AI apparently doesn’t inherently know squat.
AI is not out there doing basic research of any kind.
AFAICT, it is an able student learner able to fluently and verbosely [with much appreciated nuance] regurgitate what it has learned.
I use Grok and Chatgpt a lot and they both use the web as their sources. I asked Grok the same question as in the thread title and got the same information to include:
“This ~47-year figure is a snapshot and not a hard deadline:
It assumes constant consumption (which may rise or fall due to efficiency, electrification of transport, renewables growth, or economic factors). It excludes unproven or undiscovered resources, which are substantial (e.g., estimates of ultimately recoverable resources are much higher). Production can shift (e.g., more from non-conventional sources like shale or deepwater). Geopolitical, economic, or environmental factors (e.g., sanctions, climate policies) can affect extraction rates.”
AMEN.
I am presently working with a group of very highly educated people (most are PhDs) whose leader has taken to regular use of AI to evaluate and provide recommendations on our project’s challenges. While they all assert that AI is ‘Just another tool’, they turn to it first, before using the actual (vs. Artificial) intelligence within our team, and generally fail to come up with any other ideas. AI is in that way I believe de-evolutionary.
Also, FWIW, I for some reason was earlier this morning reading up on 2112, the 1976 album by Rush. The story it tells is of a future in which the oracles of supposed truth take their direction from a vast bank of computers. Seems as if we’re there.