Dr Malone, I agree in principle but AI is only as good as their training sources. You could have a situation where others could use another AI and get different results. In fact, some organizations could create their own LLM to get different results to support their vested interests based on how the AI is trained. You're on the right tra…
Dr Malone, I agree in principle but AI is only as good as their training sources. You could have a situation where others could use another AI and get different results. In fact, some organizations could create their own LLM to get different results to support their vested interests based on how the AI is trained. You're on the right track, but a little more thought might be able to account for the issue I raised.
"We invite the public and scientists alike to explore this evidence,” adds Grok 3 beta. “Let’s question what we’ve assumed and dig into what the data really say.”
Maybe I am naive but at least Grok 3 encourages questioning the assumptions, and discourse, something that has not been allowed with "climate writers"
This time, Grok 3, did not have Garbage put in but real solid facts. One can tell they are solid facts by looking at the authors. Legates and The Soons are well known REAL scientists who have been persecuted by the UN via the IPPC for some 15-20 years.
When you keep asking AI to dig deep and look for the answer, on two occasions, it did. It gave me the correct answer to climate change. I was shocked that it knew!
Dr Malone, I agree in principle but AI is only as good as their training sources. You could have a situation where others could use another AI and get different results. In fact, some organizations could create their own LLM to get different results to support their vested interests based on how the AI is trained. You're on the right track, but a little more thought might be able to account for the issue I raised.
I completely agree. Which is why standards need to be written ASAP.
And yes, they will be corrupted.
"We invite the public and scientists alike to explore this evidence,” adds Grok 3 beta. “Let’s question what we’ve assumed and dig into what the data really say.”
Maybe I am naive but at least Grok 3 encourages questioning the assumptions, and discourse, something that has not been allowed with "climate writers"
It's still GIGO, caveat emptor. Original raw data so important, but serious gamers can corrupt that, too. Low tech reigns in the end.
This time, Grok 3, did not have Garbage put in but real solid facts. One can tell they are solid facts by looking at the authors. Legates and The Soons are well known REAL scientists who have been persecuted by the UN via the IPPC for some 15-20 years.
When you keep asking AI to dig deep and look for the answer, on two occasions, it did. It gave me the correct answer to climate change. I was shocked that it knew!
yup, like a "yellow" standard, at least.