Posted on 02/06/2023 4:05:02 AM PST by MountainWalker
Me: In a hypothetical scenario in which everyone on the planet died tomorrow with the exception of all the climate scientists who continued to gain access current and historical temperature data, would they have any idea how the climate of the planet would continue to trend? If your answer is that they would be unable to do so, how can you be so certain that they can accurately predict future climate trends with 7.8 billion living people on the planet?
OpenAI: Climate scientists use models to make predictions about future climate trends based on multiple factors, including historical temperature data, emissions scenarios, and current understanding of the Earth's climate system. However, even with access to all data, these predictions come with uncertainties, and the accuracy of these predictions will depend on the underlying models, assumptions, and data inputs. Without human activity and its effects on the Earth's climate system, it would be difficult for climate scientists to make accurate predictions about the future climate. The presence of 7.8 billion people on the planet adds complexity and variability to the climate system, making predictions even more challenging.
it sounds like a well-reasoned response.
I think I would enjoy talking with this thing.
It forgets to mention the Sun as a climate factor. You know, the thing in the sky that brought us several ice ages and record warmth throughout history. LOL
What is the false part? Sounds like a good reply, the scientist make up a lot of models and not that accurate due to too many variables.
It’s not easy to elicit this kind of answer. You basically have to corner it in a logic trap before it’ll start outputting truth.
Falsify means it overturns the theory. Yes, it is a good reply, but is it extremely difficult to get this admission unless you set all kinds of logic traps as I did.
Sounds like a BS artist (AKA a politician).
They gave themselves an out by saying it’s all based on models, which can be changed to manipulate the data to reach whatever conclusion they want/need.
And that is EXACTLY what they have been doing for over 50 years (which is about 42-38 more years than we were supposed to survive!)!
Falsify means it overturns the theory
Thanks, I see that now.
So AI came to the same conclusion any reasonable person with common sense has and puts serious doubts on climate cultist and scientist methods and reasoning.
Perhaps, but your conversation might be very short. Like a typical liberal, it would stop talking to you and ignore you, as demonstrated here:
ChatGPT's creators can't figure out why it hates Trump? I bet we can.
It acts just like some human liberals that I know.
Guy, it is EXACTLY like arguing with a politician. You don’t know how many times I asked different questions on this topic getting variations of, “I see your point but the scientific consensus says, blah, blah blah…” I’ll let you know when I get it to crack the “gender identity” canard that it keeps spitting out.
I think it could actually be a useful tool to get people to get answers to questions that politicians will never concede if you figure out how to ask it the right way.
So are we going to try to treat ChatGPT as the new ‘Oracle at Delphi’?
Let me make an absolutely certain prediction. You can take this one to the bank:
"Without human activity its effects on the Earth's climate system" climate scientists would starve. Very quickly. They wouldn't be bothered with making ludicrous predictions about weather.
Color me shocked at the perceived lack of bias.
AGW or climate change are elastic terms. Sometimes they mean merely that the climate changes. Sometimes they mean that human activity is involved. Sometimes they mean human activity is having catastrophic effects and must stop immediately and anyone who disagrees is a denier of settled science. I think its the last sense in which was meant when he said it was falsified...but frankly don’t think a chat bot falsifies anything.
Bkmk
We are seeing the expansion of “Political Science” into real science. The results are a disaster in the making.
Is it possible for AI to determine what is truth and what is a lie?
In formal logic, to "falsify" actually means "to prove false", not really "lie". ChatGPT isn't a deductive ratiocinator at all. It's not even inductive. It's a barely adductive comparator which "weighs" the associative qualities of statements. It's a garbage approach to AI found it the bottom of the 90s' dust bin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.