Vinyl foibles

@dogberry Do you think? LOL!

Destat works great for me and I could never get much of a result from the static gun.

I feel sorry for us if we end up depending upon AI for factual information. It only knows what’s been written and entered on the internet without editing or referee. A hodgepodge of thousands of different opinions that will eventually take the place of real investigative work and finally also actual controlled experiments. For example, ChatGPT says yes, the stylus causes static charge . Because the vast preponderance of internet entries say it does. Because this is an erroneous belief that persists. If ChatGPT existed 1000 years ago, it would have told us the sun revolves around the earth or that bloodletting is a good treatment for fever.

I write poetry and I presented one of my poems to chatgbt to test it. Nothing is written about that poem on the internet and yet chatgbt did a superb analysis. It can reason and come to conclusions that no one has ever before come to. How? I don't know.

Just to test against my bias I presented a poem by another poet who has not been reviewed or written about. There is nothing for chatgbt to find on the internet. It also did a superb analysis of her poem. Okay, it didn't say anything bad because it is programmed to please. But take the pleasing away, it was still able to do an awful lot of "thinking."

My older son writes poetry every day, and he uses Chatgpt just as you did, and he likes the interaction.  I am not talking about that kind of interaction.  I am talking about going to Chatgpt or other AI services for scientific or medical information.  When I was doing my medical training, we as students, interns, and residents were taught certain things by our assigned mentors.  These tidbits of information were dutifully stored into memory and repeated to students and interns whom we later taught ourselves.  Over time, many of these "facts" came to be subjected to good scientific testing and were shown to be wrong or at best only partially correct.  That is how science and medicine advance.  If rigor based on performing well designed clinical studies that are then peer reviewed or controlled lab experimentation is never applied, because someone can coerce others to a certain point of view by quoting Chatgpt or other AI, then we will not only fail to advance, we will go backward.  Need I cite just about any public comment re vaccines or "chronic disease" ever made by our current Secretary of HEW?  For many other uses, AI is fine I guess. (I have argued against it on the basis he is risking his unique way of saying things as a poet with my dear son, to no avail.)