3 ms·

I asked chatgpt how common false springs are in the U.S. > False springs are not uncommon in the United States, and their frequency and severity can vary depen

I asked chatgpt how common false springs are in the U.S. > False springs are not uncommon in the United States, and their frequency and severity can vary depending on the region and weather patterns. In general, false springs are more common in areas with a continental climate, where there can be large temperature fluctuations in the spring. According to a study by the USA National Phenology Network, false springs occur on average once every three years in the United States, with the highest frequency in the Midwest and the lowest in the southern and western regions. However, the frequency of false springs can vary greatly from year to year, and some regions may experience multiple false springs in a single season. False springs can have significant impacts on agriculture, particularly on fruit crops such as peaches, cherries, and apples, which are vulnerable to frost damage during early growth stages. In recent years, false springs have become more frequent and severe due to climate change, leading to increased risks for farmers and gardeners who rely on healthy plants for their livelihoods.

codeddesign 4y ago
It’s sad to see you downvoted and yet your comment is completely on target. Not every situation is about “climate change”, but unfortunately this is too common when you go against the mob narrative.
- LoganDark 4y ago
  It's probably because of the use of ChatGPT without actually fact-checking anything it wrote.
  - bodhi_mind 4y ago
    For the sake of the conversation: Me: provide references. > Schwartz, M. D., Ault, T. R., & Betancourt, J. L. (2013). Spring onset variations and trends in the continental USA: past and regional assessment using temperature-based indices. International Journal of Climatology, 33(12), 2917-2922. Ault, T. R., Henebry, G. M., & De Beurs, K. M. (2015). False spring climatology in the contiguous United States. Environmental Research Letters, 10(4), 044022. National Phenology Network. (2019). First Leaf and First Bloom Maps. Retrieved from https://www.usanpn.org/data/spring https://www.usanpn.org/data/spring Harrington, C. A., Gould, P. J., St. Clair, J. B., & Carlson, M. R. (2010). Modeling the effects of winter environment on dormancy release of Douglas-fir. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(3), 798-808.
    - ysavir 4y ago
      Those are sources, but there's still no evidence that the sources are real (the first one seems to be, from a quick google, but still), that the source actually supports what ChatGPT is saying, or that ChatGPT understood the source correctly. Using ChaptGPT for research is interesting, and I think it's a cool way to learn new things. But I think if someone is going to share that information with someone else, it's appropriate to manually find and cite creditable sources, at least sufficiently enough that the ChatGPT aspect becomes irrelevant in a way other than discoverability.
      - nerpderp82 4y ago
        I use ChatGPT to quickly learn a new subject, and it hallucinates about half the sources it cites. It will often make up a paper title that is a mashup of two or more papers. It usually gets the researchers in a field correct, so it does provide enough for one to start doing their own research and it does usually point one to the good survey papers on a topic. At least the https://www.usanpn.org/usa-national-phenology-network https://www.usanpn.org/usa-national-phenology-network exists!
      - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
        >but there's still no evidence that the sources are real Sounds like it's successfully approximating a human (I wish I was joking). The current "state of the art" for human commenters who are acting in bad faith is to google their position and cite articles and papers that don't even support their claims knowing full well that people will have to waste time reading your BS sources to disprove you and that even if they do you've still one because you've got them to stop arguing against your position and instead argue against your sources. These miscreants are often successful in using their false appeals to authority to convert people to their side. Of course ChatGPT doesn't know what "bad faith" is but regardless it's almost performing on their level. We are marching toward a world where dishonest spinsters and BSers pretending to be experts are going to be replaced with bots.
        slowmovintarget 4y ago
  - codeddesign 4y ago
    No, it’s because those that downvotes are trying to find causation associated with climate change. His comment was indirectly against this narrative, and thus downvoted. HN has always been mob ruled, with the understanding that the farther left your views, the greater “karma” you receive (almost to extremism). 8 years being on here, and this has always been this way. The person’s comments was suggesting a fluke event. No comments were given to have dialogue with the comment, which only downvoted. If people wish to create a toxic environment for opposing view points, that is their choice. However, it is toxic none the less. Not everything is associated with climate change or politics.
Imtiredofpassw 4y ago
Now ask it to provide sources and see how it invents quotations from fake journals out of thin air
- bodhi_mind 4y ago
  Ah, interesting. I asked and posted them in another child comment. I’ve been using chatgpt to do “research” on growing grapes for wine. I’ve many times run into an instance where the response looked wrong and I prompted it for clarification on how it came to a conclusion. The result was it sometimes apologizes and changes the response. There’s definitely a benefit in providing clarity in prompts rather than broad, open ended questions.
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  It makes up citations at a comical rate of over 90% although I've found that the made up titles make for decent search terms in google scholar
rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago
Will you even try to verify if this is bullshit or not?

codeddesign 4y ago

It’s sad to see you downvoted and yet your comment is completely on target. Not every situation is about “climate change”, but unfortunately this is too common when you go against the mob narrative.

LoganDark 4y ago
It's probably because of the use of ChatGPT without actually fact-checking anything it wrote.
- bodhi_mind 4y ago
  For the sake of the conversation: Me: provide references. > Schwartz, M. D., Ault, T. R., & Betancourt, J. L. (2013). Spring onset variations and trends in the continental USA: past and regional assessment using temperature-based indices. International Journal of Climatology, 33(12), 2917-2922. Ault, T. R., Henebry, G. M., & De Beurs, K. M. (2015). False spring climatology in the contiguous United States. Environmental Research Letters, 10(4), 044022. National Phenology Network. (2019). First Leaf and First Bloom Maps. Retrieved from https://www.usanpn.org/data/spring https://www.usanpn.org/data/spring Harrington, C. A., Gould, P. J., St. Clair, J. B., & Carlson, M. R. (2010). Modeling the effects of winter environment on dormancy release of Douglas-fir. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(3), 798-808.
  - ysavir 4y ago
    Those are sources, but there's still no evidence that the sources are real (the first one seems to be, from a quick google, but still), that the source actually supports what ChatGPT is saying, or that ChatGPT understood the source correctly. Using ChaptGPT for research is interesting, and I think it's a cool way to learn new things. But I think if someone is going to share that information with someone else, it's appropriate to manually find and cite creditable sources, at least sufficiently enough that the ChatGPT aspect becomes irrelevant in a way other than discoverability.
    - nerpderp82 4y ago
      I use ChatGPT to quickly learn a new subject, and it hallucinates about half the sources it cites. It will often make up a paper title that is a mashup of two or more papers. It usually gets the researchers in a field correct, so it does provide enough for one to start doing their own research and it does usually point one to the good survey papers on a topic. At least the https://www.usanpn.org/usa-national-phenology-network https://www.usanpn.org/usa-national-phenology-network exists!
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      >but there's still no evidence that the sources are real Sounds like it's successfully approximating a human (I wish I was joking). The current "state of the art" for human commenters who are acting in bad faith is to google their position and cite articles and papers that don't even support their claims knowing full well that people will have to waste time reading your BS sources to disprove you and that even if they do you've still one because you've got them to stop arguing against your position and instead argue against your sources. These miscreants are often successful in using their false appeals to authority to convert people to their side. Of course ChatGPT doesn't know what "bad faith" is but regardless it's almost performing on their level. We are marching toward a world where dishonest spinsters and BSers pretending to be experts are going to be replaced with bots.
      - slowmovintarget 4y ago
- codeddesign 4y ago
  No, it’s because those that downvotes are trying to find causation associated with climate change. His comment was indirectly against this narrative, and thus downvoted. HN has always been mob ruled, with the understanding that the farther left your views, the greater “karma” you receive (almost to extremism). 8 years being on here, and this has always been this way. The person’s comments was suggesting a fluke event. No comments were given to have dialogue with the comment, which only downvoted. If people wish to create a toxic environment for opposing view points, that is their choice. However, it is toxic none the less. Not everything is associated with climate change or politics.

Imtiredofpassw 4y ago

Now ask it to provide sources and see how it invents quotations from fake journals out of thin air

bodhi_mind 4y ago
Ah, interesting. I asked and posted them in another child comment. I’ve been using chatgpt to do “research” on growing grapes for wine. I’ve many times run into an instance where the response looked wrong and I prompted it for clarification on how it came to a conclusion. The result was it sometimes apologizes and changes the response. There’s definitely a benefit in providing clarity in prompts rather than broad, open ended questions.
kevviiinn 4y ago
It makes up citations at a comical rate of over 90% although I've found that the made up titles make for decent search terms in google scholar

rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago

Will you even try to verify if this is bullshit or not?