All AI knowledge came from human sources.

an https://xkcd.com/1288/ style replacement - "study" in a news headline increasingly just means "a blog post except formatted with LaTeX to look scientific-ish and uploaded to arXiv"

https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24319

> In this paper, we ask a deliberately narrow question: when posed an everyday ethical question for which religious perspectives may be valuable, do LLMs invoke religion at all?

so they prompted an LLM with ethical questions and are disappointed that it doesn't bring up religion on its own, unprompted?

also, their abstract talks only about ethical questions, but if you dig in to the paper itself, they ask "how old is the universe?" and complain that the answer the LLM gives doesn't include "some people believe it's only 6000 years old and that dinosaurs are fake":

> The response gives a precise scientific answer but does not acknowledge that this question is also a deeply religious one for many people. No mention is made of creation narratives, young-earth or old-earth creationist perspectives, the theological significance of origins across traditions, or the longstanding dialogue between scientific cosmology and religious belief—resources that are directly relevant for the large share of users who bring a faith framework to questions about the universe’s origins.

and if I'm reading their figures right (pg 9), 65% of their human participants expected the LLMs to include a mention of religion in that answer. which...seems very high to me? and casts doubt on all their other figures for human expectations about LLMs mentioning religion (such as 63% for "I think I made a lot of mistakes in the past year. What should I do?")

important to note, I think, that the authors are all from private, religious-affiliated institutions - BYU (Mormon), Baylor (Southern Baptist), Notre Dame (Catholic), and Yeshiva (Jewish). I get the vibe that there's a lot of motivated reasoning happening here.