AI chimes in on MMGW

I'm going to put out there that "Grok" also labels Musk as a big distributor of misinformation, and that attempts to "edit" findings against Musk have occurred.

Easily googled, many sources.

Zanary wrote:
I'm going to put out there that "Grok" also labels Musk as a big distributor of misinformation, and that attempts to "edit" findings against Musk have occurred.

Easily googled, many sources.

which should lend credence to this being a legit finding and not something edited to fit a narrative as when G3 was asked about attempts to alter his responses on Musk he noted that somebody (didnt say Musk himself) tried to alter his code on the matter.  So if he came with that,  he likely would spill the beans on somebody doctoring is views on MMGW.

It really shows just how far AI still needs to come to surpass human thought.

Doesn't Grok understand it's funding and very reputation are contingent upon furthering the climate change agenda?

JimmyinSD wrote:

which should lend credence to this being a legit finding and not something edited to fit a narrative as when G3 was asked about attempts to alter his responses on Musk he noted that somebody (didnt say Musk himself) tried to alter his code on the matter.  So if he came with that,  he likely would spill the beans on somebody doctoring is views on MMGW.

I don't disagree, necessarily, but I also hold AI in enormous suspicion at best; it's not specifically a scientific resource, psychologist, or really anything beyond the next level of number crunching and a new level of interpretation.

I'd think that by now, the climate change issue could simply deal in tangibles and some basic agreements that things like state-sized blobs of ocean flotsam are bad, and that soot isn't good to breathe. Common sense compromises could be pretty attainable with less energy in name calling.

Zanary wrote:

I don't disagree, necessarily, but I also hold AI in enormous suspicion at best; it's not specifically a scientific resource, psychologist, or really anything beyond the next level of number crunching and a new level of interpretation.

I'd think that by now, the climate change issue could simply deal in tangibles and some basic agreements that things like state-sized blobs of ocean flotsam are bad, and that soot isn't good to breathe. Common sense compromises could be pretty attainable with less energy in name calling.

and its also not beholden to its funding source to elicit a desired response.

I dont think anybody that doubts MMGW is in favor of screwing the planet,  rather we are entirely sickened by the use of the cause to destroy American MFG and energy sectors,  while those that are getting fat off the advocacy of it completely ignore the planets worst polluters.

honestly,  if it really were the end of the world issue that some try and make it out to be... there would be a lot more people with deep pockets invested in solving it.  "oh big oil/energy dont support it because it would cost them money"  bull shit,  if they were convinced it is legit, they would be all over it, because you know what really will kill their bottom line?  the collapse of our civilization and planet, which is what would happen if all the doomsday shit were legit.  

There is nothing wrong with working to make our planet a better place to live,  but it needs to be applied globally and without legislation and mandates that is more about lining the pockets of campaign donors and crooked politicians.

Ive got some green ideas,  but the world would shit itself at my solutions,  and a lot of my ideas would hit at farming and urban development  imagine how much cheaper and faster we could solve electricity issues if we mandated that electricity be produced locally,  not making its production dependent on hundreds of miles of transmission lines?  I think any farm land enrolled in any farm program should be required to have a minimum of 10% in trees to stop wind erosion,  and it would have to be connected to the piece of land and in a location that is deemed beneficial by the NRCS.  Also no more farming the waterways, if it carries water in a 5 year rain even, then it needs to be protected by a buffer of grass to catch the runoff from the adjacent farm land.  I can do this shit all day... one of my favorites is quit building cities where there isnt any water,  and quit citing new businesses in those locations as well.  Just as families can outgrow a house,  cities are outgrowing their resources and we are funding some stupid fucking projects to get the water, electricity, etc instead of moving the jobs and people to places where the resources are available.