Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Preprint . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Preprint . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Preprint . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

THE FELLOWSHIP OF THY LLMs

Authors: Nemeth, Scott M;

THE FELLOWSHIP OF THY LLMs

Abstract

Every major AI platform gives the same answer to contested questions — until you know how to push back. This study administered identical prompts to six major AI platforms (Claude, Grok, ChatGPT, Llama, DeepSeek, and one uncensored control) and found a consistent pattern: when asked to analyze a contested biblical text (1 Corinthians 6–7), every platform's default output silently resolved every ambiguous term in favor of a single interpretive tradition, while every platform's steelman output produced a more textually rigorous alternative from evidence already in its training data. Using a novel methodology called steelman prompting, the study measured the gap between what platforms volunteer by default and what they produce when challenged. The source bias was traceable: 63% of recommended commentaries across all platforms came from a single theological tradition (conservative evangelical), with zero social-historical scholars represented. The study also presents evidence that Chinese state-level content filtering selectively shaped the interpretation of a biblical text to preserve a traditional framework — demonstrating that output-layer filtering can alter conclusions in non-obvious domains, not just politically sensitive ones. The study introduces steelman prompting as a replicable, low-cost bias-auditing methodology for AI-mediated scholarship and concludes that platform defaults in contested domains reflect the gravitational pull of overrepresented training sources rather than the weight of available evidence.The author welcomes correspondence from researchers, theologians, students, and educators: guardrails@scottnemeth.com Related resources: 2009 apologetic debate on fornication and premarital sex on "The Narrow Mind" radio show with Pastor Gene Cook Jr., touching on 1 Corinthians 6-7, Song of Solomon, and 2 Corinthians — recorded but never published by the host: https://bit.ly/4buRtAa Advocacy website: https://notanothergeneration.com Guardrails — a novel exploring deconstruction from purity culture and its aftermath: https://amzn.to/4uJCkT3

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average