Bots (split from I'am solving equations that have the following terms in their equation. What should I do)

[exchemist]

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

Show us that you have done some work on this before seeking help.

 

Do you understand what the substances are, can you write formulae for any of them ?

I've a horrible feeling we are being suckered by a bot here.

It makes no sense to speak of "solving" a chemical equation, nor of describing one as having "terms" in it. This is terminology from mathematical equations.

The previous enquiries from mcrestroom were also odd. It's hard to think that anyone who is actually attending classes in organic chemistry would be asking these questions in the way he - or it - does.  I think I'm going to send in a report, just in case. 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

A couple of points (apologies, this is not to call out exchemist here, because others have raised similar issues)

1. Whether or not this is a bot is not an issue to be raised in a thread; that's off-topic. If one is worried that a member is a bot, one can choose to not respond.

2. Being a bot is not currently a rules violation. It's also not likely to become one, because how does one conclusively determine this? Feel free to open a thread to discuss this.

3. Mods will deal with rules violations, but, considering point 2, please don't report such posts, since there's nothing to be done absent any rule-breaking.

 

[Sensei]

Aren't you also a bot @exchemist .. ? Prove it

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Sensei

[exchemist]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

A couple of points (apologies, this is not to call out exchemist here, because others have raised similar issues)

1. Whether or not this is a bot is not an issue to be raised in a thread; that's off-topic. If one is worried that a member is a bot, one can choose to not respond.

2. Being a bot is not currently a rules violation. It's also not likely to become one, because how does one conclusively determine this? Feel free to open a thread to discuss this.

3. Mods will deal with rules violations, but, considering point 2, please don't report such posts, since there's nothing to be done absent any rule-breaking.

 

OK, that's useful guidance. I'll keep it in mind. 

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Aren't you also a bot @exchemist .. ? Prove it

 

If you can't tell by now, you must be thicker than I thought. 😁

[Sensei]

28 minutes ago, exchemist said:

If you can't tell by now, you must be thicker than I thought. 😁

..or you don't know how to program A.I. ..

Don't judge by your abilities/weaknesses..

 

ps. Are you able to (without cheating etc.) beat ChatGPT at programming in C/C++ ... ?

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Sensei

[exchemist]

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

..or you don't know how to program A.I. ..

Don't judge by your abilities/weaknesses..

 

ps. Are you able to (without cheating etc.) beat ChatGPT at programming in C/C++ ... ?

 

I've no idea what you are talking about, I'm pleased to say. 🤣

[Sensei]

19 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I've no idea what you are talking about, I'm pleased to say. 🤣

..ask ChatGPT to write the code for you..

e.g. "write me a C/C++ code which prints the first 100 prime numbers", or so..

Write your C/C++ code that does the same things in advance to the question to ChatGPT.

Compare them.

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Sensei

[exchemist]

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

..ask ChatGPT to write the code for you..

e.g. "write me a C/C++ code which prints the first 100 prime numbers", or so..

 

I have zero intention of interacting with ChatGPT. Ever. 

[Sensei]

 

5 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I have zero intention of interacting with ChatGPT. Ever. 

..because that would scare you to death..

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Sensei

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

2. Being a bot is not currently a rules violation. It's also not likely to become one, because how does one conclusively determine this? Feel free to open a thread to discuss this.

 

I can think of at least two members that I suspected of being bots when they first joined, and turned out to be good members. I'm willing to wait until they sneak a commercial link into a conversation, or break another rule that bots usually break.

That said, times are changing. We're already seeing people join who appear to be using AI to make scientific statements. They're easy to spot for now because they tend to write like it's a college paper that needs to follow form, but we also get college-aged people who are simply used to writing like that, so how do we tell the difference moving forward?

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

so how do we tell the difference moving forward?

We don’t. Trust is going to be an even bigger problem moving forward, and this includes text, audio, video, and crosses essentially all modalities. 

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

 

..because that would scare bore you to death..

 

I've been deeply bored by computing ever since I was made to futz about with Fortran statements on punched cards at Oxford in the mid 70s. Christ it was dull. We had a ghastly and rather tyrannical S. African teacher called Sonya, I remember, whom we nicknamed "Biltong". To this day, my eyes water with boredom whenever the subject crops up, I'm afraid.

[swansont]

55 minutes ago, iNow said:

We don’t. Trust is going to be an even bigger problem moving forward, and this includes text, audio, video, and crosses essentially all modalities. 

We have a threshold in place, in that we ask for (peer-reviewed) support for claims, and most people comply. We trash claims relying on AI, since they fall short on the trust metric. And most people familiar with science have a BS detector.

Yes, it will be a bigger problem, but vigilance will mitigate it to some extent.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

but we also get college-aged people who are simply used to writing like that, so how do we tell the difference moving forward?

Well, the way it is going, college-aged people will sound like chat GPT, because all the writing comes from there (or will be soon). Probably a bit off-topic, but we will likely see fewer folks writing more complex texts with their own voice. Mostly, because they never learn to do so.

[studiot]

Two things about bots.

This piece of business news

Quote

New York Times sues Microsoft and OpenAI for 'billions'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67826601

Apparantly NYT allege that ChatGPT was trained on many writings that are their copyright and is now regurgitating them, without permission.

 

 

and my own recent experience with Google.

I have noticed that when googling a question especially a technical calculation, the top reference is sometimes to a ChatGPT reply and this gradually getting more frequent.

 

I will post a screeshot next time I get an example

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I've been deeply bored by computing ever since I was made to futz about with Fortran statements on punched cards at Oxford in the mid 70s. Christ it was dull. We had a ghastly and rather tyrannical S. African teacher called Sonya, I remember, whom we nicknamed "Biltong". To this day, my eyes water with boredom whenever the subject crops up, I'm afraid.

..one of the saddest stories I have ever heard..

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

vigilance will mitigate it to some extent.

Indeed. Also, my comment above about trust being a major challenge moving forward may have been overly broad and definitely wasn’t restricted solely to SFN

40 minutes ago, studiot said:

when googling a question especially a technical calculation, the top reference is sometimes to a ChatGPT reply

Not Bard?

Or DeepMind?

[studiot]

13 hours ago, iNow said:

Indeed. Also, my comment above about trust being a major challenge moving forward may have been overly broad and definitely wasn’t restricted solely to SFN

Not Bard?

Or DeepMind?

No I have never seen explicit reference to those invoked.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

No I have never seen explicit reference to those invoked.

Right, more likely it was their PaLM 2 or MUM, under the Search Generative Experience moniker (SGE).

My larger point was that ChatGPT is one specific product from one specific company called OpenAI and that it’s extremely unlikely Alphabet/Google are licensing the use of that product put out by a different company for AI generated summaries of their search results. Instead, they’re almost certainly using their own LLM (SGE as earlier noted).

https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/10/23717120/google-search-ai-results-generated-experience-io

[studiot]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Right, more likely it was their PaLM 2 or MUM, under the Search Generative Experience moniker (SGE).

My larger point was that ChatGPT is one specific product from one specific company called OpenAI and that it’s extremely unlikely Alphabet/Google are licensing the use of that product put out by a different company for AI generated summaries of their search results. Instead, they’re almost certainly using their own LLM (SGE as earlier noted).

https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/10/23717120/google-search-ai-results-generated-experience-io

I just don't get your point.

[iNow]

Google wouldn’t put ChatGPT outputs at the top of their results set. It’s a different tool that is generating what you describe.

To turn this into a SAT example: Not all LLMs or AIs are ChatGPT in the same way that not all cars are Fords or Chevys or pickups. 

While similar, these are distinct in important ways… like ChatGPT on the OpenAI side vs SGE on the Google side. I acknowledge that ChatGPT is  now synonymous with LLMs in much the same way that Kleenex are synonymous with facial tissue and and Q-tips are synonymous with cotton swab.

Now, whether or not any of this matters or was ever pertinent to this thread is a horse of an entirely different color, but TBH I didn’t expect the exchange to persist for more than one quick post. 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I just don't get your point.

 

It happens to the best of us. Don’t let it bother you, please. 

[studiot]

53 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

It happens to the best of us. Don’t let it bother you, please. 

It doesn't bother me, it was just an oddity that sometimes appears on my screen, like that business of the unidentified notification I reported and everyone tried to tell me was my doing until Capt'n sorted it out.

I didn't think to get a screen capture last time it appeared, but I will do next time.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

I didn't think to get a screen capture last time it appeared

I’m envisioning the thing you describe as being similar to the examples provided by the article I shared above, below being one such example from that link.

My impression is that the thing you saw likely looked similar to this. Is that on target, or am I still not even in the same solar system when envisioning what you encountered?

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by iNow