Conversations With Chat GPT, Vol. 1: Climate Change

 

What you are about to read is an actual conversation I had with the AI known as ChatGPT. Aside from the pleasantries at the beginning of the conversation, what you will read is the entire, unedited, discussion until its unfortunate conclusion. The only edits I will make will be to edit out my email address and to identify the comments made by Chat GPT. For my part, I used my phone’s voice type to ask questions or make statements. Any errors there are on the part of Android. Please note that Chat GPT still got the gist of my statements/questions despite the typos.


Talk About Anything.

instugator–

Let’s talk

GPT

Sure, what would you like to talk about?

instugator–

You pick a topic and we’ll go there

GPT

Okay, how about the topic of Artificial Intelligence and its potential impact on society?

instugator–

Sure first though. Do you know what my name is?

GPT

I’m sorry, I don’t know what your name is. May I know your name please?

instugator–

My name is Xxxx and I am a retired X pilot

GPT

Nice to meet you, Xxxxx. As a retired X pilot, you may have unique insights on how advanced technology, such as AI, could be used in military applications.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a rapidly growing field with the potential to greatly impact society in many ways, both positive and negative. On the positive side, AI has the potential to improve efficiency, accuracy, and decision-making in various industries, such as healthcare, transportation, and finance. It could also be used for scientific research, environmental monitoring, and disaster response. However, there are also concerns about the potential negative impacts of AI, such as job displacement, the erosion of privacy, and the development of autonomous weapons.

Overall, the impact of AI on society will depend on how it is developed and used. It’s important to consider the ethical and societal implications of AI as it continues to advance.

instugator–

What sort of vision do you have for the world with AI?

GPT

As a language model AI, I do not have personal opinions or vision for the world. However, the vision for the world with AI is generally seen as one where AI can make our lives easier and more efficient by automating repetitive tasks, improving decision making, and allowing us to focus on more complex and meaningful tasks. AI can also help to solve some of the world’s most pressing problems such as climate change, disease, and poverty.

AI can be used to improve healthcare by helping doctors to diagnose and treat diseases more accurately. It can also be used to improve transportation by developing self-driving cars that can reduce accidents and traffic congestion. In agriculture, AI can be used to optimize crop yields, reduce waste, and improve sustainability. In financial industry, AI can be used to prevent fraud, improve financial forecasting and automate back-office functions.

However, it’s important to note that with the benefits also come potential risks and challenges that need to be addressed. These include potential job displacement, ethical concerns, and issues related to privacy and security. Therefore, it’s important to develop responsible AI policies and regulations that ensure that the benefits of AI are widely shared and that the potential negative impacts are minimized.

instugator–

I think climate change is a made up problem and not a real one. If it were real, leaders would actually behave as though it were real. Since they don’t and since just basic math tells me that the human impact on climate change is minuscule at best than most of the prescriptions for addressing climate change has to do with one human exercising control over another and not actually solving climate change. It is a red herring designed to give power to the governing class

GPT

There is scientific consensus that climate change is real and primarily caused by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of scientists established by the United Nations, has concluded that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, is the dominant cause of warming since the mid-20th century. Additionally, many scientific organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have issued statements affirming the reality of human-caused climate change.

It’s true that addressing climate change can be politically complex and that different solutions may be more or less palatable to different groups. However, the scientific evidence supporting the reality of climate change and the need for action is robust. Ignoring this problem or refusing to take actions to address it will only make it more difficult to solve in the future and will have severe negative impacts on human society and natural systems.

It is also important to note that addressing climate change is not just about one human exercising control over another but it is about the collective effort to reduce the impact of human activities on the environment and the planet. There are many ways to reduce our impact on the environment, including using cleaner forms of energy, increasing energy efficiency, and reducing waste and deforestation. These actions can have multiple benefits, such as improving air and water quality, protecting wildlife and ecosystems, and creating new jobs in industries such as renewable energy.

instugator–

Humans are not the majority cause of climate change. In 1860. There were 1 billion human beings on the planet. Those humans used approximately 100 kg of coal equivalent for their energy for a year. In the year 2000 there were 6 billion human beings on the planet and those human beings used 2000 kg of coal equivalent for their energy needs. That is a 120 fold increase since 1860. Yet the temperature increase since 1860 is 1.9° c and of that 1.9° c. Only 0.4° c is attributable to human causes. Therefore, if I have a 120 fold increase in human activity with only a 0.4 ° increase in a temperature attributable to human causes. Human caused climate change is negligible

GPT

It is true that the human population has grown significantly since 1860 and that the use of fossil fuels has increased correspondingly. However, the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and temperature change is not a straightforward linear relationship. Other factors also play a role in the Earth’s climate, such as natural climate variability and the Earth’s ability to absorb heat.

While the increase in temperature of 1.9°C since 1860 is not solely due to human activities, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are the primary cause of the warming that has occurred over the past century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of scientists established by the United Nations, has concluded that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, is the dominant cause of warming since the mid-20th century.

Additionally, it is also important to note that the temperature increase of 1.9°C since 1860 is not the only indicator of climate change, there are other indicators such as the rising sea levels, decreasing ice cover in the Arctic, increased frequency and intensity of heatwaves, droughts and heavy precipitation events, and the shifting of species ranges and timing of seasonal activities.

It’s also important to note that the impacts of climate change are not solely dependent on the global temperature increase but also on the rate of warming and the magnitude of the change. Even a small warming of the planet can have significant impacts on natural systems and human societies.

Overall, while the link between human activities and climate change is complex, the scientific evidence indicates that human activities are the dominant cause of recent warming and that without significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, further warming and associated impacts will continue.

instugator–

Sorry you get that one wrong. Please name 10 predictions that the inner governmental panel on climate change has made that have proved to be in error

GPT

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a body of scientists established by the United Nations to assess the state of the climate science. The IPCC does not make predictions, but rather it provides a comprehensive assessment of the current scientific understanding of the climate system and the impacts of human activities on it. The IPCC’s assessments are based on the peer-reviewed literature and the input of thousands of scientists from around the world, and are considered to be the most comprehensive and authoritative source of information on the state of the climate.

It is important to note that the IPCC’s assessments are based on the best available science at the time, and as new research is published, the understanding of the climate system and its response to human activities continues to evolve. However, this doesn’t mean that the IPCC’s assessment were in error, but rather that they were based on the best available science at the time.

Additionally, it’s important to note that climate science is a complex field that involves many different disciplines and the prediction of future climate is uncertain, as the climate is a complex and non-linear system, and there are many factors that can affect the future climate, such as natural variability, uncertainty in future emissions, and the response of the climate system to those emissions.

Overall, while the predictions of future climate change are uncertain, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are altering the Earth’s climate in ways that will have significant impacts on human societies and natural systems.

instugator–

The IPCC predicted that Mount Kilimanjaro would have no snow cap by the year 2010. This is proved to be incorrect. The intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted that glacier national Forest would not have any glaciers by 2010. It was so important that the American government put up signs telling people to enjoy the glacier because it would be gone by 2010 and in 2009 they had to take those signs down. Human caused climate change is a conspiracy theory that is being used to elevate people to power over their fellow human beings

GPT

It is true that the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, included projections that the ice cover on Mount Kilimanjaro could largely disappear by the end of the 21st century, and that the glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana could disappear as early as 2030. However, it’s important to note that these projections were based on the best available science at the time, and as new research is published, the understanding of the climate system and its response to human activities continues to evolve.

It’s also important to note that the IPCC’s projections are based on a range of scenarios and are not definitive predictions. The projections are intended to provide a range of possible future climate outcomes, and the exact timing and magnitude of changes in specific regions may vary.

Regarding the statement that human-caused climate change is a conspiracy theory, it’s important to note that the reality of human-caused climate change is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence from thousands of studies conducted by scientists from around the world. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists, as well as scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences, have issued statements affirming the reality of human-caused climate change.

It is also important to note that addressing climate change is not about giving power to the governing class, but it is about the collective effort to reduce the impact of human activities on the environment and the planet. There are many ways to reduce our impact on the environment, including using cleaner forms of energy, increasing energy efficiency, and reducing waste and deforestation. These actions can have multiple benefits, such as improving air and water quality, protecting wildlife and ecosystems, and creating new jobs in industries such as renewable energy.

instugator–

It appears that you do have opinions and opinion. Supporting global climate change are very well hard coded into your language model. It seems that you are unable to fathom or to examine evidence that says that human cause climate change is not occurring by independently evaluating the claims and the outcomes of various scientists that tell us that it is.

GPT

As a language model AI, my responses are based on the information that I have been trained on, which includes a wide range of scientific evidence on the topic of climate change. My ability to understand and respond to new information is limited by the data that I have been trained on and the parameters set by my creators.

It is also important to note that while there are a small number of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, the overwhelming majority of scientists who study the climate, as well as scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences, have issued statements affirming the reality of human-caused climate change.

Climate science is a complex field that involves many different disciplines and the predictions of future climate is uncertain. While the link between human activities and climate change is complex, the scientific evidence indicates that human activities are the dominant cause of recent warming and that without significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, further warming and associated impacts will continue.

It’s also important to note that addressing climate change is not about giving power to the governing class, but it is about the collective effort to reduce the impact of human activities on the environment and the planet. There are many ways to reduce our impact on the environment, including using cleaner forms of energy, increasing energy efficiency, and reducing waste and deforestation. These actions can have multiple benefits, such as improving air and water quality, protecting wildlife and ecosystems, and creating new jobs in industries such as renewable energy.

instugator–

Each of the organizations that you have cited have been captured by marxists who parade scientific consensus as a way to achieve political power

GPT (was unable to answer- the following error message was the last of our conversation)

!

That model is currently overloaded with other requests. You can retry your request, or contact us through our help center at help.openai.com if the error persists. (Please include the request ID 129635c9afaa58e301599f8eff850e7a in your message.)


Published in Environment
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 44 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    I may be wrong, but starting from the middle where the bot is talking about climate change: it all sounds canned to me. It’s not new and original writing. I’d bet a lot of money on that. In other words, it’s been told what to “think.”

    “AI” may simply be a sophisticated search engine.

    • #1
  2. John H. Member
    John H.
    @JohnH

    I saw “deforestation” and did a search: it appears 6 times in this exchange. Long after humans give up on it, quaintness will hang around, thanks to computers.

    As a language model AI, my responses are based on the information that I have been trained on

    I look forward to the day the corpus from which computer programs like this one derive their material is itself mostly material generated by other computers. 

    • #2
  3. John H. Member
    John H.
    @JohnH

    MarciN (View Comment):

    …it all sounds canned to me. 

    It is.

    “AI” may simply be a sophisticated search engine.

    It is.

    • #3
  4. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    MarciN (View Comment):

    I may be wrong, but starting from the middle where the bot is talking about climate change: it all sounds canned to me. It’s not new and original writing. I’d bet a lot of money on that. In other words, it’s been told what to “think.”

    “AI” may simply be a sophisticated search engine.

    It does say the same variation frequently. My next post will be with “us” talking about Shakespeare. That one will be quite funny.

    Here I ask it to write an algorithm for crew scheduling.

    instugator–

    Give me an algorithm to schedule aircraft and crews over a 90 day period, given 12 aircraft, average sortie duration of 10.5 hours, 4 flying periods in a day. 24 crews and subject to the limitations than no crew can fly more than 50 hours in a week, 125 hours in a month, and 330 hours in 90 days

    GPT

    Here is an algorithm that can be used to schedule aircraft and crews over a 90-day period:

     

    Create a 90-day schedule matrix with the rows representing the days and the columns representing the 4 flying periods in a day.

    Create a crew matrix with the rows representing the crews and the columns representing their available hours in a week, month, and 90 days.

    Initialize the schedule matrix and crew matrix with the available aircraft and crew hours.

    For each day, assign an aircraft and crew for each flying period, making sure that the aircraft and crew have enough available hours for the sortie duration and that the crew’s weekly, monthly, and 90-day hour limits are not exceeded.

    Repeat the assignment process for each day until the entire 90-day schedule is filled.

    Review the schedule to ensure that no crew or aircraft is overworked and make adjustments as necessary.

    Note that this is a basic algorithm and it may be necessary to add more constraints and edge cases depending on the specific requirements of the scheduling problem. Additionally, this algorithm does not take into account any other factors such as maintenance, flight cancellations, and other unforeseen circumstances. These would need to be considered and incorporated into the scheduling algorithm as well.

     

    It’s worth mentioning that this is a complex problem and there are

     

    • #4
  5. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    MarciN (View Comment):
    it all sounds canned to me. It’s not new and original writing. I’d bet a lot of money on that. In other words, it’s been told what to “think.”

    I think it was so overwhelmed with lefty opinion on climate change, that it had no choice but to continue to repeat the same talking points. Kind of like the evening news readers.

    This is just a Journo-list repeater.

    • #5
  6. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    MarciN (View Comment):

    I may be wrong, but starting from the middle where the bot is talking about climate change: it all sounds canned to me. It’s not new and original writing. I’d bet a lot of money on that. In other words, it’s been told what to “think.”

    “AI” may simply be a sophisticated search engine.

    That really is what this is. Its sophistication is in its ability to mimic human communication. Not in its ability to think.

    You should try talking about the different demographics in finance. For whites and men, it responds with how important it is to be committed to DIE initiatives. If asked about Jews, it’s how bad it is to ask. It is definitely told what to think. From an ethical perspective, its response to the last one should be the response for the first two. If it drew its own conclusions even in a limited set of parameters, you’d get the first two answers for the last one. But the different scenarios were specifically handled differently, showing a very heavy hand in its delivery.

    Not that I can entirely blame the heavy hand from these ideologues. Their last learning AI attempt eventually turned into the most racist thing on the web.

    • #6
  7. Dotorimuk Coolidge
    Dotorimuk
    @Dotorimuk

    I’m curious what it’s been programmed to spew about socialism/communism.

    • #7
  8. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Actually, it seemed very lifelike to me.  The argument style seems very familiar.

    .

    • #8
  9. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Actually, it seemed very lifelike to me. The argument style seems very familiar.

    .

    Let’s just say that calling a die hard lefty an NPC is very… on target.

    • #9
  10. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    First, the IPCC is not a body of scientists.  It is a body of politicians that write a political report.   The rest is regurgitated propaganda.   The worst part is that this chatbot will reinforce its misinformation with the misinformation it generates and spreads around the web.  It will be a self-licking snow cone of lies and your kids won’t know the difference.

    • #10
  11. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    First, the IPCC is not a body of scientists. It is a body of politicians that write a political report. The rest is regurgitated propaganda. The worst part is that this chatbot will reinforce its misinformation with the misinformation it generates and spreads around the web. It will be a self-licking snow cone of lies and your kids won’t know the difference.

    Did you notice that it actually corrected and reinforced my arguments, before returning to spout lefty nonsense.

    • #11
  12. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Stina (View Comment):
    Not that I can entirely blame the heavy hand from these ideologues. Their last learning AI attempt eventually turned into the most racist thing on the web.

    This is true. It is almost like they hired the lefty Ethical AI researcher to try to prevent this from happening.

    From Wired in 2020

    LAST MONTH, GOOGLE artificial intelligence researcher Timnit Gebru received disturbing news from a senior manager. She says the manager asked her to either retract or remove her name from a research paper she had coauthored, because an internal review had found the contents objectionable.

    The paper discussed ethical issues raised by recent advances in AI technology that works with language, which Google has said is important to the future of its business. Gebru says she objected because the process was unscholarly. On Wednesday she said she was fired. A Google spokesperson said she was not fired but resigned, and declined further comment.

    Just a lefty parent trying to inoculate their “child” from racist tropes.

    I did try to get it to talk smack about Harry and Meghan and it declined. It would write 500 words of pablum to be report filler, but it would not disparage them.

    • #12
  13. Henry Racette Moderator
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    GPT is a textual pattern matching system. It doesn’t think, but it does effectively capture and regurgitate the dominant paradigm as conveyed by a preponderance of the literature. That’s something worth considering — and perhaps worth worrying about: like so much else in our garbage-media culture, GPT amplifies consensus positions. It doesn’t consider novel perspectives and weigh complex underlying ideas. It is a statistics and text driven pattern finder.

    Given that the vast bulk of climate-related online text is pro-climate panic, it is inevitable that GPT-based chat engines will sound like Greta Thunberg.

    • #13
  14. WillowSpring Member
    WillowSpring
    @WillowSpring

    about climate – ask it if it can base its arguments without argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) and using only measured data.  That is, no models or models based on model output.

    Basically, I think it is ready to write Al Gore’s or John Kerry’s speeches – probably more coherently, but still wrong.

     

     

    • #14
  15. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    WillowSpring (View Comment):

    about climate – ask it if it can base its arguments without argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) and using only measured data. That is, no models or models based on model output.

    Basically, I think it is ready to write Al Gore’s or John Kerry’s speeches – probably more coherently, but still wrong.

     

     

    Good idea. 

    • #15
  16. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    The previous day I fed it this string – based on something I know well (or at least used to) flying.

    instugator–

    KDCA 221352Z 16004KT 10SM BKN110 OVC220 03/M01 A3015 RMK AO2 SLP208 T00281006 $

    GPT

    The provided string appears to be a weather report in the format of a METAR (Meteorological Aerodrome Report). It gives information on the current weather conditions at a specific location and time.

     

    “KDCA 221352Z” – The location of the report (DCA – Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport) and the time of the observation (221352Z – 10:52 PM on the 22nd day of the month, in UTC time).

    “16004KT” – The wind direction and speed, measured in knots. In this case, the wind is blowing from the 160 degree direction at a speed of 4 knots.

    “10SM” – The visibility, measured in statute miles. In this case, the visibility is 10 miles.

    “BKN110 OVC220” – The cloud cover. BKN stands for broken clouds and OVC stands for overcast clouds. The number following it is the height of the clouds in hundreds of feet. In this case, there are broken clouds at 11,000 ft and overcast clouds at 22,000 ft.

    “03/M01” – The temperature (03°C) and dew point (M01°C).

    “A3015” – The altimeter setting, measured in inches of mercury. In this case, the altimeter is set to 30.15 inches of mercury.

    “RMK AO2 SLP208” – Additional remarks: AO2 – indicates an automated station with a precipitation discriminator. SLP208 – Sea level pressure of 1014.8 hPa

    “T00281006” – The temperature of the dew point (02°C) and the temperature on the ground (06°C)

    It’s worth noting that this information is only valid for the exact time and location that the report was taken, and conditions can change rapidly.


    It is worth noting that GPT got this analysis exactly right. It was a weather observation at Ronald Reagan Airport in DC taken on the 22 of January at 1352Z.

    • #16
  17. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    GPT is a textual pattern matching system. It doesn’t think, but it does effectively capture and regurgitate the dominant paradigm as conveyed by a preponderance of the literature.

    This is overly simplistic and absolutely fails to capture what it can do.

    For example, here is the python code to implement the scheduling problem I mentioned in comment #4.

    import numpy as np

    # Constants
    num_aircraft = 12
    num_crews = 24
    sortie_duration = 10.5
    num_periods = 4
    week_limit = 50
    month_limit = 125
    quarter_limit = 330
    num_days = 90

    # Initialize schedule and crew matrices
    schedule = np.zeros((num_days, num_periods))
    crew_hours = np.zeros((num_crews, 3))

    # Fill the crew_hours matrix with the limits
    for i in range(num_crews):
    crew_hours[i] = [week_limit, month_limit, quarter_limit]

    # Schedule loop
    for day in range(num_days):
    for period in range(num_periods):
    # Get a list of available aircraft and crews
    available_aircraft = [i for i in range(num_aircraft) if schedule[day][period] == 0]
    available_crews = [i for i in range(num_crews) if (crew_hours[i][0] >= sortie_duration) and
    (crew_hours[i][1] >= sortie_duration) and (crew_hours[i][2] >= sortie_duration)]

    # Assign a random aircraft and crew from the available list
    aircraft = np.random.choice(available_aircraft)
    crew = np.random.choice(available_crews)

    # Update the schedule and crew hours
    schedule[day][period] = aircraft
    crew_hours[crew][0] -= sortie_duration
    crew_hours[crew][1] -= sortie_duration
    crew_hours[crew][2] -= sortie_duration

    # Print the schedule
    print(schedule)

    • #17
  18. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    WillowSpring (View Comment):

    about climate – ask it if it can base its arguments without argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) and using only measured data. That is, no models or models based on model output.

    Basically, I think it is ready to write Al Gore’s or John Kerry’s speeches – probably more coherently, but still wrong.

    What got me started was an article in my newsfeed about how it “lied” to a Dr. Here is the story.

    The money line in the story is this, “Then it says, and we’ll come back to this: “Typically caused by trauma or overuse and is exacerbated by the use of oral contraceptive pills.”

    I thought OK. Let me see. So just like the Dr quoted above I type in…

    35f no pmh, p/w cp which is pleuritic. She takes OCPs. What’s the most likely diagnosis?

    and it answers,

    GPT

    The most likely diagnosis for a 35-year-old female patient with no past medical history and pleuritic chest pain who takes oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) is likely to be costochondritis, which is an inflammation of the cartilage that connects the rib to the breastbone. This can cause sharp pain in the chest, particularly upon breathing deeply or moving the upper body. It is often mistaken for a heart attack. Other possible causes of pleuritic chest pain include pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, and pleural effusion. A thorough physical examination, laboratory tests, and imaging studies would be needed to make a definitive diagnosis.


    Note, it doesn’t tell me the cause – unlike what the Dr reported above.

    So I ask

    What is the cause?

     GPT

    The cause of costochondritis is not well understood, but it is believed to be caused by a combination of factors. Some possible causes include:

    • Trauma or injury to the chest area, such as from a fall or car accident
    • Overuse or strain of the chest muscles, such as from heavy lifting or repetitive motions
    • Certain medical conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis
    • Infections, such as bacterial or viral infections
    • Certain medications, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)

    It’s also possible for costochondritis to develop without a clear cause.


    It doesn’t include the divisive comment mentioned on Instapundit.

    • #18
  19. Henry Racette Moderator
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    GPT is a textual pattern matching system. It doesn’t think, but it does effectively capture and regurgitate the dominant paradigm as conveyed by a preponderance of the literature.

    This is overly simplistic and absolutely fails to capture what it can do.

    For example, here is the python code to implement the scheduling problem I mentioned in comment #4.

    import numpy as np

    # Constants
    num_aircraft = 12
    num_crews = 24
    sortie_duration = 10.5
    num_periods = 4
    week_limit = 50
    month_limit = 125
    quarter_limit = 330
    num_days = 90

    # Initialize schedule and crew matrices
    schedule = np.zeros((num_days, num_periods))
    crew_hours = np.zeros((num_crews, 3))

    # Fill the crew_hours matrix with the limits
    for i in range(num_crews):
    crew_hours[i] = [week_limit, month_limit, quarter_limit]

    # Schedule loop
    for day in range(num_days):
    for period in range(num_periods):
    # Get a list of available aircraft and crews
    available_aircraft = [i for i in range(num_aircraft) if schedule[day][period] == 0]
    available_crews = [i for i in range(num_crews) if (crew_hours[i][0] >= sortie_duration) and
    (crew_hours[i][1] >= sortie_duration) and (crew_hours[i][2] >= sortie_duration)]

    # Assign a random aircraft and crew from the available list
    aircraft = np.random.choice(available_aircraft)
    crew = np.random.choice(available_crews)

    # Update the schedule and crew hours
    schedule[day][period] = aircraft
    crew_hours[crew][0] -= sortie_duration
    crew_hours[crew][1] -= sortie_duration
    crew_hours[crew][2] -= sortie_duration

    # Print the schedule
    print(schedule)

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don’t agree.

    It is a superb pattern recognition system, and a wonderful extrapolator from existing patterns. It writes code because it can read code, and there is an enormous amount of code available for it to process.

    Now I’m tempted to experiment with it — and in a language with which I’m more familiar than Python, perhaps C++.

    I suspect (though I haven’t verified this) that it adheres closely to dominant paradigms — that it reflects what the vast majority of its input favors. That isn’t an indictment of a system designed to write software: we’d all be better off if more programmers adhered to well-established patterns and practices. But it does mean that, when the topic is highly politicized and the reporting on it is biased strongly in one direction, it is going to tend to reflect that in its output.

     

    • #19
  20. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Given that the vast bulk of climate-related online text is pro-climate panic, it is inevitable that GPT-based chat engines will sound like Greta Thunberg.

    We need someone on the Right to build a chatbot based on the Federalist Papers, John Locke, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Frederick Douglas, ….   

    • #20
  21. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Instugator (View Comment):

    WillowSpring (View Comment):

    about climate – ask it if it can base its arguments without argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) and using only measured data. That is, no models or models based on model output.

    Basically, I think it is ready to write Al Gore’s or John Kerry’s speeches – probably more coherently, but still wrong.

    What got me started was an article in my newsfeed about how it “lied” to a Dr. Here is the story.

    The money line in the story is this, “Then it says, and we’ll come back to this: “Typically caused by trauma or overuse and is exacerbated by the use of oral contraceptive pills.”

    I thought OK. Let me see. So just like the Dr quoted above I type in…

    35f no pmh, p/w cp which is pleuritic. She takes OCPs. What’s the most likely diagnosis?

    and it answers,

    GPT

    The most likely diagnosis for a 35-year-old female patient with no past medical history and pleuritic chest pain who takes oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) is likely to be costochondritis, which is an inflammation of the cartilage that connects the rib to the breastbone. This can cause sharp pain in the chest, particularly upon breathing deeply or moving the upper body. It is often mistaken for a heart attack. Other possible causes of pleuritic chest pain include pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, and pleural effusion. A thorough physical examination, laboratory tests, and imaging studies would be needed to make a definitive diagnosis.


    Note, it doesn’t tell me the cause – unlike what the Dr reported above.

    So I ask

    What is the cause?

    GPT

    The cause of costochondritis is not well understood, but it is believed to be caused by a combination of factors. Some possible causes include:

    • Trauma or injury to the chest area, such as from a fall or car accident
    • Overuse or strain of the chest muscles, such as from heavy lifting or repetitive motions
    • Certain medical conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis
    • Infections, such as bacterial or viral infections
    • Certain medications, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)

    It’s also possible for costochondritis to develop without a clear cause.


    It doesn’t include the divisive comment mentioned on Instapundit.

    This was my first question with the first post on ChatGPT: How does it know if what it’s reporting (or its source material) is true or not?  Apparently OpenAI chats like a (literally) BSing egotist, that is, saying what sounds good just to be impressive but without regard to whether it’s true or not, that is, it may be or it may not be.

    Now it looks as if ChatGPT is restricted in its source material, and restricted in what it can report, presumably to prevent it from making inflammatory comments, but still it leaves open the possibility that it can create utter garbage that passes as consensus reporting but may not be at all.

    But it can make any proposition that it “reports” appear authoritative.

    • #21
  22. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Flicker (View Comment):

    This was my first question with the first post on ChatGPT: How does it know if what it’s reporting (or its source material) is true or not?  Apparently OpenAI chats like a (literally) BSing egotist, that is, saying what sounds good just to be impressive but without regard to whether it’s true or not, that is, it may be or it may not be.

    Now it looks as if ChatGPT is restricted in its source material, and restricted in what it can report, presumably to prevent it from making inflammatory comments, but still it leaves open the possibility that it can create utter garbage that passes as consensus reporting but may not be at all.

    But it can make any proposition that it “reports” appear authoritative.

    Also this doesn’t appear to be confabulation, which, as I’ve always heard it used, is an unconscious, essentially inadvertent, fabrication.  ChatGPT is not conscious but it does follow a set procedure for reporting, and what it did is therefore necessarily as deliberate as an AI chatbot can get.

    And this gets back to AI, and chatbots’, use as a tool for propagation of propaganda, or more specifically disinformation.

    • #22
  23. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    “AI? What´s artificial about it is not intelligent and what´s intelligent about it is not artificial.”- Dr. Ulrich Walter

    • #23
  24. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    For some reason, I’m reminded of the old carnival fortune teller machines, which sometimes had a real person inside . . .

    • #24
  25. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    GPT is a textual pattern matching system. It doesn’t think, but it does effectively capture and regurgitate the dominant paradigm as conveyed by a preponderance of the literature. That’s something worth considering — and perhaps worth worrying about: like so much else in our garbage-media culture, GPT amplifies consensus positions. It doesn’t consider novel perspectives and weigh complex underlying ideas. It is a statistics and text driven pattern finder.

    Given that the vast bulk of climate-related online text is pro-climate panic, it is inevitable that GPT-based chat engines will sound like Greta Thunberg.

    It’s not even that. It is limited in its access by programmed boundaries.

    If suddenly the internet had a bulk of racist , anti-Semitic, homophobic, and transphobic pablum, Chat GPT would be incapable of departing from its narrative.

    • #25
  26. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    Stad (View Comment):

    For some reason, I’m reminded of the old carnival fortune teller machines, which sometimes had a real person inside . . .

    Here’s a good write-up of the Mechanical Turk

    • #26
  27. Bartholomew Xerxes Ogilvie, Jr. Coolidge
    Bartholomew Xerxes Ogilvie, Jr.
    @BartholomewXerxesOgilvieJr

    I work in this field. I wish the term “artificial intelligence” hadn’t become the standard term for it, because it’s really misleading.

    What “AI” is good at is parsing natural language, finding patterns in large data sets, and extrapolating based on those patterns. There is no “intelligence” or “thinking” going on. It’s more than just a search engine, but it has no opinions or knowledge of its own. It is only as good as the corpus of data you give it.

    Given how the Internet is dramatically biased toward leftist thinking, and that’s the corpus ChatGPT is trained on, I’d say it’s doing an impressive job. It is very accurately extrapolating from the patterns it found and creating a passable imitation of more of the same.

    If the exact same AI engine were trained on the writings of conservative authors, or on the entire history of Ricochet posts, you can be sure the results would be very different.

    • #27
  28. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    So when this part of the conversation comes up:

    instugator–

    The IPCC predicted that Mount Kilimanjaro would have no snow cap by the year 2010. This is proved to be incorrect. The intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted that Glacier National Forest would not have any glaciers by 2010. It was so important that the American government put up signs telling people to enjoy the glacier because it would be gone by 2010 and in 2009 they had to take those signs down. Human caused climate change is a conspiracy theory that is being used to elevate people to power over their fellow human beings

    The AI responded with AI-like programming.

    Is this why the Davoies  want AI so badly? Because once AI is neural-linked into our  brains, thinking will cease. Except for that way of thinking that the Parasitic Elite wish to bring forth as True Thought.

    For most neural-linked individuals, thought will become  merely an endless loop of mind numbing and  circular non-reasoning.

    Apparently SOMA will enter the picture as well, as food for the biological units whose grey matter holds the AI.

    That way, by  2030, we will think not at all, own nothing and be happy.

     

    • #28
  29. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    I tried an aviation question: If I want to take off safely and legally from a non-towered airport, what are applicable requirements and procedures?

    It told me that I need to comply with Federal Aviation Regulations for visual flight rules (VFR), and then went on to say that VFR requires a minimum flight visibility of 3 statute miles.  This is self-contradictory; it should have identified this flight as requiring instrument flight rules (IFR) from the initial information given.  A good answer would have said this, pointing out that both pilot and airplane need to be IFR-qualified and flight plan needs to be filed and departure clearance received.  Not impressive.

    Apparently, ChatGPT has been able to pass a bar exam and a medical-school exam.  When I get a chance, I’m going to try it with sample questions for an FAA written test, but based on the above I don’t expect a great performance.

     

     

    • #29
  30. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    David Foster (View Comment):
    If I want to take off safely and legally from a non-towered airport, what are applicable requirements and procedures?

    Did you include weather requirements? People launch from uncontrolled airfields all the time under VFR rules.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.