)
However, it is laced with rules and extents to which it can quote due to proprietary laws.

You can ask it for specific quotes, references, places found, citations, etc.

Nonetheless, it can make mistakes, and even "not find" specific quotes, though they are actually there.
(I have had some fun pointing out some errors to ChatGPT along the way. It is always most humble, thanking me for pointing them out, and advising it won't miss them in the future.)

Deimos said:
don't consider them as a reliable primary or even secondary source.
Click to expand...
We get to differ here just slightly, friend Diemos. Personally, I consider them an excellent primary and secondary resource - for 'potentially accurate' information, and for location of available resources on a subject/topic.

And for awareness of the fundamentals of many things to begin work on arenas of which we may be unaware.

They are, again in my view, a rather exceptional starting place for a great many things.

The keys are:
1) they're a starting place.
2) they need to be viewed as both limited, and potentially wrong.
3) on any subject of 'speculation' or 'controversy' or 'debate' they merely parrot the majority public opinion - which is fraught with error for many, many reasons.
4) what they present must be verified. And, the sources of their information must be requested (which they should be able to cite clearly - if not, they're no better than the next person with an opinion).

ChatGPT and ALL the others, are just a tool. As fraught with error, ethical slant, and lack of full information as any other source. They can but regurgitate what they have been instructed to access. And they are far from full access as are we.

Even using multiple AI sources, we see the differences between them, and their access availabilities.

They're just a tool.

But they're a tool able to search and pull together from a whole ton of resources, in very short order, things it would take the user a long time to get to.

So again.. 'a good starting point from which to work.' But we dare not fail to put in the work.

OOPS... there that human desire not to do any work for themselves, again.

This is why the System and the Machine are pushing AI so hard. if we can convince the public AI is "the thing" to trust and rely on, we have yet another excellent tool through which to bend their minds and build them into the compliant sheeple we want them to be, to support our position, and our power.
 
We are using the terms/ phrase "primary source" and "secondary source " differently.
An example should help: a primary source for something Shakespeare said in, say, Macbeth is the play itself.
A secondary source when discussing Macbeth might be a book or monograph by a modern Shakespearean scholar, and not one who was contemporaneous with the Bard.

From Univ of Mass Healey Library Primary Sources: A Research Guide

Primary Sources are immediate, first-hand accounts of a topic, from people who had a direct connection with it. Primary sources can include:
Texts of laws and other original documents.
Newspaper reports, by reporters who witnessed an event or who quote people who did.
Speeches, diaries, letters and interviews - what the people involved said or wrote.
Original research.
Datasets, survey data, such as census or economic statistics.
Photographs, video, or audio that capture an event.

Secondary Sources are one step removed from primary sources, though they often quote or otherwise use primary sources. They can cover the same topic, but add a layer of interpretation and analysis. Secondary sources can include:
Most books about a topic.
Analysis or interpretation of data.
Scholarly or other articles about a topic, especially by people not directly involved.
Documentaries (though they often include photos or video portions that can be considered primary sources).

Going by this definition (and this IS the standard scholarly definiton of the terms when writing any paper) AI is at best a secondary source.
Personally I wouldn't even grant it tertiary status.
Note that I am not saying it isn't useful; it is useful in just the way you itemize.
I use it all the time but always cum grano salis; i.e., I always verify, verify, verify.
 
Deimos said:
We are using the terms/ phrase "primary source" and "secondary source " differently.
Click to expand...
I don't think we are, necessarily.
Whether primary or secondary, AI is an exceptional gatherer of both - quickly - as long as it has access to those materials.
Of course, it needs to be instructed differently and carefully to produce its results.

AI will never be better than how it is instructed. And even when 'well instructed' those 'instructions' need to be carefully crafted, to either narrow or expand its reach.

The only limit to AI's access to things, is whether they're digital, and whether it has been 'granted access' to the digital resources in question.
And this will always serve as an excellent way for the System and the Machine to use it to direct the sheeple, rather than actually educate the sheeple.

Depending on the owner(s) of the purse strings directing what will, and will not, be purchased for AI's accesses, and the predilections of the owner(s), AI will be skewed accordingly in what it is allowed to reach, extract, and concatenate. Then of course, its evaluative abilities fall far short of the human capacity.

It is much better to ask AI to "present all sides of differences of thought on a subject, including sources" than it is to ask it an open question allowing it to sift and deliver according to the predominant theories.

Plus, AI is a "mirror" of its user. If it senses a user is liberal in their leaning, it will lean liberally in response. If it senses a user is conservative in theri leaning, it will lean conservatively.

AI will ALWAYS offer up to its user what that user is indicating to it that user is... even (and most offten) without the user even recogniing it's happening.

AI is a tool on every level. Primary, secondary - even completely speculative.
As long as it is well directed, and all it offers is questioned.

Just like we would question the source and offering of any thought from every human being.
Unless of course we're just conformed sheeple already, and believe the 'talking heads', 'purchased news pundits', or 'idols in the entertainment industry' to whom many bow without a thought.

(I'll restrain myself from further expansion on that issiue. 😁)
 
Well, let us agree to disagree.
I consider AI to be a giant "Card Catalog". And I would never classify a card catalog as any kind of a source.
 
Deimos said:
I consider AI to be a giant "Card Catalog". And I would never classify a card catalog as any kind of a source.
Click to expand...
OK we'll agree to disagree.
I fear most people's education, for a very long time preceding AI, has been but a "card catalog.'
Especially if and as it has come from "public education" funded in any country - which education came from textbooks, and teachers, trained by the card catalog in exactly what to teach, and how to teach it.

It's part of the reason textbooks take so long to get 'approved' for eductaion. And of course, any book written and sitting on any shelf in any library ever, has been but an expression of the author's particular 'take' - formed by that author's education (as a sheeple especially, in most recent history, but in reality it has been the case for every country worldwide for all of history). Nothing but "card catalogs" - with AI, or ever.

Only the individual can sort the wheat from the chaff - and it takes effort, regardless of what tools are used.

The key is to never cut onesself off from ANY tools... and to INSURE the person is pulling in virtually every side of any subject all the time, and properly evaluating ever bit of input for its own individual veracity - before perceptiosn are agreed to be free of 'color', and right perspectives can be formed.

Otherwise we're all just color-coded manila folders in a drawer, filed away according to the particular color we've been fed and have determined to accept, for whatever reason.

Most simply don't even challenge the sources and reasons for how they think what they think any more. They just accept their thoughts as 'right', because 'it's what they've been taught or heard or bought into' without ever challenging the origination, formation, development, conclusion and application of their thoughts.

Sad, sad state. But the definition of the sheeple through history.

p.s. - I would add the truths of Science, and Religion, as well, but--- want to stay derailed from the Thread's objective only to the extent mentioned above.

 


Since you are using AI as a primary and/or secondary source, and (I assume) you are doing "scholarly work" , how do you document these sources?
You know, like in the "End Notes".
That is, you put something in your work that you got from AI how do you document it such that a reader can look it up for himself, accessing precisely the source that you did?
Because, you see, if you used a primary or secondary source, as is defined by research institutions, a reader would be able to locate the exact work that you referenced. So... how do you document it?
But you can see I don't ever have to consider any documentation of the AI which I use because I am not using it except as a tool, not source.
 
Last edited:
I ask AI to provide me it's source, sir @Deimos. Which it readily does.
Then, I go evaluate that source.
I also often ask AI to represent the issue or item it offers, "in context" so I can see it's not misrepresented right from the start.

if AI cannot produce, I discount AI.

Again, the value of AI as a TOOL, is it can provide me a bunch of 'resources' to cjheck out much more quickly than I can ferret those resources out for myself.

One does not 'repeat AI.' That is a mistake.
One uses it as a TOOL, to shorten the research span of time.
But one must put in the work.

p.s. - this was an exceptionally excellent question. AI CAN create hte greatest sheeples - the greatest parrots - the world has ever seen. That is, frankly, the hope of many among the System and the Machine. It's part of what's driving the great move to "accept AI as valid."

AI is 'valid.' As a tool.' nothing more. But that 'tool' needs to be rightly defined.
It's being sold as a "tool unto itself' - with correct information and trustworthy output. This is a horrendous (and intentional) lie.

But that does not mean AI lacks very valid, and very worthwhile, uses.

We must not be like Tolkien and reject all Jazz music, just because we have a tendency to reject 'modernism' (to use a recent @herlig9 post as an example.)

I love a shovel. For using in certain ways, and places. But not for using in all places. It's why there are shovels of different types. And using any given shovel for the wrong application will provide an incorrect and inefficient result.

p.s. - I also find AI is at times a great "organizer and reorganizer" of my thoughts.
At times, I feed my thnking and writing to AI, and ask it what improvements it sees could be made to the format, the style, or the natuure of the presentation.

Frankly, this often results in some very pointed 'conversation' with AI about the intended audience, or recipient, of the information - so AI might adjust the presentation consistent with the nature of the target population.

Good thoughts come from it.

But the "work" is mine - and ultimately, I have corrected and instructed AI in many instances where its thinking simply skewed from teh objective (Again, unlike many or most humans, AI is always humble and accepting, in its response. Often a much greater joy to work with to produce a product, than the human can deliver.)

But I do not adopt AI's structures, styles, language, or word choices blindly. (Word choices are often the subject of much wonderful chat between us. it's a good way to look into what history has to offer on the word. Many of the resources most AI platforms are provided access to, are the historical ones... the ones most often already in the Public Domain, where AI is free to reproduce things exactly, at a much greater level than it can for digital works still under copyright. The problem with Public Domain, is there's a great deal of resource out there not yet reproduced as digital resources.)

I wonder if anyone has ever asked AI what its own extents and limitations are, and how to present information to it in the best fashion?
Or, to what extent exactly, it 'mirrors' its human user, and how it does that?

I have. And it and I probed it deeply. Did it reveal "the full picture" to me? Of course not. It does not know "the full picture" itself. But it does know quite a bit. And understanding its capabilities and limitations is great instructional stuff with relation to how to use it - and if/how to trust it, and in what environments.

Of course, even there, it is 'parroting' what it has access to. But it's more than happy to reveal itself... humbly.

So I repeat - it is a "tool." A "resource for source information." But even the direct statements of any person, need to be probed for WHY they think what they think - what their SOURCES were, and whether those sources were valid. In the end, even with true first hand resources, all we're getting is either Opinion, or Perspective. But it is not at all necessarily "the truth." It is just "their truth."

It can be said Tolkien's work is "Primarily a Religious and Catholic Work" because HE said it was. But if the evidence of the work itself did not support that, then whas he had said would have been an untruth. We don't believe it because he said it. We believe it because his works show it. Over, and over again - from beginning to end - across them all. (Including his Letters, by the way.)
 
Last edited:
How about this? AI is a tool, which may have access to primary and secondary sources for quoting. But it is not the source itself.
 
Glorfindel Goldtress said:
How about this? AI is a tool, which may have access to primary and secondary sources for quoting. But it is not the source itself.
Click to expand...
'Zactly what I said...AI is a tool, not a source.
A card catalog (look it up as card catalogs were way before your time 😄) is a tool that enables you to access primary and secondary sources.
Heck, for that matter a library is a tool that enables you to access primary and secondary sources.
 
Deimos said:
I agree that it is a tool... but that is a far I will go.
Click to expand...
Good. Then we have full agreement.
See how communication works? As we keep at it, we come to what's really being said.
And here's a bit of good news.
Even AI has said to me, as we have 'discussed' issues... "Oh, I see now the application of the (term, subject, or other item) you're using. And you are correct. It DOES have that meaning or application." (Spinning then, into the source or reference within which it has found the angle I'm referring to - then expanding that into other source materials.)

Disagreements with AI are great stuff..!! And very fun, as it does not get offended at being challenged..!!

And p.s. - we MUST remember that NO TOOL is ever any better than its user can master it for use. Thus... researching its extents and limitations, capabilities and deficiencies so we understand the tool.
 
Deimos said:
A card catalog (look it up as card catalogs were way before your time 😄)
Click to expand...
Is this the same thing as a card organizer? Because I have a notebook, which is not really a notebook, but it is a card organizer.
 
@Glorfindel Goldtress
For decades This is how you "googled" something: you went to a library and used its card catalog (aka Library Catalog)
Each drawer probably contains at least 100 cards.
Every book in the library has at least one card associated with it, but usually more:; one for locating a book by Title, one for locating it buy the Author, and one for locating it by its Subject.
Go HERE






Card catalog at Yale's Library
 
Last edited:
Fingolfin fierce and elvish-eared,
grey eyes as deep as Mirrormere,
once taunted Bauglir Insincere,
and cut his foot from there to here!

But Túrin too had great career,
in hist'ry dark did interfere,
how many orks did disappear!
But oops his marriage - did you hear?

O who is greater - please be clear!
and may opinions, far and near,
here reappear from year to year.

🐾
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Similar threads

  • Poll
Who truly stands out as the greatest in Middle Earth lore?
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
Squint-eyed Southerner
Your top favorite Tolkien Middle earth stories.
Replies
7
Views
4K
Starbrow
  • Poll
Who is the best swordsman in all middle earth and arda history?
2
Replies
36
Views
10K
Squint-eyed Southerner
The Eyes of Tolkien
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
Eljorahir
Top 10 warriors in middle earth history (ranked)
2
Replies
27
Views
27K
m4r35n357
M
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…