Its incredible that a statement was made by President Trump that AI would help find or develop treatments for cancer? This is insane! mMny people have found their own answers already. Simple truths! Eliminate the CAUSES....the wrong food, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, chemicals, radiation from electronics, x-rays, microwaves; namely all the industries which make big bucks promoting their toxic products.
John, I would appreciate you also publishing the response to the same questions asked of ChatGBT, Co-Pilot, And DeepSeek and put in a table to compare the answers.
I have experienced the bias built into ChatGBT and CO-Pilot regarding the cause of global warming questions, but I have not tried DeepSeek as yet.
Patrick: That's a good idea, but would take up a lot of space. After giving this some consideration I did ask ChatGPT the same questions. The answers are posted above.
This post should be sent to newspapers across the country as a "Letter to the Editor". Perhaps coming from AI, readers might believe it.
Which raises the question: isn't it possible that AI could be programmed or manipulated by deceitful and power hungry bureaucrats? I know nothing about AI except it seems that anything programmed by humans would be inherently fallible.
SM: The benefit of AI is that it can digest a huge amount of information and then synthesize an intelligible answer. The key is: where does it get its information from?
SM: Ultimately, yes. Initially an AI source may use a databank like Google. No matter where they get their information, the question is: is that information comprehensive and objective. For Google, the answer is NO — as that info includes a significant about of politicized, unscientific material (think CNN).
The Wizard of Droz does it again! Thank you, John. And the depth and seriousness of the comments always add so much to the topic of the day, no matter what the topic may be.
That is interesting, but the correct answer was missed! I actually had this conversation with Bill Lee, president of Duke Power in 1987.
My question was about why the electric companies did not buy air time to explain why nuclear energy was safe, cost effective and the absolute best way to generate power. Meanwhile, the media was selling movies like “The China Syndrome” and over emphasizing the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents. It seemed to me the power companies were losing the moral high ground by not explaining great engineering design.
He told me something else. “We will never generate electricity using natural gas. That would put us in competition with our customers who can use natural gas at much greater efficiency than we can. Home heating and hot water heating are over 80% efficient and the best we can do is about 27%. So, we cannot compete with natural gas.”
But, look what is happening today! Almost no new nuclear and a huge push for natural gas! My how things change.
Jim: Some changes since 1987. For example, electricity generating gas turbines are much more efficient today than then. Also, ther need to augment renewables didn;t esist then and today it is a top necessity — and gas is the best source to do that.
It is true that gas turbines can now have an efficiency of just over 40% even if they are very fragile toys due to the very high temperature of the gas after the combustion chamber and it is common that at the first block it is likely that they immediately lose some % of efficiency due to an increase in internal bypasses or worse.
If they are then combined with steam turbines in a combined cycle, I believe that a total of over 65% can be reached (I mean EE produced compared to E of the fuel).
However, with combined cycles even in 1987 it was possible to reach 45%.
I know even less about the production of hydrogen by means of renewable sources, since it seems to me that about 37Kwh are needed for 1 kg of hydrogen I do not know how it would be to exploit wind and solar on a large scale for this.
I would assert that we are moving to “empirical AI”, which cannot be fooled and is positioned to help us iterate a continuously improving framework for arriving at the truth.
That’s the kind of rational information that I had hoped AI would bring to this world. If it doesn’t crush us like a bug🦟
Tim: Yes. That's why I'm pointing it out.
Its incredible that a statement was made by President Trump that AI would help find or develop treatments for cancer? This is insane! mMny people have found their own answers already. Simple truths! Eliminate the CAUSES....the wrong food, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, chemicals, radiation from electronics, x-rays, microwaves; namely all the industries which make big bucks promoting their toxic products.
And, some genetic causes. I've known many people who did not break any health rules, yet they died from cancer and its harsh treatment.
John, I would appreciate you also publishing the response to the same questions asked of ChatGBT, Co-Pilot, And DeepSeek and put in a table to compare the answers.
I have experienced the bias built into ChatGBT and CO-Pilot regarding the cause of global warming questions, but I have not tried DeepSeek as yet.
Patrick: That's a good idea, but would take up a lot of space. After giving this some consideration I did ask ChatGPT the same questions. The answers are posted above.
This post should be sent to newspapers across the country as a "Letter to the Editor". Perhaps coming from AI, readers might believe it.
Which raises the question: isn't it possible that AI could be programmed or manipulated by deceitful and power hungry bureaucrats? I know nothing about AI except it seems that anything programmed by humans would be inherently fallible.
SM: The benefit of AI is that it can digest a huge amount of information and then synthesize an intelligible answer. The key is: where does it get its information from?
I have to assume AI gets it's info from humans. This disturbs me.
SM: Ultimately, yes. Initially an AI source may use a databank like Google. No matter where they get their information, the question is: is that information comprehensive and objective. For Google, the answer is NO — as that info includes a significant about of politicized, unscientific material (think CNN).
The Wizard of Droz does it again! Thank you, John. And the depth and seriousness of the comments always add so much to the topic of the day, no matter what the topic may be.
Jud: TY for your kind words. Are you available to be my publicist?
Mighty Droz,
I will help you in any way I can...
...although I keep hearing that I should vanish into WITless Protection...
...which leads on to Purgatory.
Jud of Daphne
That is interesting, but the correct answer was missed! I actually had this conversation with Bill Lee, president of Duke Power in 1987.
My question was about why the electric companies did not buy air time to explain why nuclear energy was safe, cost effective and the absolute best way to generate power. Meanwhile, the media was selling movies like “The China Syndrome” and over emphasizing the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents. It seemed to me the power companies were losing the moral high ground by not explaining great engineering design.
He told me something else. “We will never generate electricity using natural gas. That would put us in competition with our customers who can use natural gas at much greater efficiency than we can. Home heating and hot water heating are over 80% efficient and the best we can do is about 27%. So, we cannot compete with natural gas.”
But, look what is happening today! Almost no new nuclear and a huge push for natural gas! My how things change.
Jim: Some changes since 1987. For example, electricity generating gas turbines are much more efficient today than then. Also, ther need to augment renewables didn;t esist then and today it is a top necessity — and gas is the best source to do that.
It is true that gas turbines can now have an efficiency of just over 40% even if they are very fragile toys due to the very high temperature of the gas after the combustion chamber and it is common that at the first block it is likely that they immediately lose some % of efficiency due to an increase in internal bypasses or worse.
If they are then combined with steam turbines in a combined cycle, I believe that a total of over 65% can be reached (I mean EE produced compared to E of the fuel).
However, with combined cycles even in 1987 it was possible to reach 45%.
I know even less about the production of hydrogen by means of renewable sources, since it seems to me that about 37Kwh are needed for 1 kg of hydrogen I do not know how it would be to exploit wind and solar on a large scale for this.
I would assert that we are moving to “empirical AI”, which cannot be fooled and is positioned to help us iterate a continuously improving framework for arriving at the truth.
Jeff: Good that you are an optimist. BTW, we are not looking for an AI that "cannot be fooled" but rather one that will not deceive us.