Anti intellectualism directed against science.

Diamond7 said:

Just lazy. When you say Musk people know who you mean.

Click to expand...

Melons, obviously: Melon, musk

Diamond7 said:

If you say Tyson they think of chicken legs.

Click to expand...

If you say so. For the longest time the only "Tyson" I'd ever heard of was "Mike". Then came the poultry, then the astronomer.

sfs said:

As a quick test of the most popular chatbot, ChatGPT, I asked it one question about my own research: 'What studies has Stephen Schaffner published about positive selection in malaria?'
It responded with four papers:

The first study is real but was published in 2011, not 2018. I had nothing to do with it.

Click to expand...

Ok chatbot is not dependable or reliable. That does not appear to be a secret.​

Detecting recent positive selection in the human genome from haplotype structure​

Pardis C Sabeti 1, David E Reich, John M Higgins, Haninah Z P Levine, Daniel J Richter, Stephen F Schaffner, Stacey B Gabriel, Jill V Platko, Nick J Patterson, Gavin J McDonald, Hans C Ackerman, Sarah J Campbell, David Altshuler, Richard Cooper, Dominic Kwiatkowski, Ryk Ward, Eric S Lander​

If your name is on the study it counts. At least with the government. A friend of mine came here from Sweden because he could not do his research there. He has 32 articles published and they wanted all of them to qualify for his visa. He had a job teaching at the medical school and they only paid him $85. He was expected to do research to make more money. So I helped him get 3 hundred thousand from march of dimes. Then he hired a doctor from China to do the actual research for him.

So are you trying to say no one will publish an article written by a chatbot?

​

Hans Blaster said:

If you say so. For the longest time the only "Tyson" I'd ever heard of was "Mike".

Click to expand...

I was going to say that, but I could not resist the chicken leg pun.

Hans Blaster said:

Melons, obviously: Melon, musk

Click to expand...

Mike Tyson

Diamond7 said:

Ok chatbot is not dependable or reliable. That does not appear to be a secret.

Click to expand...

So why do you keep getting your information from chatbots if they're not reliable?

Diamond7 said:

Detecting recent positive selection in the human genome from haplotype structure

Click to expand...

Yeah, that one actually is a paper that I'm an author of. You think it's appropriate to get your information from a chatbot if it's right once in a while?

Diamond7 said:

So are you trying to say no one will publish an article written by a chatbot?

Click to expand...

Had I wanted to say anything like that I would have done so. I'm trying to say that by getting your information from chatbots, you are getting a mixture of truth, error, and total fabrication. Why are you posting that kind of nonsense here?

sfs said:

So why do you keep getting your information from chatbots if they're not reliable?

Click to expand...

I am lazy and it is easy.

sfs said:

Why are you posting that kind of nonsense here?

Click to expand...

Chatbot is giving me the info I want.

AV1611VET said:

Mike Tyson

Click to expand...

Neile Degrasse Tyson. It is interesting how two people both with a PhD in Physics fight and argue and do not get along with each other. As if science is going to self destruct. They do not even respect each other, how do they expect us to respect them.

Diamond7 said:

Neile Degrasse Tyson. It is interesting how two people both with a PhD in Physics fight and argue and do not get along with each other. As if science is going to self destruct. They do not even respect each other, how do they expect us to respect them.

Click to expand...

Who are those two people? Your statement is vague and unclear.

Diamond7 said:

Chatbot is giving me the info I want.

Click to expand...

Ah -- you simply don't care whether what you say is true or not. Got it.

sfs said:

Ah -- you simply don't care whether what you say is true or not. Got it.

Click to expand...

Close, but no banana. I do not care IF YOU say it is true or not. You have more confidence in your subjective reality than I do. Research suggests that people's subjective reality can differ significantly from objective reality. But I will start to list the sources for you.

• Metzinger, T. (2018). Philosophy and Predictive Processing. In The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Predictive Processing (pp. 1-19). Routledge.
• Pronin, E. (2007). Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(1), 37-43.
• Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(6), 1121.
• Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological review, 108(2), 291-310.

Diamond7 said:

It is interesting how two people both with a PhD in Physics fight and argue and do not get along with each other.

Click to expand...

I think it's called "peer review," where the winner is the more convincing side.

sjastro said:

Is there a prize for who can find the greatest number of errors made by Chatbot?

Click to expand...

I am not aware of any prize being offered. Not am I aware of any evidence that you have found any error.

Some studies have compared the performance of AI language models like GPT to that of human experts in various tasks. For example, a study published in the journal Nature in 2020 found that an AI language model GPT-3 performed comparably to human participants on a wide range of language tasks, including answering questions, summarizing text, and translating languages.

The article notes that while AI language models have made significant advances in recent years and are capable of generating highly convincing and coherent responses, there are still limitations and risks associated with their use. For example, AI language models may perpetuate biases or inaccuracies present in the data they were trained on, and they may not always understand the nuance and context of human language.

AV1611VET said:

I think it's called "peer review," where the winner is the more convincing side.

Click to expand...

I took a graduate-level debate class once. I found the winner to be the one to do the most research to support their claim. Most people are pretty lazy so it is pretty easy to come up with more evidence than their presentation. Also, the debate is not to convince the other person. It is designed to convince non-partisan judges. In this case, we serve God so we seek to impress God, not man.

Hans Blaster said:

Who are those two people? Your statement is vague and unclear.

Click to expand...

This is a conglomerate of people I have known over the years.
(ref - Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Diamond7 said:

This is a conglomerate of people I have known over the years.
(ref - Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Click to expand...

So vague, unnamed people, who may or may not actually exist. Got it.

Diamond7 said:

I found the winner to be the one to do the most research to support their claim.

Click to expand...

Thalidomide passed peer review, didn't it?

sjastro said:

I pointed out the errors in this post.

I also pointed out in post #484 AI language models which are based on supervised learning are in fact extremely limited as exemplified by the idiotic responses Chatbot has given on your behalf.

Click to expand...

yes there are limits

• "Why Language Models Still Don't Understand Language" by Gary Marcus, Wired, Sept. 11, 2020. https://www.wired.com/story/why-language-models-still-dont-understand-language/
• "The Limits of Language Models" by Emily Bender, The Gradient, Apr. 9, 2021. https://thegradient.pub/the-limits-of-language-models/
• "The Challenge of Making Machines Understand Language" by Tom Simonite, Wired, Nov. 26, 2019. https://www.wired.com/story/the-challenge-of-making-machines-understand-language/
• "The Problem With AI Language Models" by James Vincent, The Verge, Apr. 19, 2021. https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/19/22382748/ai-language-models-gpt-3-bias-climate-change

AV1611VET said:

Thalidomide passed peer review, didn't it?

Click to expand...

Yes, here are some references that provide more information on the thalidomide tragedy and its impact on drug safety regulations:

• "Thalidomide: How a Contergan scandal changed the world" by Christina Beck, DW News, November 21, 2017. https://www.dw.com/en/thalidomide-how-a-contergan-scandal-changed-the-world/a-41454587
• "The Thalidomide Tragedy: Lessons for Drug Safety and Regulation" by Trevor Jackson, Canadian Journal of Public Health, vol. 105, no. 3, May/June 2014, pp. e209-e211. A Nasal Epithelial Receptor for Staphylococcus aureus WTA Governs Adhesion to Epithelial Cells and Modulates Nasal Colonization
• "Thalidomide and the Power of the FDA" by Rishi Desai, Scientific American, October 16, 2012. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thalidomide-and-the-power-of-the-fda/
• "Drug regulation: Learning the lessons from thalidomide" by Elizabeth Sukkar, The Pharmaceutical Journal, June 18, 2013. https://www.pharmaceutical-journal....the-lessons-from-thalidomide/11123259.article

My son just got home from Kalamazoo where he was working for Pfizer on their network. He has done work for them to provide information to the FDA on the production aspect of vaccines they manufacture.