TOS Question: ChatGPT

[Dom]

You mean like badges? We don’t need no (more) stinkin badges!

It isn't about badges. It is about vetting the source of information.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

It isn't about badges. It is about vetting the source of information.

Who would be doing the vetting? If it’s your own due diligence, I get that but how is a newbie (first post on the forum, asking for help) to vet the responses….and whom they came from that they get?

 

[Dom]

Who would be doing the vetting? If it’s your own due diligence, I get that but how is a newbie (first post on the forum, asking for help) to vet the responses….and whom they came from that they get?

Rev and other moderators would do the vetting. It would be done by committee.

Those selected would be clearly identified with a "verification" on their profile.

New people would easily be able to identify more reliable sources of info.

 

[Matt L]

Vetting responses is really up to the community to do. We can correct each other in a courteous manner without insults. I also wouldn’t look at badges or reaction scores as a gauge of trust. If you really want to rely on one source of info though, read a book instead.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Rev and other moderators would do the vetting. It would be done by committee.

Those selected would be clearly identified with a "verification" on their profile.

New people would easily be able to identify more reliable sources of info.

yeah, I’ll pass on this. I think it’s hard enough for a newbie to discern. Someone with a million likes, badges, check marks, gold stars, rainbow colored names, etc can (and sometimes do) post bad advice (as do I I’m sure, no one’s perfect). Just as someone that just joined and has zero history can post excellent advice.

 

[mizimmer90]

Some tools may be great. I like the search summary I get online as a good starting point.

But ChatGPT in particular, since that is the one I have tested for accuracy, makes too many mistakes to be useful, and a person asking presumably has no way to know whether it is accurate or not.

So is a tool useful if you do not know whether to believe the analysis? Not very, IMO.

Here's a recent example of a very serious mistake.

Someone wants to dose maganese and asked it for a recipe. The AI made two different mistakes, which partly offset, and the final answer was still off by a huge factor (more than 100x). A user would have a massive overdose of manganese.

CHATGPT GOOD CALCULATING? Randy: Not even close

Hey, guys, I would like to confirm whether what chatgpt wrote to me is correct, can you take a look at it?| My question was: "I have MnCl₂ + 420 manganese (10 grams of powder dissolved in 1000 ml of water). I would like to raise the manganese level in my aquarium, which has 2500 liters of...

www.reef2reef.com

Here's my analysis in that thread about its errors:

Let's see if we can dissect the AI brain to figure out its mistake.

Step 1 mistake: it assumed the material was 100% manganese. Must be some other error too , since that would cause underdosing, not the actual overdosing.

Step 2 calculation is correct.

Step 3 CHATGPT BLUNDER EXTREME.
It believes that solution contains 10 mg/mL from step 1.
It carries that incorrectly to step 3 and it becomes "We know that 1 ml of the solution contains 10 µg (0.01 mg) of manganese"
That carrying of data from step 1 to step 3 made a huge error of 10 mg/ml becoming 10 ug/mL. Off by a factor of 1,000!

So CHatGPT made two errors, one small one and one huge one.

Definitely! I think there are a number of AI tools that when used correctly will be incredibly beneficial. Now that I have AI summaries of articles, it's hard to imagine a world without them. I'm just imagining how great this tool could be for reef2reef threads or for synthesizing multiple peoples views.

As for the accuracy, I take the position that this is a tool, and when used correctly can be very powerful. I suspect that the typo in the original Manganese example may have caused some issues. I tried it myself with a newest version of chatGPT and seem to be getting consistent and reasonable results.

One thing to keep in mind is that this field is moving at light speed. What was state of the art 6 months ago is already obsolete. Couple that with a confusion of how to effectively use these tools or what they're actually for (i.e. I think asking an LLM to count letters is not using the tool correctly, as its like using a screwdriver to cut a log) and I can understand people's reservations. But these tools are already changing every industry because of how useful they are.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Vetting responses is really up to the community to do. We can correct each other in a courteous manner without insults. I also wouldn’t look at badges or reaction scores as a gauge of trust. If you really want to rely on one source of info though, read a book instead.

Ah, books….those were those large stone things with markings on them that one would see in a museum, right?

I agree completely with a caveat. No one is really jumping to publish anything as of late! Or at least I haven’t noticed. It’s easy to get a book by Moe from the eighties….some of it is still relevant, but not all!

 

[sixty_reefer]

If I remember that string of threads correctly (that’s a big if, I can’t remember what I had for breakfast…and that was like ten minutes ago!), we’re not talking apples to oranges here. This is pure copy/paste (maybe even bot generated, jury’s still out for me) Ai content under the guise of an individuals personal knowledge and experience. In the threads you’re bringing up, people did question where you were getting some information from, and if it was Ai that it was completely wrong and should be double checked for accuracy and not taken as gospel as it is not always accurate. I don’t think anyone is/was/has accused you of being an Ai bot or just copying and pasting Ai responses, inserting yourself in everyone’s business, with a Superman complex in an effort to save everyone on the forum. Healthy discussions, even arguments are great for keeping things moving. If we all just agreed on absolutely everything, nothing new would ever come about. Just know that if one is to make certain claims, another might strike at them. I certainly dont agree with absolutely everything that everyone here says is fact. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect them or their opinion, or even want them muted or banned. Plus who doesn’t like to watch a good train wreck on occasion?

Sixty’s Understanding of Nutrient Ratios

In this thread I will be using the abbreviation C (carbon) N (nitrogen) P (phosphates) The word “Parameters” will refer to no3 and Po4 only At no given point I will be using the above abbreviations to describe parameters as it’s widely seen and confusing wend discussing ratios, Ratios are...

www.reef2reef.com

This thread was made before Ai was available if I’m not wrong.

 

[BeanAnimal]

A common fear of AI is that it will replace you.

That is not my fear. I don't care about being replaced. I just don't care to be exposed to AI generated drivel in a venue like this. It is that simple. If I want AI's input, I will go seek it.

You can code faster than chatGPT used by someone who doesn't know how to code, but i guarantee you will not code faster than chatGPT used by someone who knows how to code and use this tool properly.

Thank you, but a large part of what I do for a living is "write code". I started with Fortran and COBOL and VAX/VMS assembler in the 80's -- moved on to C and C++ and the various flavors of .NET dialects of C, Java and Basic and spent a year or two wandering through PERL for large transaction processing scripts and now deal with various frameworks, primarily PHP and a bit of python and unfortunately have to be fluent in a few proprietary languages as well.

"Faster" is ambiguous and requires context. I know both how to code and how to use the various AI tools available, and do use them. They have their place, but in general AI makes a steaming mess of "code" and can't be trusted. It requires an insane amount of oversight, proofreading and coaxing to keep on track, and that is often harder work than writing the code in the first place. So yes, it can "type" far faster and spit out raw code blocks faster, but quickly becomes lost in its own weeds. Moreover, if you or your team don't write the code, you have no chance of understanding, extending, debugging or migrating it and are left trusting the AI that messed it up in the first place.

Following suggestion #6 from chatGPT on how to interact with you: I am well aware of you

If you were aware of me, then you would not suggest that I am a luddite, let alone simply because I don't agree with your take on AI or want to interact with it on a reefing forum.

Imagine clippy on MS word lol

That petty much says it all... no thank you.

 

[AKReefing]

I'm just imagining how great this tool could be for reef2reef threads or for synthesizing multiple peoples views.

Why read and think for ourselves when we can have AI do it for us?

No thanks.

 

[BeanAnimal]

It’s not a made up scenario as I’ve seen it happen in the past few months where folks didn’t agreed on the discussion topic!
Whether folks like it or not this will be the new future tool to try and stop discussions imo.

I wish to be clear here.

AI or not, you have repeatedly demonstrated an overwhelming lack of understanding of the topics you speak with authority on and use ridiculous tactics to avoid being seen as "wrong".

I don't care if you use AI or not, and as insanely wrong as you often are, I would not dream of having this forum prevent you from posting your thoughts or opinions or have your discussions "stopped" as long as you respond within the TOS.

You are not a victim here.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Sixty’s Understanding of Nutrient Ratios

In this thread I will be using the abbreviation C (carbon) N (nitrogen) P (phosphates) The word “Parameters” will refer to no3 and Po4 only At no given point I will be using the above abbreviations to describe parameters as it’s widely seen and confusing wend discussing ratios, Ratios are...

www.reef2reef.com

This thread was made before Ai was available if I’m not wrong.

Well, the link I clicked showed no evidence of Ai claims that I saw. I did go back to page one s a refresher but am not going to wade through 15 pages of redfeild, c, n, p….qrstuv all over again. I still have nightmares, ha! I know there were questions, arguments, and claims about data not supporting claims. If you want to link exactly where the Ai claim was made I’ll have a gander. Also, I’m no Ai expert but I think some form was available in 2022. Maybe not widely used, or included in our browser at that point but what the heck do I know? I don’t use it in the ways people here are talking about. I use forms of Ai to assist with my vision limitations…and if you have an Alexa show device try asking it what you’re holding! Ugh! That was touted as a great tool for the visually impaired. Seeing Ai works much better ime

 

[AKReefing]

Ah, books….those were those large stone things with markings on them that one would see in a museum, right?

I'm guilty of keeping old reefing books on the shelf. My autographed Conscientious Aquarist is dust covered and curled. Someday I'll have the courage to put it in the wood stove--after one final read.

 

[Crabs McJones]

You mean like badges? We don’t need no (more) stinkin badges!

Don't deny me my badges

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Don't deny me my badges

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

I'm guilty of keeping old reefing books on the shelf. My autographed Conscientious Aquarist is dust covered and curled. Someday I'll have the courage to put it in the wood stove--after one final read.

I never heard of that one and had to look it up! I think that came out after my journey started….man I’m feeling old as dirt!

 

[Matt L]

Don't deny me my badges

 

[Crabs McJones]

I'm working on getting that one back! :rolling-on-the-floor-laughing:

 

[mizimmer90]

And bonus:

Okay I tried this out and lol'ed

But I still maintain that the real use is in summarizing and consolidating text/meaning. AI summaries and search are quite good. Tying this in with agents and performing complex tasks with expert knowledge is remarkable.

I think the expert opinions on R2R are definitely what make it amazing and such a valuable resource. I would like to see AI highlight these voices (not silence them). In fact, chatGPT knows @BeanAnimal and recognizes him as an expert.

 

[Crabs McJones]

Well, chatgpt won me over :rolling-on-the-floor-laughing: :rolling-on-the-floor-laughing: :rolling-on-the-floor-laughing: