4 ms·

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

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
        A massive increase in noise to a fragile information propagation system society has come to rely on (mostly for ill, it seems). What could go wrong? Add that to the context of so many existential issues we need clear communication on (freedoms, the global economy, reformation of society, climate change, Putin and Jinping's last gasps for "legacy"). All the while dodging machine generated hallucinations of off-by-that-much pronouncements on the world around us. We have a perfect storm brewing.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Of course ChatGPT doesn't know what "bad faith" is but regardless it's almost performing on their level. Its trained largely on the public internet. That it reproduces bad faith argument naturally and fluently should not be surprising.
  - xenophonf 4y ago
    Are those real publications, or were those references procedurally generated, too?
    - kevviiinn 4y ago
      All generated, but sometimes by chance it gets things right
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    The exact phrase "False spring climatology in the contiguous United States" doesn't show up in Google or Google Scholar, except for this thread.
    - bodhi_mind 4y ago
      Interesting: chatgpt says the doi is 10.1088/1748-9326/10/4/044022 which I can’t find either. Idk what the likelihood of it being removed or moved is but I want to know if it’s real now. I emailed the journal. I’ll let you know if they reply.
      - kevviiinn 4y ago
        I use ChatGPT in a research context but I verify everything and always ask it for citations. It regularly spits out DOIs that either either completely fake or point at a totally unrelated paper. It's just generating them based on learned patterns, nothing more
        slowmovintarget 4y ago
        And here is the evidence for "No, it isn't actually 'thinking' it is 'parroting.'"
- 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.

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
      A massive increase in noise to a fragile information propagation system society has come to rely on (mostly for ill, it seems). What could go wrong? Add that to the context of so many existential issues we need clear communication on (freedoms, the global economy, reformation of society, climate change, Putin and Jinping's last gasps for "legacy"). All the while dodging machine generated hallucinations of off-by-that-much pronouncements on the world around us. We have a perfect storm brewing.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Of course ChatGPT doesn't know what "bad faith" is but regardless it's almost performing on their level. Its trained largely on the public internet. That it reproduces bad faith argument naturally and fluently should not be surprising.
- xenophonf 4y ago
  Are those real publications, or were those references procedurally generated, too?
  - kevviiinn 4y ago
    All generated, but sometimes by chance it gets things right
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  The exact phrase "False spring climatology in the contiguous United States" doesn't show up in Google or Google Scholar, except for this thread.
  - bodhi_mind 4y ago
    Interesting: chatgpt says the doi is 10.1088/1748-9326/10/4/044022 which I can’t find either. Idk what the likelihood of it being removed or moved is but I want to know if it’s real now. I emailed the journal. I’ll let you know if they reply.
    - kevviiinn 4y ago
      I use ChatGPT in a research context but I verify everything and always ask it for citations. It regularly spits out DOIs that either either completely fake or point at a totally unrelated paper. It's just generating them based on learned patterns, nothing more
      - slowmovintarget 4y ago
        And here is the evidence for "No, it isn't actually 'thinking' it is 'parroting.'"
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.