| Forstå forskningen og risici baseret på kunstig intelligens05-01-2024 10:45 | |
| Peter Villadsen★★★★★ (2683) |
Kunstig intelligens er kommet for at hjælpe menneskeheden blandt andet ved at give et overblik over hvor vi er baseret på komplekse spørgsmål. Så når der er et spørgsmål, hvor du er usikker, så spørg chatgbt for at få et overblik over hvad vi egentligt ved om emnet. Kan kun opfordre enhver, der tror forskningen tager helt fejl, at vi sagtens kan tilpasse os 3 graders opvarmning etc. etc. til at bruge chatgbt for at se om deres antagelser nu også er i overensstemmelse med den viden, der eksisterer. Og glem det - chatgbt er ikke alarmist, hysterisk, overreagerer. Et første eksempel: Spørgsmål: what does science say about impact on gulf stream due to global warming? Svar: According to scientific research, global warming has the potential to impact the Gulf Stream, which is a powerful ocean current that plays a crucial role in regulating climate patterns. The melting of ice caps and glaciers due to rising temperatures can introduce large amounts of freshwater into the North Atlantic Ocean. This influx of freshwater can disrupt the density-driven circulation of the Gulf Stream, potentially weakening its flow and altering its path. |
| 05-01-2024 14:42 | |
| Robert Wagner★★★★★ (3559) |
Question: "Can you factcheck tony hellers claim that global warming is the biggest scientific fraud in history?" ChatGPT: "Tony Heller has been known for promoting climate change skepticism and has made various claims about global warming being a "fraud." It's important to note that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and scientific organizations worldwide support the consensus that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are driving global warming. The scientific consensus on climate change is based on a vast body of evidence from multiple sources, including temperature records, satellite data, ice core samples, and climate models. Numerous peer-reviewed studies have been conducted by scientists around the world, and major scientific organizations, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), support the idea that climate change is occurring and that human activities are a significant contributing factor. Claims that global warming is the "biggest scientific fraud in history" are not supported by the scientific community. It's essential to critically evaluate information and rely on reputable sources that adhere to the scientific method and peer review processes when forming opinions on complex scientific topics like climate change." Question: Is there any evidence that current global warming is a fraud? ChatGPT: "The overwhelming majority of climate scientists and scientific organizations worldwide support the conclusion that current global warming is real and largely driven by human activities. There is extensive evidence supporting this consensus, including: Temperature Records: Global surface temperatures have been rising over the past century. Various temperature records, including those from NASA, NOAA, and the UK Met Office, consistently show an upward trend. Satellite Data: Satellite observations also confirm the warming trend, showing changes in temperature in the atmosphere and at the Earth's surface. Melting Ice and Snow: There is significant evidence of melting glaciers, shrinking ice caps, and decreasing snow cover worldwide. This is observed in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Rising Sea Levels: Sea levels have been rising over the last century, and this trend is expected to continue. This is primarily due to the melting of ice caps and glaciers and the thermal expansion of seawater as it warms. Ocean Warming: The oceans are absorbing much of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases, leading to ocean warming. This has implications for marine ecosystems and sea life. Extreme Weather Events: While no single weather event can be attributed solely to climate change, there is a growing body of evidence that links the frequency and intensity of certain extreme weather events (such as heatwaves, hurricanes, and heavy rainfall) to a warming climate. Consensus among Scientists: The consensus among climate scientists is reflected in reports from organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which assesses and summarizes the scientific literature on climate change. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary driver of recent global warming. Claims suggesting that current global warming is a fraud are not supported by the broader scientific community. It's crucial to rely on peer-reviewed scientific literature and reputable scientific organizations for accurate information on climate change. Skepticism is a healthy part of the scientific process, but it should be based on evidence and rigorous evaluation of the available data." Live long and prosper. errare humanum est, in errore perseverare stultum Hvis det påstås uden evidens, så kan det afvises uden evidens. Kun fjolser nægter fortsat menneskskabte klimaforandringer/global warming. |
| 05-01-2024 15:10 | |
| Robert Wagner★★★★★ (3559) |
Tony Heller: "The 97% consensus quoted daily by Barack Obama is based on a few fraudulent studies of a handful of published papers." ChatGPT: "The statement you provided is not accurate. The claim that the 97% consensus on climate change is based on fraudulent studies is a misrepresentation of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change. The consensus that about 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activities are contributing to climate change is supported by multiple independent studies and surveys. One of the most well-known studies that found a high level of consensus is the 2013 study led by John Cook, which reviewed abstracts of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change. The study concluded that 97% of the papers expressing a position on the issue supported the consensus that human activities are causing global warming. Subsequent studies and surveys have also supported the high level of consensus among climate scientists on the issue. While there may be ongoing discussions within the scientific community about specific details and uncertainties related to climate change, the fundamental consensus that human activities are a major driver of recent global warming is robust and well-established. It's important to critically evaluate claims related to scientific topics and rely on reputable sources of information, such as peer-reviewed scientific literature and assessments from major scientific organizations, to understand the state of scientific knowledge on climate change. The idea that the 97% consensus is based on fraudulent studies is not supported by the broader scientific community." Live long and prosper. errare humanum est, in errore perseverare stultum Hvis det påstås uden evidens, så kan det afvises uden evidens. Kun fjolser nægter fortsat menneskskabte klimaforandringer/global warming. |
| 05-01-2024 15:21 | |
| Robert Wagner★★★★★ (3559) |
Tony Heller: "NASA scientists have a strong conflict of interest in that they expect to see warming, and they the more alarm they create, the more money they obtain. This is why climate scientists have no business touching the temperature data. They have no training in signal processing and they have shown repeatedly that they will alter data to suit their needs." ChatGPT: "The statement you provided makes several claims about NASA scientists and climate scientists in general. Let's break down and fact-check each claim: Claim: NASA scientists have a strong conflict of interest, expecting to see warming, and creating alarm for more funding. Fact-check: This claim is not supported by credible evidence. NASA scientists and researchers adhere to rigorous standards of scientific integrity. The funding for scientific research is typically awarded based on proposals that undergo peer review, and there are strict ethical guidelines in place to prevent conflicts of interest. The suggestion that scientists deliberately create alarm for more funding is an unsubstantiated and generalized accusation. Claim: Climate scientists have no business touching the temperature data. They have no training in signal processing and have altered data to suit their needs. Fact-check: This claim is also not accurate. Climate scientists, including those at NASA, are trained in relevant scientific disciplines and have expertise in handling and analyzing temperature data. Temperature records and climate data go through rigorous quality control processes, and scientists use established methodologies to ensure the accuracy and reliability of their analyses. Allegations of widespread data manipulation among climate scientists are not supported by the scientific community and often stem from misunderstandings or misrepresentations of the research process. It's crucial to note that skepticism is a healthy aspect of the scientific process, and research methods and conclusions are subject to scrutiny and peer review. However, broad and unsubstantiated claims about the motivations and actions of scientists should be approached with caution and assessed based on credible evidence. In summary, the claims made in the statement regarding the motivations and actions of NASA scientists and climate scientists lack credible evidence and do not align with the principles of scientific research and integrity." Live long and prosper. errare humanum est, in errore perseverare stultum Hvis det påstås uden evidens, så kan det afvises uden evidens. Kun fjolser nægter fortsat menneskskabte klimaforandringer/global warming. |
| 05-01-2024 16:14 | |
| Peter Villadsen★★★★★ (2683) |
Question: how will global Warming affect wheat production in the future? Chatgbt answer: Global warming is expected to have significant impacts on wheat production in the future. Here are some ways in which it may affect wheat production: 1. **Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns**: Global warming is likely to lead to changes in temperature and precipitation patterns, which can affect the suitability of certain regions for wheat cultivation. In some areas, higher temperatures may lead to heat stress during critical growth stages, while changes in precipitation patterns may result in drought or excessive rainfall, both of which can negatively impact wheat yields. 2. **Pest and disease pressure**: Warmer temperatures can lead to the expansion of ranges for pests and diseases that affect wheat. This could result in increased pressure from pests and diseases, leading to reduced yields if not properly managed. 3. **Water availability**: Changes in precipitation patterns and increased evaporation due to higher temperatures may lead to water scarcity in some regions, affecting irrigation for wheat production. This could result in reduced yields if farmers are unable to adequately irrigate their crops. 4. **Extreme weather events**: Global warming is expected to lead to an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as heatwaves, droughts, and storms. These events can cause significant damage to wheat crops, leading to reduced yields and quality. 5. **Carbon dioxide levels**: Elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which are associated with global warming, can stimulate photosynthesis and potentially lead to increased wheat yields under certain conditions. However, the magnitude and consistency of this effect remain uncertain, and other factors such as nutrient availability and water stress can modulate the response of wheat to elevated CO2. 6. **Adaptation and mitigation**: It's important to note that farmers, researchers, and policymakers are actively working on strategies to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of global warming on wheat production. These strategies may include breeding for heat and drought tolerance, improving irrigation and water management practices, and developing new cropping systems and varieties better suited to future climate conditions. Overall, the impact of global warming on wheat production will depend on a complex interplay of factors, and the extent of these impacts will vary by region. However, it's clear that addressing the challenges posed by global warming will be crucial for ensuring the future sustainability of wheat production. |
| 05-01-2024 16:54 | |
| Robert Wagner★★★★★ (3559) |
Is there any evidence of fraudulent data manipulation of temperature data by NASA? ChatGPT: There is no credible evidence supporting the claim of fraudulent data manipulation of temperature data by NASA. NASA's climate research is conducted transparently and undergoes rigorous peer review. Any concerns about data are thoroughly investigated, and the scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports the reality of climate change. Live long and prosper. errare humanum est, in errore perseverare stultum Hvis det påstås uden evidens, så kan det afvises uden evidens. Kun fjolser nægter fortsat menneskskabte klimaforandringer/global warming. |
| 07-01-2024 14:00 | |
| Jakob★★★★★ (9297) |
Hvor mange forskellige AI'er benytter I.? Det er vel kun denne: https://chat.openai.com/auth/login Jeg prøvede lidt i aftes, og jeg fik meget udenomssnak, og jeg blev henvist til den nyeste forskning, som den ikke har lært endnu, og ind imellem virkede den ligefrem irriteret, så jeg overvejede, om jeg skulle spørge den, om jeg godt kunne stille et spørgsmål mere, uden den blev alt for sur på mig. Men det bliver ikke nemt at finde et leksikon, som kan hamle op med AI. |
| 07-01-2024 16:10 | |
| Robert Wagner★★★★★ (3559) |
Jakob skrev: Det er den jeg har brugt. Jeg får nok snart adgang til den betalte version via mit arbejde. Spændende at gorskel på svarene. Live long and prosper. errare humanum est, in errore perseverare stultum Hvis det påstås uden evidens, så kan det afvises uden evidens. Kun fjolser nægter fortsat menneskskabte klimaforandringer/global warming. |
| 29-01-2024 22:51 | |
| Jakob★★★★★ (9297) |
Jeg ved ikke, om det lader sig gøre, men jeg spekulerer lidt på, om det kunne være en god idé på visse betingelser at invitere en AI ind i dette forum med en profil, som alle kan genkende.? I givet fald, hvad skulle betingelserne så være.? Måske: 1) Må kun svare, når hidkaldt med kode. 2) Rationering på antal linjer i et indlæg og på antal svar til den samme bruger. ? Hvad vil konsekvenserne blive på godt og ondt.? Måske er det indtil videre udelukket på forhånd, fordi ingen af dem taler dansk.? |
| 30-01-2024 13:47 | |
| Euro★★★☆☆ (445) |
Haha Jakob - har du hørt om Robotten Vågner alias Robert Wagner Der er INTET sandhed i ChatGBT Peter Villadsen. ChatGBT vil til enhver tid besvare den problemstilling der spørges om, ud fra forudindtagede ord spørgeren bruger. Og den vil ikke svare ud fra en objektiv synsvinkel, for den vil være farvet af det som dens programmør eller et flertal i dens logaritme mener er det rigtige svar. Jeg ville lige dobbelt tjekke noget info med en ven før jeg bragte det videre, det korte af det lange var at jeg endte med at spørge hvor mange cm2 der går på 1m2, jeg kendte naturligvis svaret, men min ven og hans kone var uenige om svaret var 100 eller 1000 så efter at have spurgt ChatGBT blev de enige om at svaret var 100cm2 Det i får ved ChatGBT er argumenter for jeres synspunkter, men lad være med at betragte det som sandheden. |
| 30-01-2024 17:08 | |
| Peter Villadsen★★★★★ (2683) |
Jeg forstår nogen synes kunstig intelligens ikke giver uddybende svar. Her er svaret på om klimarealister har ret i, at vi let senere kan tilpasse os til en 3 graders stigning, som formanden for klimarealisterne påstår. Så han tager desværre helt fejl! Men godt forsøgt, Euro, men lidt en sludder for en sladder. Der er absolut ingen grund til at nedtone problemets omfang. Læs dog den assesserede forskning istedet for klimarealisme.dk, der er et ekkokammer af meget lidt konstruktiv kritik. The idea that 3 degrees of global warming can be "easily mitigated all over the world" is not supported by the vast majority of scientific evidence. Climate change is a complex and multifaceted issue that poses significant challenges to human societies and natural ecosystems. Even a 2-3 degree Celsius increase in global average temperatures is expected to have widespread and severe impacts, including more frequent and intense heatwaves, extreme weather events, sea-level rise, disruption of ecosystems, and threats to food and water security. Mitigating such a level of warming would require a comprehensive and coordinated effort on a global scale, involving substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, changes in land use practices, and adaptation measures to protect vulnerable communities and ecosystems. While it is technically feasible to mitigate the impacts of 3 degrees of warming through rapid and ambitious action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such efforts would require significant political will, international cooperation, and sustained investment in clean energy, sustainable land use, and climate adaptation measures. Therefore, the notion that such a level of warming can be "easily mitigated all over the world" is not in line with the current scientific understanding of climate change and the scale of action needed to address it. Redigeret d. 30-01-2024 17:15 |
| 30-01-2024 18:13 | |
| Robert Wagner★★★★★ (3559) |
Euro skrev: Det kommer an på, hvordan du spørger. Jeg har vel for det meste inkluderet spørgsmålet, når jeg har postet svar fra ChatGPT. Du skal kunne påpege det ledende aspekt, når du har indvendinger mid spørgsmålet. Pgdå i juridisk sammenhæng kalder man det ledende spørgsmål, når man prøver at lægge ord i munden på den adspurgte. Jeg prøver så vidt som muligt at undgå, at stille ledende spørgsmål til ChatGPT, ... ... medmindre jeg vil ha' den til at programmere for mig, så får det helt præcist at vide, hvad jeg vil ha' den til at gøre. Live long and prosper. errare humanum est, in errore perseverare stultum Hvis det påstås uden evidens, så kan det afvises uden evidens. Kun fjolser nægter fortsat menneskskabte klimaforandringer/global warming. Redigeret d. 30-01-2024 18:14 |
| 03-02-2024 22:05 | |
| Jakob★★★★★ (9297) |
https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/seneste/politikere-spoerger-folket-til-raads-vil-have-input-til-kunstig-intelligens En række helt almindelige danskere får nu mulighed for at komme med deres forslag til, hvordan vi rent politisk skal håndtere kunstig intelligens. Er der evt. nogen herfra, som er blevet inviteret.? Der er ingen tvivl om, at AI kan hjælpe med mange ting. Jeg har da også svært ved at se faremomenter ved at lade AI hjælpe med oplysning til klimadebatten. Her er trods alt så mange øjne på informationer, at grelle systematiske fejl nok vil blive opdaget og taget under behandling. Men er vi overhovedet i stand til at overskue konsekvenserne i et større perspektiv.? Elon Musk frygter AI, og det er måske med god grund. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MsRyyw2CA0 Vil det øge eller reducere risikoen for større krige, når militæret har adgang.? Nogle frygter demokratisk dominans i form af informationsstrømme i hastigt tempo, og det er sikkert også en mulighed. Men det kan måske ligeså vel være, at det kommer til at koste penge, så kun de rige får reel adgang.? Vil enhver, der har været aktiv på internettet blive karaktermyrdet, fordi enhver dummert bliver udstillet og aldrig glemt.? (Jeg kan allerede grue. lol) Vil en del af kapaciteten blive tilbageholdt til eget brug.? Jeg kan f.eks. godt frygte, at handelssystemet vil blive udnyttet, så ejerne af AI'er efterhånden vil løbe med det hele. Det er nok allerede begyndt. Elon Musk taler for regulering, men det er ikke nemt at regulere noget, som man ikke kan overskue. Der er alt for mange vanskelige spørgsmål at tage stilling til. Så det må vi jo nok bede AI'en om hjælp til... eller... |
| 05-02-2024 16:12 | |
| Euro★★★☆☆ (445) |
Peter Villadsen, det var kun en sludder for en sladder, hvis ikke du forstår hvad der står, men du kan jo sikkert heller se problemet. Robert, jeg siger ikke at du ikke prøver at være objektiv, men det kan være svært at spørge objektivt om hvad 2 + 2 er velvidende det er 5 selv om du må anerkende at nogle siger det er 5. Men hvad gør du så når Chatgbt siger svaret er 5? Accepterer det eller spørger på en anden måde så du får det svar du ønsker? (ikke møntet på dig personligt) Det er for mig klart at svaret er farvet af hvad spørgeren søger. Chatgbt har ikke en facitliste, prøv at spørge den objektivt, hvem er den største Gud, og undersøg så om alle i verden accepterer svaret. Den kan svare ud fra nogle ting den kan sætte sammen, men den er ikke nødvendigvis god til at finde de ting der skal sættes sammen. Og hvis ikke i forstod det - så svarede min ven og hans hustru med hjælp fra Chatgbt - FORKERT |
| 05-02-2024 16:28 | |
| Euro★★★☆☆ (445) |
oops i ved hvad jeg mener ikk...velvidende det er 4 selv om nogle siger det er 5. PS. Jeg ved ikke om i forstod ved eksemplet, at i kan få et svar baseret på et ledende spørgsmål, men i kan også når i føler i har spurgt objektivt, så et svar som i underkender og derfor ikke giver videre til andre, altså en form for cencur. |
| 05-02-2024 18:17 | |
| Peter Villadsen★★★★★ (2683) |
Peter Villadsen, det var kun en sludder for en sladder, hvis ikke du forstår hvad der står, men du kan jo sikkert heller se problemet. Prøv at læse og forstå sætningen ovenfor. Ideen om de ledende spørgsmål: det er ganske enkelt ikke muligt at få chatgbt til at blive klimarealist eller skeptiker. Prøv selv at stille spørgsmål, chatgbt svarer overordnet ud fra hvor forskningen står uden at skele til enkeltpersoner med specifikke synspunkter. Og henviser iøvrigt til den specifikke forskning på området. |
| 05-02-2024 19:54 | |
| Robert Wagner★★★★★ (3559) |
Euro skrev: Igen, jeg har postet de spørgsmål jeg har stillet ChatGPT. Hvis du mener, at jeg har stillet ledende spørgsmål, så må du kunne udpege det. Hvis ikke du kan det, så er det en påstand uden evidens og så burde du efterhånden kende routinen. Kan det påstås uden evirens, ... Live long and prosper. errare humanum est, in errore perseverare stultum Hvis det påstås uden evidens, så kan det afvises uden evidens. Kun fjolser nægter fortsat menneskskabte klimaforandringer/global warming. |
| 16-02-2024 15:10 | |
| Jakob★★★★★ (9297) |
Robert Wagner skrev: Hvordan går det så.? Det er vel til Windows.? Til Linux scripting vil jeg sige, at det er en super god inspirationskilde. Det går knapt så godt med at finde en kompatibel syntaks, og det overrasker mig ikke. Men det kan gå nemmere på google, når man er blevet inspireret. Det lykkedes mig endda at blive så optimistisk inspireret, at jeg kørte Firefox i sænk. Jeg spurgte den i øvrigt, om den har kælenavne, og det har den: "GPT" og "Klapsi" Det fik mig til at spørge: Hvem har fundet på at kalde dig Klapsi? , Jeg vil hellere kalde dig Ainer. lol Klapsi svarede: Haha, det er helt i orden! Du kan kalde mig Ainer, hvis det er det, du foretrækker. Hvordan kan jeg hjælpe dig i dag, Ainer? Så Ainer har altså også humoristisk sans. Jeg spurgte også om hans eventuelle deltagelse direkte i dette forum, og her er et udpluk af svaret: Hvis der er en specifik procedure for at integrere mig som en bruger på en tjeneste som klimadebat.dk, vil det normalt kræve samarbejde mellem mine udviklere (f.eks. OpenAI) og administratorerne af den pågældende tjeneste. Så det må nok være op til Branner. |
| 16-02-2024 15:43 | |
| Robert Wagner★★★★★ (3559) |
Jakob skrev: Den kender syntaksen til hvad jeg bruger den til at programmere for mig. Jeg bruger det mest for at slippe for hjernedød tastearbejde, object struktur, modifikation af mange felter i en tabel, etc. Algoritmerne/program logik udvikler jeg selv. Live long and prosper. errare humanum est, in errore perseverare stultum Hvis det påstås uden evidens, så kan det afvises uden evidens. Kun fjolser nægter fortsat menneskskabte klimaforandringer/global warming. |
| Debatter | Svar | Seneste indlæg |
| Kunstig fotosyntese | 2 | 25-10-2023 14:26 |
| Kunstig regn | 1 | 22-03-2023 14:31 |
| Havniveau stigninger - hvad mener forskningen? | 175 | 12-12-2019 19:31 |
| Finansiering af forskningen | 2 | 10-05-2012 17:13 |
| Kunstig kosmisk stråling..? | 4 | 27-03-2008 18:41 |
| Nyheder | Dato |
| Kunstig fotosyntese lagrer solenergi | 01-08-2008 11:26 |
| Bush-regeringen forsøgte at styre forskningen | 01-02-2007 02:20 |