MarginOfError

I'm confused about why you're using language that implies a present tense.  Past tense would seem more appropriate. 

I've enjoyed a lot of the things I've seen that have come from ChatGPT. I haven't played with it myself at all, but I certainly appreciate the engineering behind it. 
Artificial Intelligence has a lot of potential, and there are a lot of things that it can do far better than humans are able to. But it also has some pretty hefty weaknesses that needs to be understood and, yes, restrained.
First and foremost, we need to understand that AI is not actually intelligence. It's high speed bayesian analysis. What it is returning (in grossly oversimplified terms) is the result that has the highest posterior probability from a new set of data applied to a model based on a training data set. The fact that ChatGPT works as quickly and as well as it does is, in my opinion, more impressive on a technical level than it is on a mathematical level. 
Next, we need to understand the idea of "training data." Any AI/Machine Learning model is subject to the "Garbage In/Garbage Out" rule. ChatGPT seems to have a pretty good training data set. But what gets put into a training dataset has a huge impact on what the model spits out. Consider Amazon's hiring AI (Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women | Reuters) that was trained on its recruiting and hiring data. Based on the training data, Amazon hired more men than women, and the posterior probabilities ended up showing men as having a higher probability of being hired than women. So it stopped flagging applications from women to be considered for employment. To be clear, it wasn't evaluating the qualifications; it saw sex as an influential and heavily weighted predictor and disqualified candidates on that basis alone. (Note: This does not necessarily mean that Amazon had biased hiring practices prior to the AI. It just means that the AI interpreted sex as a good shortcut). AI algorithms can be taught to avoid these kind of pitfalls, but doing so inherently introduces the biases of the programming team into the algorithm, which inevitably opens the door to criticism. 
Very importantly, AI and Machine Learning have no sense of ethics or morality. The Taybot is a good example. My other favorite example, that I can't find a source for right now, is a machine learning program that was intended to study how to minimize forces on pilots landing air planes. After training the model,the algorithm started nosediving planes into the runway. It learned that if it crashed the plane hard enough, it could trigger an integer overflow that would cause the landing forces to be interpreted as negative numbers. And since negative force is obviously better than positive force, crashing the plane was the logical thing to do. Computers will only ever consider values that humans tell them are important.  So whose values do you want your AI to have?
Not coincidentally, this is why many scientists have signed on to letters declaring that AI must never be used in weaponry and warfare. More specifically, it shouldn't be used to automate target selection. Moral and ethical decisions should remain the purview of humans, because our experience has shown that our worst impulses tend to find their way into our machines. And that's probably not good for anyone.

I've enjoyed a lot of the things I've seen that have come from ChatGPT. I haven't played with it myself at all, but I certainly appreciate the engineering behind it. 
Artificial Intelligence has a lot of potential, and there are a lot of things that it can do far better than humans are able to. But it also has some pretty hefty weaknesses that needs to be understood and, yes, restrained.
First and foremost, we need to understand that AI is not actually intelligence. It's high speed bayesian analysis. What it is returning (in grossly oversimplified terms) is the result that has the highest posterior probability from a new set of data applied to a model based on a training data set. The fact that ChatGPT works as quickly and as well as it does is, in my opinion, more impressive on a technical level than it is on a mathematical level. 
Next, we need to understand the idea of "training data." Any AI/Machine Learning model is subject to the "Garbage In/Garbage Out" rule. ChatGPT seems to have a pretty good training data set. But what gets put into a training dataset has a huge impact on what the model spits out. Consider Amazon's hiring AI (Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women | Reuters) that was trained on its recruiting and hiring data. Based on the training data, Amazon hired more men than women, and the posterior probabilities ended up showing men as having a higher probability of being hired than women. So it stopped flagging applications from women to be considered for employment. To be clear, it wasn't evaluating the qualifications; it saw sex as an influential and heavily weighted predictor and disqualified candidates on that basis alone. (Note: This does not necessarily mean that Amazon had biased hiring practices prior to the AI. It just means that the AI interpreted sex as a good shortcut). AI algorithms can be taught to avoid these kind of pitfalls, but doing so inherently introduces the biases of the programming team into the algorithm, which inevitably opens the door to criticism. 
Very importantly, AI and Machine Learning have no sense of ethics or morality. The Taybot is a good example. My other favorite example, that I can't find a source for right now, is a machine learning program that was intended to study how to minimize forces on pilots landing air planes. After training the model,the algorithm started nosediving planes into the runway. It learned that if it crashed the plane hard enough, it could trigger an integer overflow that would cause the landing forces to be interpreted as negative numbers. And since negative force is obviously better than positive force, crashing the plane was the logical thing to do. Computers will only ever consider values that humans tell them are important.  So whose values do you want your AI to have?
Not coincidentally, this is why many scientists have signed on to letters declaring that AI must never be used in weaponry and warfare. More specifically, it shouldn't be used to automate target selection. Moral and ethical decisions should remain the purview of humans, because our experience has shown that our worst impulses tend to find their way into our machines. And that's probably not good for anyone.

You are correct about this. I had more in mind not having to time pauses in the acting with the needed translation. In the current version, the audio can be mixed and blended as needed. With live acting, the actors sometimes had awkward pauses in the dialog that had to be timed in order to allow the dubbing. A move to straight voice acting removes that obstacle*
 
* undoubtedly creating other obstacles.

I suspect there are a couple of contributing factors for why people had such a distaste for the newer videos.
1. They were different and unfamiliar. When you change a thing that people gotten accustomed to, there's generally going to be some kind of backlash. Human nature is kind of reactionary. I remember when the video before the most recent two was released. It had a younger Satan who acted the part in a more contemporary manner, while the previous Satan had a more classical theater style. I remember some of these complaints then, too.
2. Different videos, with different actors, directors, and crews will sometimes have different emphases. Perhaps it's an inflection on a word that, in some languages, can have subtle (or not so subtle changes to meaning). I some of this happened in the newer videos, and people found that some of their favorite "truths" that they had taken from earlier versions were now less prominent. They may have felt like important teaching were being lost (not something I agree with, but I can empathize with the concept).
 
Personally, I enjoyed seeing the different versions, largely because they do have some subtle differences in presentation that have caused me to think more and consider new ideas. I would like to see the trend continue in even the current comic book format (sorry, that's what it felt like to me. I don't mind it. It's just a different artistic style). I would love it if there were multiple audio versions with different voice actors that explore different expressions of the characters. Even if we are to assume that the core events in the record are literal, there's very little to indicate that Adam and/or Eve's reactions to some events are known. And interpreting some of those things in different ways might help us unlock new truths or relate truths to our lives in different ways. Furthermore, some people might relate to a crying Eve, and others to a more stoic Eve, for example. 
Another thing I hope and pray for is that there will be more comic book slides produced that show more diversity in the characters. I know this will likely trigger anti-woke sentiment, but hear me out. We are encouraged to imagine ourselves in the place of Adam and Eve through parts of the endowment as we make covenants. And as we return to do proxy work, we study those covenants, the teachings of the Endowment, and how some of those allegorical/symbolic items relate to us. Seeing races and ethnicities represented in those roles could have a powerful impact in helping some people place themselves in those roles and expand their knowledge. I think something like this would have been a lot more cost prohibitive in full movie form, but the current format (where the backgrounds are separated from the characters), I think these substitutions are a lot more accessible, and I think the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages.

True...but not as simple as you imply. Because the dubbing you speak of has to happen concurrently in time with the English version or vice versa, etc., in many cases.
The translated language listener sits with headphones on and listens in their language that plays in time with the English (or vice versa). So the core language and the English still must fill the same amount of time.

That and dubbing in multiple languages with accurate translations is far easier when you are not bound by the constraints of the time it takes to say something in English. 

That and dubbing in multiple languages with accurate translations is far easier when you are not bound by the constraints of the time it takes to say something in English. 

Seems like it'd be easy enough to come home by just dropping the gallon of milk as soon as he exits the store.
But the milk will never make it home.

Seems like it'd be easy enough to come home by just dropping the gallon of milk as soon as he exits the store.
But the milk will never make it home.

The direction this thread took within four replies is so wonderfully ironic.
I do a lot of external-to-LDS research when I do my own study, and a lot of it will seep into lessons when I teach (because I tend to teach what I find interesting). I will often try to use the various resources in an attempt to highlight different viewpoints, or different aspects of a story that may have an impact. You can look at a lot of the stories from viewpoints such as
If this story was literally dictated from the mouth of God, what is the message he was trying to convey? If this story was included because an ancient Hebrew scholar thought it was important to the theological culture, why was it deemed so? If we posit that the story was included by a well meaning historian trying his best to pass on wisdom, why would this have been important to him? This is not an exhaustive list. But, more to the point, looking at different viewpoints like this can highlight different strengths and weaknesses of various stories, and can offer comfort and insight to different people at different phases in life. 
I personally don't subscribe to the philosophy that there is one singularly correct interpretation of scripture (at least not most of it). They are vague, imprecise, and they aren't going to give me a lot of specific direction on how to manage a lot of aspects in my life in the modern world.  They will, however, provide concepts, principles, and priorities that can help me make decisions around the unique circumstances in which I live. 
There's also a lot of value in being able to reinterpret scripture in a way that keeps you engaged, learning, and expanding your knowledge. Will that lead you down a rabbit hole sometimes? Absolutely! That's not such a bad thing. Now that you've gone down this rabbit hole of exploring they psychological/social aspects of biblical stories, you're now in a position to act as a guide and/or bridge for people who think this way and struggle to relate to the metaphysical side of the stories. 
This doesn't mean everything you learn needs to, or ought to, be included in a lesson. But you should feel free to share some parts that will cause your students/peers to reflect and engage more enthusiastically with the content.
 
Personal anecdote: For a few months, now, I've been studying out of Martin Luther King's sermons published in Strength to Love. Acknowledging that there are divides between MLK's baptist faith and the LDS faith, I will make the (perhaps controversial) statement that these sermons have inspired more self reflection, desire to repent, and a thirst for a closer connection with Christ than any General Conference talk over the last ten years. 
So go ahead and explore some of those rabbit holes. Just keep asking yourself how it can benefit your, those you teach, and those you may meet in the future. If you ever feel "woah...stop here. Here be danger." listen to that. Otherwise, as long as exploring the rabbit hole is enriching you and bringing you joy, then go ahead.

I'll alert the Brigade for Intervention and Stopping HOrrible Problems (B.I.S.Ho.P) Squad. But you may never hear from him again.

Thank you for clearing that up, @estradling75. 
What I had intended to emphasize, and did poorly, was that bishops cannot just look up the full membership information of any member in the church. The best they can do is infer a record does or doesn't exist based on whether the system finds a match (any number of typos may fail to produce a match). 
It should be noted that using the "Request Records" functionality to investigate if a friend/relative/acquaintance has a membership record isn't an approved use of the system. In fact, in some jurisdictions, it could be a violation of privacy laws (it isn't in the U.S., but I imagine it could be a problem in the E.U.)

Yes. In fact, I would argue that any interpretation that ties skin color to these curses is just plain wrong. 
The curse, as I understand it, is a spiritual isolation from God. Perhaps most importantly, a lack of access to the priesthood authority that would permit one to make covenants. 
Personally, there are certain things in the scriptures I take with a grain of salt. Despite being scripture, they were still written by men and even those who wrote the Book of Mormon acknowledge it has flaws. For that matter, Joseph Smith says of the Book of Mormon that it is "the most correct of any book on earth." Not that it is perfect. I'll refer you to an earlier post of mine where I make an argument that racism was a thing among the Book of Mormon peoples and even the authors. Skin color being a willful and acute act of God is one of those things I am deeply skeptical of. I suspect such statements are retrofitted to explain skin color more than anything else.
 

Yes. In fact, I would argue that any interpretation that ties skin color to these curses is just plain wrong. 
The curse, as I understand it, is a spiritual isolation from God. Perhaps most importantly, a lack of access to the priesthood authority that would permit one to make covenants. 
Personally, there are certain things in the scriptures I take with a grain of salt. Despite being scripture, they were still written by men and even those who wrote the Book of Mormon acknowledge it has flaws. For that matter, Joseph Smith says of the Book of Mormon that it is "the most correct of any book on earth." Not that it is perfect. I'll refer you to an earlier post of mine where I make an argument that racism was a thing among the Book of Mormon peoples and even the authors. Skin color being a willful and acute act of God is one of those things I am deeply skeptical of. I suspect such statements are retrofitted to explain skin color more than anything else.
 

Yes. In fact, I would argue that any interpretation that ties skin color to these curses is just plain wrong. 
The curse, as I understand it, is a spiritual isolation from God. Perhaps most importantly, a lack of access to the priesthood authority that would permit one to make covenants. 
Personally, there are certain things in the scriptures I take with a grain of salt. Despite being scripture, they were still written by men and even those who wrote the Book of Mormon acknowledge it has flaws. For that matter, Joseph Smith says of the Book of Mormon that it is "the most correct of any book on earth." Not that it is perfect. I'll refer you to an earlier post of mine where I make an argument that racism was a thing among the Book of Mormon peoples and even the authors. Skin color being a willful and acute act of God is one of those things I am deeply skeptical of. I suspect such statements are retrofitted to explain skin color more than anything else.
 

Yes. In fact, I would argue that any interpretation that ties skin color to these curses is just plain wrong. 
The curse, as I understand it, is a spiritual isolation from God. Perhaps most importantly, a lack of access to the priesthood authority that would permit one to make covenants. 
Personally, there are certain things in the scriptures I take with a grain of salt. Despite being scripture, they were still written by men and even those who wrote the Book of Mormon acknowledge it has flaws. For that matter, Joseph Smith says of the Book of Mormon that it is "the most correct of any book on earth." Not that it is perfect. I'll refer you to an earlier post of mine where I make an argument that racism was a thing among the Book of Mormon peoples and even the authors. Skin color being a willful and acute act of God is one of those things I am deeply skeptical of. I suspect such statements are retrofitted to explain skin color more than anything else.
 

The one thing that stands out to me in what you write is "He’s trying to recover from depression and anxiety before his mission, however, which will take him an extra 6 months of recovery before actually leaving." I live with people with depression and anxiety, and "recovery" has been "six months away" for about 15 years. I don't intend to be critical, nor do I intend to be pessimistic.  But you should be realistic in understanding that this is a huge variable that can turn out a lot of different ways.
Maybe he is able to begin service in 6 months and serves a two year mission without problem Maybe he is delayed again and doesn't start serving for 10 months, but then completes a mission Maybe he is able to begin service in 6 months, but the stress of a mission becomes too much and he returns home early Maybe his is delayed, doesn't start serving for 10 months, and then still ends up returning early Maybe he starts serving in six months, lasts a year, has a break down, returns home for 3 months, then returns to finish his last year. Maybe he never develops enough stability to receive a mission call. I will not judge him for any of those outcomes. His path is his path and I hope he receives all of the support he needs as he navigates that path. 
My point is, if you try to time your mission service around when he is either ready to go, or likely to return, you are very unlikely to succeed. There are too many things that could alter what actually happens, despite your best intentions and best laid plans. If you feel the call to serve a mission, and you are prepared to serve, then go now. The only reason I would recommend you delay your availability at all is if you are enrolled in school and need to finish your term before leaving. Otherwise, set your availability as soon as makes sense and let the Lord determine when you go. 
When you return, it really isn't of any concern whether your boyfriend has served a mission, a partial mission, or been unable to serve at all.  What matters most is that he prepares himself to make and keep covenants in the temple, has a heart willing to serve the Lord, and is an equal partner with you in managing your mutual and individual successes, failures, and conflicts.

The one thing that stands out to me in what you write is "He’s trying to recover from depression and anxiety before his mission, however, which will take him an extra 6 months of recovery before actually leaving." I live with people with depression and anxiety, and "recovery" has been "six months away" for about 15 years. I don't intend to be critical, nor do I intend to be pessimistic.  But you should be realistic in understanding that this is a huge variable that can turn out a lot of different ways.
Maybe he is able to begin service in 6 months and serves a two year mission without problem Maybe he is delayed again and doesn't start serving for 10 months, but then completes a mission Maybe he is able to begin service in 6 months, but the stress of a mission becomes too much and he returns home early Maybe his is delayed, doesn't start serving for 10 months, and then still ends up returning early Maybe he starts serving in six months, lasts a year, has a break down, returns home for 3 months, then returns to finish his last year. Maybe he never develops enough stability to receive a mission call. I will not judge him for any of those outcomes. His path is his path and I hope he receives all of the support he needs as he navigates that path. 
My point is, if you try to time your mission service around when he is either ready to go, or likely to return, you are very unlikely to succeed. There are too many things that could alter what actually happens, despite your best intentions and best laid plans. If you feel the call to serve a mission, and you are prepared to serve, then go now. The only reason I would recommend you delay your availability at all is if you are enrolled in school and need to finish your term before leaving. Otherwise, set your availability as soon as makes sense and let the Lord determine when you go. 
When you return, it really isn't of any concern whether your boyfriend has served a mission, a partial mission, or been unable to serve at all.  What matters most is that he prepares himself to make and keep covenants in the temple, has a heart willing to serve the Lord, and is an equal partner with you in managing your mutual and individual successes, failures, and conflicts.

The one thing that stands out to me in what you write is "He’s trying to recover from depression and anxiety before his mission, however, which will take him an extra 6 months of recovery before actually leaving." I live with people with depression and anxiety, and "recovery" has been "six months away" for about 15 years. I don't intend to be critical, nor do I intend to be pessimistic.  But you should be realistic in understanding that this is a huge variable that can turn out a lot of different ways.
Maybe he is able to begin service in 6 months and serves a two year mission without problem Maybe he is delayed again and doesn't start serving for 10 months, but then completes a mission Maybe he is able to begin service in 6 months, but the stress of a mission becomes too much and he returns home early Maybe his is delayed, doesn't start serving for 10 months, and then still ends up returning early Maybe he starts serving in six months, lasts a year, has a break down, returns home for 3 months, then returns to finish his last year. Maybe he never develops enough stability to receive a mission call. I will not judge him for any of those outcomes. His path is his path and I hope he receives all of the support he needs as he navigates that path. 
My point is, if you try to time your mission service around when he is either ready to go, or likely to return, you are very unlikely to succeed. There are too many things that could alter what actually happens, despite your best intentions and best laid plans. If you feel the call to serve a mission, and you are prepared to serve, then go now. The only reason I would recommend you delay your availability at all is if you are enrolled in school and need to finish your term before leaving. Otherwise, set your availability as soon as makes sense and let the Lord determine when you go. 
When you return, it really isn't of any concern whether your boyfriend has served a mission, a partial mission, or been unable to serve at all.  What matters most is that he prepares himself to make and keep covenants in the temple, has a heart willing to serve the Lord, and is an equal partner with you in managing your mutual and individual successes, failures, and conflicts.

Thank you for clearing that up, @estradling75. 
What I had intended to emphasize, and did poorly, was that bishops cannot just look up the full membership information of any member in the church. The best they can do is infer a record does or doesn't exist based on whether the system finds a match (any number of typos may fail to produce a match). 
It should be noted that using the "Request Records" functionality to investigate if a friend/relative/acquaintance has a membership record isn't an approved use of the system. In fact, in some jurisdictions, it could be a violation of privacy laws (it isn't in the U.S., but I imagine it could be a problem in the E.U.)

Both.
Lets clear this up.  Good security practice is to only give access to resources to people that have a legitimate need for that resource.  No matter how much you might trust them, only give them what they need to do their job.
The church has a resource in the form of a membership database.  Bishops (and frankly most members) have no legitimate need to randomly access this database on a whim.  So they do not have access to do this.
However Bishop's do have a legitimate need to "Request Records" to fulfill their calling.  People move, people come to the Bishop saying 'I'm here now, can you help me'  Without being able to get their records this becomes an issue.  So the church has provided a way for the people in a Ward with the proper calling to asks for a record, usually this is a fast and simple process.  But ask any Clerk that has struggled to pull a record in because they get some bad info to base the request on, and you will know they can't just browse the database looking.
That is good security practice, but from the moment the first security is put in place people have been trying to get around it.  The bishop in this example potentially tried to get around the system, by possibly abusing privilege he did have, to get information he should not have.  He most likely tried to request the record of someone he should not.  The system could give him two responses.  It could give him the record, if there was a record he was authorized to see, a record by definition would tell him something.  Or the system could give him nothing.   Nothing is just that... Nothing.  Sadly lots of people jump to conclusions and infer lot of "facts" based on nothing.  Someone being excommunicated is a "possible" reason someones records can't be found, but again I refer you to any ward clerk that struggled to pull in someones record, that is it not the only reason they may fail to find any record.  And its not like the Bishop who might be overstepping can reach out to the target to correct some bad information.

I would make the argument that this is only one contributing factor. The massive expansion of 24 hour media and the need to always have something new and fresh in order to stay relevant (and profitable) means that media companies are digging a lot deeper. So I think we hear about more of these things because the entertainment news industry reports more of them to get more eyes.

"Bishop" is an office in the Aaronic Priesthood. Strictly speaking, once ordained to the office of bishop, always a bishop (in the same way of once an elder, always an elder). 
This is not strictly the same as being set apart as the bishop in a ward. When set apart to that calling, keys are given that are necessary for the administration of the ward. When released, the individual will no longer hold the keys of the calling, but will still retain the office of bishop. 
My understanding is that some people continue to refer to released bishops as "Bishop So-and-so" on the understanding that this is appropriate given that they still hold the office of bishop. I don't follow this custom myself; my interpretation is that, once released, holding the office of bishop is irrelevant given their ordination to the office of high priest. 
But I might not be the best example. I have developed the practice of referring to my bishops by their first name in settings that are not strictly formal. I began doing so after one of the bishops I worked with commented that he felt like his individuality had been consumed by the calling. He was always "Bishop," as if that were his name, even in the most informal settings. He missed just being Jim. All of my bishops since then have expressed appreciation for being recognized this way.

This is inaccurate. The only resource that Bishops have access to that provides church-wide information is the Church Directory of Leaders (CDOL). As the name indicates, it only provides information about leaders, and is intended to facilitate communication between ward and stake leaders. 
I can think of two ways a bishop might attempt to determine if a person still has a membership record.
Initialize a request for their record. They would need to know name and birthdate or record number to do so. The system will identify matches and ask the person performing the request if this is the person they are looking for. Submit a Request for Confidential Information. Normally, these requests involve members of the bishop's unit, but they can request records for former members as well. These requests are reviewed by the Office of the First Presidency, and he wouldn't learn much until they had reviewed the request and adjudicated that he did, in fact, need the information.  I would guess your bishop friend used the first approach and was unable to find a match.