• 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

Mormegil
Joined
Mar 25, 2021
Messages
532
I asked the artificial intelligence named Poe who is the greatest swordsman in the entire Legendarium and Middle Earth. Turin was first in the ranking. And the artificial intelligence said that Turin was the greatest in the ranking in its opinion. And it listed reasons such as Turin killing Glaurung, being a unique warrior, being unkillable unless shot with an arrow from a distance, and killing Morgoth in Dagor Dagorath. Even though Dagor Dagorath was abandoned, there are dozens of videos on YouTube telling about Dagor Dagorath. It is definitely a prophecy that cannot be ignored. If the greatest swordsman is Fingolfin, why does the artificial intelligence say Turin is greater?
 
I asked the artificial intelligence named Poe who is the greatest swordsman in the entire Legendarium and Middle Earth. Turin was first in the ranking. And the artificial intelligence said that Turin was the greatest in the ranking in its opinion. And it listed reasons such as Turin killing Glaurung, being a unique warrior, being unkillable unless shot with an arrow from a distance, and killing Morgoth in Dagor Dagorath. Even though Dagor Dagorath was abandoned, there are dozens of videos on YouTube telling about Dagor Dagorath. It is definitely a prophecy that cannot be ignored. If the greatest swordsman is Fingolfin, why does the artificial intelligence say Turin is greater?
Mistake #1...asking AI anything about Tolkien... or anything else.
Mistake #2 ... taking seriously anything AI tells you.
Tangential advice.....Do not ask AI anything.
 
AI is exactly that: artificial intelligence. It's nowhere near as reliable as a human researcher, so you shouldn't expect to get meaningful answers from it.
Its 'answers' are essentially an estimate based on the data it's been trained on. This data is not fact-checked, it is usually pulled from the internet, and most of it will be random people's ideas and opinions, since that is most of what's on the internet.

Also, I don't recall Tolkien himself anywhere mentioning anyone as being 'the greatest swordsman'. Many of the characters in the Silmarillion were great warriors, but there is not enough detail given to say who had the most technical skill with a sword, or who killed the most enemies with one, because that's not really the point* of the story.

Túrin killing Glaurung is not really a good example of him being a skilled swordsman (if 'skilled' is what you mean by 'great'). From the Silmarillion, Chapter 21:
Then Turambar summoned all his will and courage and climbed the cliff alone, and came beneath the dragon. Then he drew Gurthang, and with all the might of his arm, and of his hate, he thrust it into the soft belly of the Worm, even up to the hilts.
Here, he shows more skill at climbing and sneaking up on Glaurung without being noticed. Then, when actually delivering the killing blow, his strength served him better than any skill, since he only had to push the blade all the way into the dragon's belly. Which anyone could do if they were strong enough: skill is not a deciding factor in this case.

Now, I have no doubt Túrin was a great swordsman, seeing as he spent much of his life wielding a sword to fight against Morgoth's creatures, but any attempt to compare him with other great warriors is only going to be a matter of opinion.

*(hehe, point 🗡️)
 
Now, I have no doubt Túrin was a great swordsman, seeing as he spent much of his life wielding a sword to fight against Morgoth's creatures, but any attempt to compare him with other great warriors is only going to be a matter of opinion.
Imho, no human can compare with Noldor warriors, especially Noldor princes.

AI probably gave him this answer, by searching this forum, and looking at threads OP created in the past, praising Turin. 😋
 
Even though Dagor Dagorath was abandoned, there are dozens of videos on YouTube telling about Dagor Dagorath.
This all depends on whether I would prefer to have Tolkien, or the fandom, as my guide.

If Tolkien saw fit to abandon it, then I will not spend much of my time on it - as in HIS Middle-earth it 'had its chance, but became extinct'. (Borrowing badly from Jurassic Park.) It's not like some "untought" speculation Tolkien never considered, the fandom is bringing in - like much of the additions we see in PJ, Amazon, and RoP... it's something Tolkien himself speculated with, and rejected. (Unless I misunderstand something about it. Perhaps the magnificent @Elthir could enlighten my weak study.)

In any event, until further proofs, the Dagor Dagorath is on my own personal 'ignore' list as "fandom fantasy, not of Tolkienian Middle-earth."
 
Even though Dagor Dagorath was abandoned,

Well, neither Christopher Tolkien, nor JRR Tolkien, ever stated that the Dagor Dagorath was definitively abandoned. Yet that doesn't mean it was definitively retained either; but if it was,
it had become a Mannish Myth in any case.

And even with respect to the Mannish Myth, was Túrin still going to be involved? Given that JRRT later tossed the Prophecy of Andreth into the mix, I say: maybe, maybe not. Although I'd agree it seems likely that among Men, such a myth about Túrin would arise. . . yet with Tolkien's often changing mind, one never knows.

there are dozens of videos on YouTube telling about Dagor Dagorath.

Weeding out the ones which simply make stuff up, let's call the remaining videos the better videos which accurately describe what Tolkien once wrote at some point in his life (and which hopefully give some external context as well) -- still, these arguably better videos might simply be explaining what Tolkien wrote. . . again, at a given period in time.

It is definitely a prophecy that cannot be ignored.

I say we can ignore the Second Prophecy of Mandos because it was abandoned by JRR Tolkien.

If the greatest swordsman is Fingolfin, why does the artificial intelligence say Turin is greater?

Ideas and other inflammations get passed around.

Go to the books my friend -- to JRR Tolkien's books!

Cat Reading Images – Browse 74,038 Stock Photos, Vectors ...
 
Last edited:
Ideas and other inflammations get passed around.
AI is not really 'intelligence' - it is just a regurgitator of what it is told.

Let's take that into the 'real world' - if we "repeat a thing" often enough, it seems to "become" truth. Politicians are masters at this, as are others in many other arenas.

The world was once Flat, and AI would have assured you of this 'fact'.

However.....

So AI is just going to present you what it 'sees most' and ;coalesces into a response.' End of story.
 
Mistake #1...asking AI anything about Tolkien... or anything else.
Mistake #2 ... taking seriously anything AI tells you.
Tangential advice.....Do not ask AI anything.
Unfortunately, I do not agree with what you say. If I should not ask anything to artificial intelligence, why does artificial intelligence exist? Why was artificial intelligence created? And why do famous business people and Elon Musk praise and promote artificial intelligence?

You should now ask some new AI to tell you, why some other AI says Turin is the greatest swordsman.
I found it more appropriate to consult you. After all, you are not artificial but a living intelligence🤔

Imho, no human can compare with Noldor warriors, especially Noldor princes.

AI probably gave him this answer, by searching this forum, and looking at threads OP created in the past, praising Turin. 😋
This AI response has nothing to do with my posts in this forum. Also, I don't think there was a huge power difference between the Noldor Elves and the Men of the First Age. If so, how did Turin become the king's chief advisor among the Noldor Elves in Nargothrond?
 
If I should not ask anything to artificial intelligence, why does artificial intelligence exist? Why was artificial intelligence created? And why do famous business people and Elon Musk praise and promote artificial intelligence?
Like any tool, it is better suited to some things than others. I think things like ChatGPT and AI image generators are good for having a bit of fun, and maybe a good starting point to get inspiration for ideas, but they really can't make 'informed decisions' like people can. They just follow their programming, like any software.

AI is really popular right now because it's the 'next new thing', not because it's actually the best and most useful thing for all the ways people are trying to use it. And famous business people are trying to promote their own AI products, so more people will use them.
 
And famous business people are trying to promote their own AI products, so more people will use them.
Thus all the hype about it constantly. The money is there to 'make the needed noise', and the money is what the 'needed noise' is being made for.
Always follow the money.
 
I would be curious what AI would say about whether "Balrogs had wings." I have a guess... but I'm not curious enough to bother with AI to check it out myself.
 
Unfortunately, I do not agree with what you say. If I should not ask anything to artificial intelligence, why does artificial intelligence exist? Why was artificial intelligence created? And why do famous business people and Elon Musk praise and promote artificial intelligence?
Let's play the substitution game....

If I should not play with a Pet Rock, why do Pet Rocks exist?
Why were
Pet Rocks created?
And why do famous business people ...praise and promote
Pet Rocks?

That is, not every invention/discovery is laudable or adds to the betterment of humanity.
The Rack comes to mind.....likewise Heroin.
 
Last edited:
I would be curious what AI would say about whether "Balrogs had wings." I have a guess... but I'm not curious enough to bother with AI to check it out myself.
ChatGPT:
The question of whether Balrogs had wings is one of the most debated topics among fans of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion. Tolkien’s descriptions of Balrogs, particularly in The Fellowship of the Ring during the encounter with the Balrog of Moria, leave room for interpretation.

The Case for Wings
In The Fellowship of the Ring, Tolkien writes:

“His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings.”

Later, he also says:

”…suddenly it drew itself up to a great height, and its wings were spread from wall to wall…”

These passages suggest that the Balrog might indeed have physical wings capable of spreading across the width of the chasm.

The Case Against Wings
However, some argue that the “wings” described in the first passage could be metaphorical, referring to the shadow and darkness emanating from the Balrog, rather than physical appendages. The use of the word “like” in “like two vast wings” suggests a simile rather than a literal description.

Furthermore, if Balrogs had functional wings, why didn’t the Balrog of Moria simply fly out of the chasm after falling?

Tolkien’s Intent
Tolkien never definitively clarified whether Balrogs had literal wings or if the imagery was purely metaphorical. Scholars and fans remain divided, with both interpretations having textual support.

In the end, whether Balrogs had literal, physical wings or shadowy, symbolic ones is left open to interpretation—and perhaps that’s part of the allure of Tolkien’s mythos.

I think AI can be useful when used properly. To depend solely on it is not correct but to use it as a reference tool, like anything else, can be helpful. But I wouldn’t rely on it 100% alone.
 
ChatGPT:


I think AI can be useful when used properly. To depend solely on it is not correct but to use it as a reference tool, like anything else, can be helpful. But I wouldn’t rely on it 100% alone.
Agreed.. it may [possibly] be a good staring point.
It can be helpful in learning terminology and jargon related to the topic.
That is, use it as spring board, to broaden one's search to more reliable (respectable?😆) sources.
In that way it is much like one would use Wikipedia.
But it never should be used (or cited) as a reliable, much less a primary, source.
 
I think AI
I think AI read the numerous Balrog and Wings threads in this very forum, and summarized them. Nothing new said, nothing new added, nothing subtracted - though it did leave out several other critical references "outside" the strict canon - which are of course just as speculative.

As noted elsewhere, AI is a great summarizer of what it finds to accumulate. Nothing more. The extent of its "judgment" can only, in the end, be "'X' percent of scanned and accumulated sources say "abc" while 'X' percent say "def" therefore the majority percentage wins the day so balrogs MUST (or more likely 'probably') have wings" stictly due to the 'democratic majority opinion.'

AI is entirely incapable of discerning 'fact' from 'fiction' as the only thing it can consider as 'fact' is what some human has told it is 'fact' - and we just know how incredibly magnificent humanity is in knowing 'fact.' 😅

We constantly find language in AI's responses such as "carrots can be a good food for diabetics, because....." since AI also finds contradictory things it accumulates as well. Thus it cannot become 'definitive'. It cannot know truth from error.

this is why I fear it as it starts to be moved into the medical environment, "providing information" to medical professionals to help "their" judgment. Mankind in his haste has already proven if he can let someone (or some thing) TELL him what to think, that's what he will think - in spite of the facts.

Imagine it - in 10 years, all medical judgment will be made based on AI's input, so all doctors will be mechanically marching down the same slope and off the cliff, nobody making any original judgments or considering alternative methods.

AI is the perfect tool in the next step of eliminating 'thinking man,' turning him into just a big bunch of sheeple, supportive of the controlling powers, marching to the desired tunes. (Sorry folks - the reason the 'rich and famouns' are supporting it so strongly is nothing other than what they have always supported things for. Follow the money and the power.)

Thank you for the sample in response to my wonderement, sir EA. Validates all I have seen from and learned about it so far. (Admittedly limited, but there you have it.)
 
Last edited:
Sorry to add to this, but - AI is now touted as being able to "learn from its prior learning", and include that "learning" in its future "learning."
So let's evaluate that.

AI's first "learning" is flawed, as it's just an accumulation of whatever happens to be 'out there.' Then, AI ''has learned' from that flawed first learning, and will apply that 'flawed' learning to "enhance" its next level of flawed accumulation. So we are actually increasing the level of risk of error, right from the start.

In any progress, it will be ESSENTIAL for some 'human' to advise AI which sources are given greater 'credence' in its accumulating, retaining and rejecting, etc.
That human will have tremendous power, as whatever that human's objectives, worldviews, targets, and desires are, become the machine's. (Even more so than they do now, where those things are applied to the masses through media, social programs, the education system, and other outlets.)

All that said, again what we see is AI just being the next step in controlling the desired results of the current power.
It is therefore ESSENTIAL the current powers strive as hard as they can, to bring AI into the status of being "accepted" by the people as valid - the next 'god' to whom they must listen. (A god programmed by man. Sounds VERY familiar.)

Anyway, one would hope a bit of logic is retained by a few here, as the powers continue to work to inshre the great mass of sheeple keep marching in step (and even more percentage wise are brought into the herd) and 'thnking' is further reduced as far as it can be. Rome all over again. AI is the great new colloseum in which the gladiatorial games are being played out.

Thus, I find I must join @Elthir in his remonstrance:

Go to the books my friend -- to JRR Tolkien's books!

p.s. = if this is all too 'political' in nature, let me know and I'll happily delete it. I don't intend to be political - rather to "warn humanity" against making the same mistakes it has always made regarding the newest toys, amusements, and distractions, why they are made., and how they are ultimately leveraged and used.

AI has its place. a "tool" to present a "questionable foundation" from which to launch proper research and thinking.
 
Last edited:
Why were Pet Rocks created?

For this!
I'm guessing

Cat Rock, Black Cats, Painted Rock, Black Cat Painted ...


And if I might add one word of warning to my own suggestion of "go to the books": context.

For example: I just necromanced a thread to answer questions about Pengolodh and the Valarin language. But had I quoted a letter written by Tolkien himself, I could have said that the Valar had no language. In any case, I quoted from Quendi and Eldar to confirm that the Valar actually did have a language.

And then I quoted from Vinyar Tengwar to show that the life of Pengolodh -- as it had been described in Quendi and Eldar -- had been changed!

A bunch of nonsense really, on my part, and I have no 🥚 skuuus.
 
AI programs do not just regurgitate stuff they found online or in databases. They also make things up. There are now starting to be research papers that were written by an AI that invented citations to put in them.

In layman's terms, AI is automated mansplaining.
 
AI programs do not just regurgitate stuff they found online or in databases. They also make things up. There are now starting to be research papers that were written by an AI that invented citations to put in them.

In layman's terms, AI is automated mansplaining.
Like HALsplaining...."I'm sorry David, I'm afraid that's not quite correct."
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top