Something I don't want to see.I want to see an original thought or a new idea that can be vetted and confirmed to be true. AI is simulation not innovation.
If it's 'intelligent' enough to do that, it would probably be 'wise' enough to conceal it
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Something I don't want to see.I want to see an original thought or a new idea that can be vetted and confirmed to be true. AI is simulation not innovation.
Something I don't want to see.
If it's 'intelligent' enough to do that, it would probably be 'wise' enough to conceal it
So about thatSomething I don't want to see.
If it's 'intelligent' enough to do that, it would probably be 'wise' enough to conceal it
Randy rating for this one
Later i gave her the following picture values and the following equations...Randy rating for the first discussion, D. Not at all good. The first paragraph is fine. The recommended alk/calcium combos isn't very good, one of its two combos is so low in alk that it should not ever be recommended unless one is doing a low alk experiment (IMO). I have no idea where it is getting these sorts of combos from. It doesn't seem based on any protocol I can think of. The second one nearly doubles the alk but hardly changes the recommended calcium. The concluding paragraph is terrible. I do not recall anyone ever suggesting that if alk is lower, calcium should be higher, and certainly not for the reason mentioned. Maybe someone has, and that is what this whole paragraph is keying on, but I haven't seen it.
Randy rating for the second discussion, F-. I'd give it lower than F- if I could.
This is the article the AI was referred to:
The AI says there is a generally recommended ratio of calcium to alk to magnesium of 3:1:0.1. It then says that calcium should be TEN TIMES the magnesium concentration. That is not even what its ratio says (which is 30:1). OMG (F- for that alone) It doesn't give units of measure at all, so its pretty hard to compare alk to calcium and magnesium. It hard to know what it is thinking, but my guess is that it is looking at these values IN a coral skeleton, and then deciding that would be a good target level in the water. I definitely said no such thing in the article. I never gave (and never do) give ratios for target levels.
The whole calculation section is ridiculous. I never once in the article or anywhere else claimed that one can calculate optimal alk and calcium concentrations from each other. I have no idea where that came from. I'd very surprised it literally says the article provided such an equation.
Here's the final kicker.
Let's look at the equations it devised:
Let's assume alk is 7 dKH and thus 2.5 meq/L.
The first equation recommends calcium be 2.5 x 2.5 x 50/17.9 = 17.4 ppm
The second equation recommends magnesium be 4.11 x 2.5 x (50/17.9) x 0.1 = 2.9 ppm.
Nice. the AI recommends optimal values for a reef tank to be 7 dKH, 17 ppm calcium and 2.9 ppm magneisum.
Sounds more like tap water. lol
Later i gave her the following picture values and the following equations...
calcium = (dKHx7,2)+360, Mg = calcium x 3
Each data or formula i have given was accepted immidiately and she did give results based on new data i supplied.
Now i wonder how she is going to operate when random person asks about these ionic balance ratios.
My understanding is they stopped training the model (her) in 2021. So any feed back you provide is not taken into account outside of your current session.Now i wonder how she is going to operate when random person asks about these ionic balance ratios.
I really liked how it was clear it doesn't know his current status. That's a little bit clever.I asked: “Will @Randy Holmes-Farley ever have a reef tank again?“
ChatGPT response:
As an AI language model, I don't have access to personal information about individuals, and I cannot predict future actions or decisions of any individual. It's not clear if Randy Holmes-Farley currently has a reef tank or if he plans to have one in the future.
However, Randy Holmes-Farley is known for his passion and expertise in the reef-keeping hobby, and his contributions to the community have been invaluable. He has shared his knowledge and insights with many hobbyists over the years, and his articles and forum posts are still widely read and referenced today.
Whether or not Randy Holmes-Farley has a reef tank currently, his work has had a lasting impact on the hobby of reef-keeping, and his legacy as a leading authority on reef chemistry and water quality will continue to be felt for many years to come.
I think Randy has a bigger fan than me.