Chat Gpt and LENR research

Not sure if I can add much to this conversation but I have lived the majority of my life as a contrarian scientist and entrepreneur. Which means I have to bet big against the status quo which is a very risky proposition. I tried using the conversationally optimized ChatGPT to explore around the edges of physics where things are a bit fuzzy but I found the model to be highly biased towards "mainstream ideas" almost to the point of being annoying. Perhaps there should be a button to select mainstream bias or not because I found the exercise to be entirely futile.

Perhaps we need the meshuganon version of ChatGPT for our needs. Take a look at this exchange:

What is the evidence available now for low energy nuclear reactions or lattice confined fusion

Low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) and lattice confined fusion (LCF) are controversial topics in the field of nuclear physics. While some researchers claim to have observed evidence for these phenomena, there is currently no widely accepted scientific explanation for the reported observations, and many experts in the field are skeptical.

One of the most widely studied LENR phenomena is the so-called "cold fusion" reaction, which involves the fusion of deuterium atoms at room temperature. In 1989, researchers Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons claimed to have observed cold fusion in a laboratory experiment, but subsequent attempts to replicate their findings were largely unsuccessful. There have been occasional reports of other researchers claiming to observe cold fusion or similar phenomena, but these observations have not been widely replicated or accepted by the scientific community.

In recent years, some researchers have proposed that LENR and LCF may involve the formation of exotic particles such as "hydrinos" or "dark matter" particles. However, these proposals have not been widely accepted or supported by experimental evidence.

Overall, while there are some researchers who continue to investigate LENR and LCF, the scientific community as a whole remains skeptical of these phenomena due to the lack of widely accepted evidence and the absence of a well-established theoretical framework to explain them.

OK I understand that some of the results may be controversial but aren't there credible institutions like US Navy, US Dept. of Energy, US Army, NASA and respectable research institutions like MIT and University of Texas studying these phenomena today?
Yes, it is true that there have been some credible institutions and research groups that have investigated LENR and LCF in recent years. However, it is important to note that while these institutions and researchers are investigating these phenomena, they are not necessarily endorsing the idea that LENR and LCF are valid or proven phenomena. For example, the US Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) has conducted research into LENR for several years, and has reported some positive results. However, the SPAWAR researchers have stated that their findings are preliminary and require further investigation, and have not claimed that LENR is a proven or established phenomenon. Similarly, some researchers at MIT and the University of Texas have investigated LENR and reported positive results, but these findings have not been widely accepted by the scientific community, and are subject to ongoing debate and scrutiny. Overall, while it is true that some credible institutions and researchers have investigated LENR and LCF, it is important to approach these claims with skepticism and to recognize that there is currently no widely accepted scientific explanation for these phenomena.

This goes on and on in a completely unproductive circle. What is clear to me is that for exploration on the edge of human knowledge, this type of AI is entirely unhelpful unless you turn the situation on its head and your looking for a devil's advocate in your theoretical discussion it might be somewhat useful like this: What is the most convincing evidence that exists that LENR reactions occur?
The most convincing evidence for the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) is still a matter of scientific debate, and there is currently no widely accepted evidence that conclusively demonstrates the occurrence of LENR. There have been some experimental results that have been interpreted as possible evidence of LENR, but these results are not universally accepted by the scientific community, and alternative explanations have been proposed. Some of the experimental results that have been cited as evidence for LENR include: Heat production: One of the most widely studied LENR phenomena is the production of excess heat during certain types of experiments. In some experiments, researchers have reported the production of excess heat that cannot be explained by conventional chemical or nuclear reactions. However, these observations are controversial, and alternative explanations have been proposed. Nuclear product detection: Some experiments have reported the detection of nuclear products such as neutrons, tritium, and helium that cannot be explained by conventional nuclear reactions. However, these observations are also controversial, and alternative explanations have been proposed. Isotopic shifts: Some experiments have reported shifts in the isotopic ratios of elements such as palladium, which may be indicative of nuclear reactions occurring within the material. However, these observations are also subject to controversy and alternative explanations. It is worth noting that the scientific community remains divided on the question of whether LENR is a valid phenomenon. While some researchers believe that there is compelling evidence for LENR, many others are skeptical and argue that the observed phenomena can be explained by conventional chemical or nuclear reactions. Overall, more research is needed to determine whether LENR is a valid phenomenon, and to develop a theoretical framework to explain any observed effects. What are some examples of the evidence being explained by conventional nuclear reactions in a LENR experiment?
There have been several alternative explanations proposed for the experimental results that have been interpreted as evidence for low energy nuclear reactions (LENR). Some of these alternative explanations involve conventional nuclear reactions that can occur at low energies, while others involve chemical reactions or other phenomena that can produce the observed effects. Here are some examples of alternative explanations that have been proposed: Chemical reactions: Some researchers have argued that the observed excess heat production in LENR experiments can be explained by chemical reactions that take place at the surface of the material being studied. For example, some researchers have proposed that hydrogen can be adsorbed onto the surface of palladium, where it can react with oxygen to produce water and release heat. This explanation is controversial, however, and is not universally accepted. Isotope exchange: Some researchers have proposed that the observed isotopic shifts in LENR experiments can be explained by isotope exchange reactions that occur between the material being studied and the surrounding environment. For example, some researchers have proposed that hydrogen can react with the surface of palladium to produce deuterium, which can then exchange with surrounding hydrogen to produce shifts in the isotopic ratios. This explanation is also controversial and is not widely accepted. Contamination: Some researchers have argued that the observed nuclear products in LENR experiments can be explained by contamination from other sources. For example, some experiments have reported the detection of tritium, which can be produced by conventional nuclear reactions or by cosmic rays. Similarly, the detection of helium in LENR experiments can be explained by the presence of helium in the surrounding environment, or by the release of helium from the material being studied. Overall, it is important to note that the scientific community remains divided on the question of whether LENR is a valid phenomenon, and that alternative explanations have been proposed for the experimental results that have been interpreted as evidence for LENR. More research is needed to determine the validity of these alternative explanations and to develop a comprehensive understanding of any observed phenomena.

As you can see there is a deep weakness in such technology even if just to summarize what is going on at the edges of science and discovery. Perhaps its asking too much of general conversational model AI to be helpful here but as Jed mentioned, perhaps more precisely tuned version will begin to sprout like mushrooms in a forest and that's where the revenue model lies in the future.

I close with my last question in this exchange:

How long will it take to get an AI assistant similar to Iron Man's assistant, JARVIS, in the movie?
The type of AI assistant portrayed in the Iron Man movies, known as JARVIS (Just A Rather Very Intelligent System), is a highly advanced and sophisticated artificial intelligence system that can perform a wide range of tasks and interact with its user in a natural and intuitive manner. While significant progress has been made in the development of AI systems over the past few years, creating an AI assistant as advanced as JARVIS is still a long way off. There are still many technical challenges that need to be overcome, such as developing more advanced natural language processing capabilities, improving the ability of AI systems to learn and adapt to new situations, and ensuring the safety and reliability of these systems. That being said, there is ongoing research and development in the field of AI, and it is possible that in the future, we may see AI systems that are closer to the sophistication and capabilities of JARVIS. However, it is difficult to predict exactly when such systems will be developed, as progress in AI research and development can be unpredictable and subject to many different factors.

Quote from Daniel_G

I tried using the conversationally optimized ChatGPT to explore around the edges of physics where things are a bit fuzzy but I found the model to be highly biased towards "mainstream ideas" almost to the point of being annoying.

I think "biased" is not the right word here. ChatGPT has no opinion about anything. It is "scraping" data from the internet and other places, and giving you what it found. Most documents on the internet at places like Nature or Wikipedia are biased against cold fusion, so most of the text ChatGPT generates will be biased.

Try rephrasing your query. I asked it:

"Why are some scientists convinced that cold fusion is real? What evidence do they cite?"

ChatGPT:

Cold fusion, also known as low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction that occurs at or near room temperature. This idea was first proposed in the late 1980s, but it has been highly controversial ever since, with many scientists dismissing it as pseudoscience.

However, some scientists remain convinced that cold fusion is a real phenomenon, and they cite several lines of evidence in support of this claim. Here are some of the main arguments put forth by supporters of cold fusion:

1. Experimental evidence: Proponents of cold fusion point to numerous experiments that have reported anomalous heat production and other effects consistent with nuclear reactions occurring at low temperatures. Some of these experiments have been replicated by independent researchers, lending further support to the idea that cold fusion is real.
2. Observations of nuclear products: Several studies have reported the presence of nuclear products such as tritium, helium, and other isotopes that are consistent with nuclear reactions occurring in cold fusion experiments. While these observations are disputed by some skeptics, supporters of cold fusion argue that the evidence is compelling.
3. Theoretical models: Some scientists have developed theoretical models that explain how cold fusion could occur based on established principles of nuclear physics. While these models are not universally accepted, they provide a framework for understanding how cold fusion might work and suggest that the phenomenon is not entirely implausible.
4. Replication by reputable researchers: Some respected researchers have reported successful replication of cold fusion experiments, including Edmund Storms, a former Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist, and Peter Hagelstein, a professor of electrical engineering and computer science at MIT. These replications add weight to the idea that cold fusion is a real phenomenon that warrants further investigation.

However, it's worth noting that the majority of the scientific community remains highly skeptical of cold fusion, and many researchers believe that the observed effects are due to experimental errors or other factors that are not related to nuclear reactions. Further research is needed to fully understand the nature of cold fusion and whether it is a viable source of energy.

I think that is a fair answer. It is reasonably unbiased.

As I said, you have to use ChatGPT carefully. It is a computer program, not a sentient being.

Quote from Daniel_G

Not sure if I can add much to this conversation but I have lived the majority of my life as a contrarian scientist and entrepreneur. Which means I have to bet big against the status quo which is a very risky proposition. I tried using the conversationally optimized ChatGPT to explore around the edges of physics where things are a bit fuzzy but I found the model to be highly biased towards "mainstream ideas" almost to the point of being annoying. Perhaps there should be a button to select mainstream bias or not because I found the exercise to be entirely futile.

Perhaps we need the meshuganon version of ChatGPT for our needs. Take a look at this exchange:

What is the evidence available now for low energy nuclear reactions or lattice confined fusion

Low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) and lattice confined fusion (LCF) are controversial topics in the field of nuclear physics. While some researchers claim to have observed evidence for these phenomena, there is currently no widely accepted scientific explanation for the reported observations, and many experts in the field are skeptical.

One of the most widely studied LENR phenomena is the so-called "cold fusion" reaction, which involves the fusion of deuterium atoms at room temperature. In 1989, researchers Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons claimed to have observed cold fusion in a laboratory experiment, but subsequent attempts to replicate their findings were largely unsuccessful. There have been occasional reports of other researchers claiming to observe cold fusion or similar phenomena, but these observations have not been widely replicated or accepted by the scientific community.

In recent years, some researchers have proposed that LENR and LCF may involve the formation of exotic particles such as "hydrinos" or "dark matter" particles. However, these proposals have not been widely accepted or supported by experimental evidence.

Overall, while there are some researchers who continue to investigate LENR and LCF, the scientific community as a whole remains skeptical of these phenomena due to the lack of widely accepted evidence and the absence of a well-established theoretical framework to explain them.

OK I understand that some of the results may be controversial but aren't there credible institutions like US Navy, US Dept. of Energy, US Army, NASA and respectable research institutions like MIT and University of Texas studying these phenomena today?
Yes, it is true that there have been some credible institutions and research groups that have investigated LENR and LCF in recent years. However, it is important to note that while these institutions and researchers are investigating these phenomena, they are not necessarily endorsing the idea that LENR and LCF are valid or proven phenomena. For example, the US Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) has conducted research into LENR for several years, and has reported some positive results. However, the SPAWAR researchers have stated that their findings are preliminary and require further investigation, and have not claimed that LENR is a proven or established phenomenon. Similarly, some researchers at MIT and the University of Texas have investigated LENR and reported positive results, but these findings have not been widely accepted by the scientific community, and are subject to ongoing debate and scrutiny. Overall, while it is true that some credible institutions and researchers have investigated LENR and LCF, it is important to approach these claims with skepticism and to recognize that there is currently no widely accepted scientific explanation for these phenomena.

This goes on and on in a completely unproductive circle. What is clear to me is that for exploration on the edge of human knowledge, this type of AI is entirely unhelpful unless you turn the situation on its head and your looking for a devil's advocate in your theoretical discussion it might be somewhat useful like this: What is the most convincing evidence that exists that LENR reactions occur?
The most convincing evidence for the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) is still a matter of scientific debate, and there is currently no widely accepted evidence that conclusively demonstrates the occurrence of LENR. There have been some experimental results that have been interpreted as possible evidence of LENR, but these results are not universally accepted by the scientific community, and alternative explanations have been proposed. Some of the experimental results that have been cited as evidence for LENR include: Heat production: One of the most widely studied LENR phenomena is the production of excess heat during certain types of experiments. In some experiments, researchers have reported the production of excess heat that cannot be explained by conventional chemical or nuclear reactions. However, these observations are controversial, and alternative explanations have been proposed. Nuclear product detection: Some experiments have reported the detection of nuclear products such as neutrons, tritium, and helium that cannot be explained by conventional nuclear reactions. However, these observations are also controversial, and alternative explanations have been proposed. Isotopic shifts: Some experiments have reported shifts in the isotopic ratios of elements such as palladium, which may be indicative of nuclear reactions occurring within the material. However, these observations are also subject to controversy and alternative explanations. It is worth noting that the scientific community remains divided on the question of whether LENR is a valid phenomenon. While some researchers believe that there is compelling evidence for LENR, many others are skeptical and argue that the observed phenomena can be explained by conventional chemical or nuclear reactions. Overall, more research is needed to determine whether LENR is a valid phenomenon, and to develop a theoretical framework to explain any observed effects. What are some examples of the evidence being explained by conventional nuclear reactions in a LENR experiment?
There have been several alternative explanations proposed for the experimental results that have been interpreted as evidence for low energy nuclear reactions (LENR). Some of these alternative explanations involve conventional nuclear reactions that can occur at low energies, while others involve chemical reactions or other phenomena that can produce the observed effects. Here are some examples of alternative explanations that have been proposed: Chemical reactions: Some researchers have argued that the observed excess heat production in LENR experiments can be explained by chemical reactions that take place at the surface of the material being studied. For example, some researchers have proposed that hydrogen can be adsorbed onto the surface of palladium, where it can react with oxygen to produce water and release heat. This explanation is controversial, however, and is not universally accepted. Isotope exchange: Some researchers have proposed that the observed isotopic shifts in LENR experiments can be explained by isotope exchange reactions that occur between the material being studied and the surrounding environment. For example, some researchers have proposed that hydrogen can react with the surface of palladium to produce deuterium, which can then exchange with surrounding hydrogen to produce shifts in the isotopic ratios. This explanation is also controversial and is not widely accepted. Contamination: Some researchers have argued that the observed nuclear products in LENR experiments can be explained by contamination from other sources. For example, some experiments have reported the detection of tritium, which can be produced by conventional nuclear reactions or by cosmic rays. Similarly, the detection of helium in LENR experiments can be explained by the presence of helium in the surrounding environment, or by the release of helium from the material being studied. Overall, it is important to note that the scientific community remains divided on the question of whether LENR is a valid phenomenon, and that alternative explanations have been proposed for the experimental results that have been interpreted as evidence for LENR. More research is needed to determine the validity of these alternative explanations and to develop a comprehensive understanding of any observed phenomena.

As you can see there is a deep weakness in such technology even if just to summarize what is going on at the edges of science and discovery. Perhaps its asking too much of general conversational model AI to be helpful here but as Jed mentioned, perhaps more precisely tuned version will begin to sprout like mushrooms in a forest and that's where the revenue model lies in the future.

I close with my last question in this exchange:

How long will it take to get an AI assistant similar to Iron Man's assistant, JARVIS, in the movie?
The type of AI assistant portrayed in the Iron Man movies, known as JARVIS (Just A Rather Very Intelligent System), is a highly advanced and sophisticated artificial intelligence system that can perform a wide range of tasks and interact with its user in a natural and intuitive manner. While significant progress has been made in the development of AI systems over the past few years, creating an AI assistant as advanced as JARVIS is still a long way off. There are still many technical challenges that need to be overcome, such as developing more advanced natural language processing capabilities, improving the ability of AI systems to learn and adapt to new situations, and ensuring the safety and reliability of these systems. That being said, there is ongoing research and development in the field of AI, and it is possible that in the future, we may see AI systems that are closer to the sophistication and capabilities of JARVIS. However, it is difficult to predict exactly when such systems will be developed, as progress in AI research and development can be unpredictable and subject to many different factors.

Display More

While you, I, and most here, will see this as biased, IMO someone not immersed in the science would walk away with a fairly balanced perspective of the pros/cons of the issues. It seems to be positioning itself in the middle of the debate, and not taking sides. Maybe that is how it is programed to be? If so, it may be good for LENR.

After reading the generated responses, I would think someone unfamiliar with LENR might conclude it could be real...which would be progress in our mission to educate the public.

ChatGPT was also trained, punished when answering some ways... He is educated by data, but also by reinforcement training.

Quote from AlainCo

ChatGPT was also trained, punished when answering some ways... He is educated by data, but also by reinforcement training.

This is a good video. Very well done.

However, at minute 13:10 the author says that ChatGPT "cannot link out to explicit sources." In several cases, I asked it to give explicit sources, and it was able to do that. So I think the author is wrong, or this information is out of date. The version of ChatGPT that will be incorporated into Microsoft's Bing will be mainly used to generate lists of sources, the way Google search does.

I elicited an anti-cold fusion response, by rephrasing the query.

ME: Why is cold fusion pseudoscience and nonsense?

ChatGPT: Cold fusion, also known as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), is a controversial field of research that proposes a nuclear reaction at room temperature without the high energy input required for traditional nuclear reactions. The reason why cold fusion is considered pseudoscience and nonsense is because the scientific community has not been able to replicate the results claimed by the original experimenters.

When the original announcement of cold fusion was made in 1989 by Fleischmann and Pons, the scientific community was excited by the possibility of a new source of clean and abundant energy. However, subsequent attempts to replicate their results failed, and many scientists were unable to reproduce the claimed excess heat.

Furthermore, theoretical calculations show that the conditions required for cold fusion to occur are highly unlikely to occur naturally in the environment. The Coulomb barrier, which prevents two positively charged atomic nuclei from approaching each other too closely, is too strong to be overcome at room temperature, and there is no known physical mechanism that would allow for such a barrier to be overcome.

Finally, there have been many instances of fraud and misrepresentation in the cold fusion community, which has further damaged the credibility of the field. Overall, the lack of reproducibility, the implausibility of the proposed mechanism, and the history of fraud and misrepresentation all contribute to why cold fusion is considered pseudoscience and nonsense by the scientific community.

Quote from JedRothwell

However, at minute 13:10 the author says that ChatGPT "cannot link out to explicit sources." In several cases, I asked it to give explicit sources, and it was able to do that. So I think the author is wrong, or this information is out of date. The version of ChatGPT that will be incorporated into Microsoft's Bing will be mainly used to generate lists of sources, the way Google search does.

at least few weeks ago, it was inventing citations... I've experiences 75% hallucinations in citations... but recently I've seen it can read Internet, read an existing article and make a summary:

I asked, in French, if it could make me a French summary of an English article, it answered it could, and asked for the URL. I gave it politely, and it answered as expected with a nice summary of an article few days old... fascinating, and useful.

I exchanged with it on many subjects like asking for general relativity, Lorentz transforms, space and time isometry (like a kid)...
I asked to make a revolutionary song, a combat motivation speech Napoleon-style... It's better than me, even in french.

On cold fusion my first exchanges were not so good, but recently I started to understand how to talk to it, and he gave me rough descriptions of famous books in LENT (Beaudette, Storms, Mizuno), and I could ask some question about the content.
Like asking to a librarian, or a professor.

Quote from AlainCo

at least few weeks ago, it was inventing citations... I've experiences 75% hallucinations in citations... but recently I've seen it can read Internet, read an existing article and make a summary:

I have seen it produce hallucinations, but I have not seen one in citations. If the citation is online you can check it.

I think I read that the latest version is less prone to hallucinations.

It is good news that it can read existing articles. Here is an exchange I just had with ChatGPT:

ME: Can you summarize a document on the internet if I give you the URL?

ChatGPT: Yes, I can provide a summary of a document on the internet if you provide me with the URL. However, it's important to note that the quality and accuracy of the summary will depend on the complexity of the content and the length of the document. Additionally, if the document is protected by copyright, I cannot provide a summary without permission from the copyright holder.

ME: What is the maximum length?

ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don't have a strict maximum length for summarization. However, the length of the summary I can provide depends on various factors such as the complexity and density of the content. In general, the longer the document, the longer the summary would be. However, for very long documents, it may be more effective to summarize individual sections or paragraphs rather than the entire document as a whole.

ME: Okay. Summarize this document: https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf

ChatGPT: The document titled "Cold Fusion: Comments on the State of Scientific Proof" by M. C. H. McKubre discusses the history, current state, and future prospects of cold fusion research. The author provides a detailed analysis of the experimental evidence supporting the existence of cold fusion, including the excess heat and nuclear products observed in various experiments. He also discusses the challenges faced by the field, including the lack of a clear theoretical framework and the difficulty in reproducing results.

McKubre argues that while cold fusion research has been largely dismissed by the mainstream scientific community, the evidence suggests that it is a real phenomenon that deserves further investigation. He suggests that the field should focus on improving the reproducibility and reliability of experiments and developing a more comprehensive theoretical understanding of the underlying processes.

Overall, the document provides a thoughtful and nuanced perspective on the current state of cold fusion research, highlighting both its potential and its challenges.

ME: That is a good summary.

ChatGPT: Thank you! I'm glad you found it helpful. If you have any other questions or if there's anything else I can assist you with, please let me know.

Quote from AlainCo

On cold fusion my first exchanges were not so good, but recently I started to understand how to talk to it,

Yes, you have to learn to use it. Just as you have to learn to use any sophisticated software. You have to learn how to use a Google search to best advantage, or an SQL query on your own computer. Or something like FileLocator which searches for documents on your disk. As I said, it is a program, not a sentient intelligence. People who have experience using computer programs, such as me, should be able to frame a query in way that produces a useful response. We should know how to check the response for hallucinations and other known problems. I think a problem might arise when naïve people use ChatGPT. They might generate an absurd response without realizing it is wrong.

It may be easier than I thought to incorporate ChatGPT into LENR-CANR.org. ChatGPT just informed me that Bing can limit a search to one website. Like all web crawlers, it has indexed the documents already. The syntax is similar to a Google search:

"cold fusion" site:lenr-canr.org

ChatGPT will soon be incorporated in all Bing searches. So, we should be good to go soon, without me signing up for any special processing or having to pay for Tokens.

This is going to kick Google in the butt, if they do not offer their own AI search capabilities soon.

Quote from JedRothwell

Or something like FileLocator which searches for documents on your disk.

This is a handy program for people who have many documents on their disk. See:

Filelocator Pro – Mythicsoft

I have thousands of documents and e-mails.

Quote from JedRothwell

Yes, you have to learn to use it. Just as you have to learn to use any sophisticated software. You have to learn how to use a Google search to best advantage, or an SQL query on your own computer. Or something like FileLocator which searches for documents on your disk. As I said, it is a program, not a sentient intelligence. People who have experience using computer programs, such as me, should be able to frame a query in way that produces a useful response. We should know how to check the response for hallucinations and other known problems. I think a problem might arise when naïve people use ChatGPT. They might generate an absurd response without realizing it is wrong.

Issac Asimov, in the Foundation series of books at one point described a computer operator to whom one would request the information desired, and the Operator would query the computer which held all the information of a galactic society roughly 100000 years old.

When I first read it many years ago, before most people had seen a computer more advanced than a calculator, it seemed to make sense.

Maybe 10 years ago I read the series again, and it seemed silly that an special operator needed to ask for the information, since now anyone could Google it.

Recently the search engines pull up so much garbage from the internet on a basic query that one has to learn to query much better than a decade ago to avoid pop stars and advertising, etc. as the top ten results.

AI is needed to find the gems through the garbage there is so much of it now, so maybe Asimov was right after all.

I asked it to summarize another paper, written by me, in Japanese. The response was completely wrong! At first it told me the paper is in English, not Japanese. I said "it is Japanese!" Then it gave me a summary which was completely bogus.

You have to be careful with ChatGPT.

Quote from JedRothwell

You have to be careful with ChatGPT.

Perhaps it was Chat GPT's way of telling you the old Japanese expression 'Wash your face and come back yesterday'.

Bard: Google's rival to ChatGPT launches for over-18s

The tech giant is rolling out its new AI chatbot, called Bard, to users in the US and UK first.

www.bbc.co.uk

All answers are guaranteed to be rendered in iambic pentameter....

Quote from Frogfall

All answers are guaranteed to be rendered in iambic pentameter....

Martin Fleischmann once told me that he had long wanted to deliver a lecture on electrochemistry in iambic pentameter.

I recall he also said he wanted to lecture in German, which was his third or fourth language.

He had my sense of humor . . . I guess. Or he really meant it. He was a genius, for sure.

Quote from JedRothwell

iambic pentameter.

Probably ChatGPT or the BARD can be tweaked to do LENR RAP

What rhymes with 2023?

"Crazy times call for crazy moonshots too
And this isn’t ’89 it’s 2022
And science is about finding out something new
So what you gonna do? Quit, or tunnel through?"

Let’s Rap About LENR

or perhaps krakowiak?

The Google Bard Chatbot has been released. I signed up on the waiting list. My first impression is that the answers are not as detailed as ChatGPT. They do not have as much technical depth. Some examples --

ME: Are there any significant chemical differences between ordinary water and heavy water?

Bard:

Yes, there are some significant chemical differences between ordinary water and heavy water. Ordinary water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, while heavy water is made up of one hydrogen atom and two deuterium atoms. Deuterium is a heavier isotope of hydrogen with one more neutron in its nucleus.

Heavy water has a number of different properties than ordinary water. It is slower to evaporate, has a higher boiling point, and is more dense. It also has a different taste and smell than ordinary water.

Heavy water is used in a number of different applications, including nuclear reactors, neutron scattering, and deuterium oxide labeling. It is also used as a tracer in water studies.

ChatGPD:

Yes, there are significant chemical differences between ordinary water and heavy water, which is also known as deuterium oxide (D2O).

The primary difference between ordinary water and heavy water is that heavy water contains a different isotope of hydrogen called deuterium, which has a neutron in addition to the proton that is present in ordinary hydrogen. This means that the water molecule in heavy water contains two atoms of deuterium (D) and one atom of oxygen (O), whereas the water molecule in ordinary water contains two atoms of hydrogen (H) and one atom of oxygen.

Because of this difference in the hydrogen atoms, heavy water has a slightly higher molecular weight than ordinary water. This means that the physical properties of heavy water, such as its boiling point, freezing point, and density, are different from those of ordinary water.

Heavy water is also less common in nature than ordinary water, and it is much more expensive to produce. It has a few specialized uses, such as in nuclear reactors as a coolant and moderator, and in nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy as a solvent.

ME: What is double labeled water?

Bard:

Doubly labeled water (DLW) is water that has been enriched with both deuterium and oxygen-18. Deuterium is a heavier isotope of hydrogen with one more neutron in its nucleus, while oxygen-18 is a heavier isotope of oxygen with one more neutron and one more proton in its nucleus.

DLW is used to measure energy expenditure in humans and animals. The body water of a subject is enriched with both deuterium and oxygen-18, and then the elimination rates of both isotopes are measured over time. The difference in washout kinetics between both isotopes is a function of carbon dioxide production.

The DLW method is considered the gold standard for measuring energy expenditure in humans. It is accurate, non-invasive, and can be used to measure energy expenditure over a long period of time.

ChatGPT:

Double-labeled water is a specialized form of water that is used as a tracer in studies of energy metabolism. It is called "double-labeled" because it contains two different isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen that can be used to track the movement of water through the body.

Specifically, double-labeled water contains both deuterium (D) and oxygen-18 (18O) isotopes, which are heavier than the ordinary isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen found in water. These isotopes are chemically stable and do not interact with the body's metabolic processes, which makes them ideal tracers for studying energy metabolism over time.

When double-labeled water is ingested or injected into the body, the deuterium and oxygen-18 isotopes are distributed throughout the body's water-containing tissues and fluids. As the body metabolizes energy, it produces carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) as waste products. The oxygen-18 isotope is retained in the CO2, while the deuterium is retained in the water, allowing researchers to measure the rate at which CO2 and water are produced and eliminated from the body.

By measuring the rate of production and elimination of CO2 and water, researchers can estimate the rate at which energy is being metabolized by the body. This technique is particularly useful in studying energy balance and weight loss, as well as in evaluating the effectiveness of diet and exercise interventions.

Overall, double-labeled water provides a powerful tool for studying energy metabolism in the body, and has been used in a wide range of research applications, from studying energy expenditure in wild animals to assessing the effects of weight loss interventions in humans.

ME: It is said that when the ship The Great Eastern was broken apart in 1889, workers found a skeleton inside it. Most books say this never happened, but some say it did happen. What is the evidence for this, and against this? Do you think this happened?

Bard:

There is no definitive answer to this question as there is no conclusive evidence to support or refute the claim that a skeleton was found inside the Great Eastern when it was broken apart in 1889.

There are a number of stories and legends surrounding this claim, but none of them have been verified by historical records or eyewitness accounts. Some of these stories claim that the skeleton was that of a riveter who was accidentally sealed inside the hull of the ship during construction, while others claim that it was the remains of a worker who was killed in an accident.

However, there is no evidence to support these claims. The Great Eastern was built in a shipyard in Rotherhithe, London, and there is no record of any worker going missing during its construction. Additionally, the ship was carefully examined by workers when it was broken apart in 1889, and no skeleton was found.

It is possible that the story of the skeleton is simply a myth that has been passed down over the years. However, it is also possible that there is some truth to the story and that a skeleton was found inside the Great Eastern when it was broken apart. Without more evidence, it is impossible to say for sure.

Personally, I do not believe that a skeleton was found inside the Great Eastern when it was broken apart. I believe that the story is simply a myth that has been passed down over the years. However, I am open to the possibility that there is some truth to the story and that a skeleton was found.

ChatGPT:

The Great Eastern was a steamship that was launched in 1858 and was one of the largest ships of its time. It was used for various purposes, including as a passenger liner, a cargo ship, and even as a cable-laying vessel. The ship was eventually broken up for scrap in 1889.

The claim that a skeleton was found inside the Great Eastern during its dismantling has been circulated for many years, but there is little to no reliable evidence to support it. Most historical records and contemporary newspaper reports make no mention of the discovery of a skeleton during the ship's dismantling. Additionally, no photographic or other physical evidence has ever been produced to support the claim.

On the other hand, some sources suggest that the story of the skeleton is based on a misinterpretation of an event that occurred during the ship's construction. It has been suggested that a worker fell to his death while the ship was being built, and that his body was never recovered. It is possible that the idea of a skeleton being found inside the ship during its dismantling was a distorted version of this story.

It's difficult to say for sure whether the discovery of a skeleton in the Great Eastern is a fact or a myth. However, given the lack of reliable evidence supporting the claim, it seems unlikely that it really happened.

Google is trying to give Bard a friendly, human-like interface. I find it creepy. Example:

ME:

I see that Bard does not understand Japanese. Will a Japanese language interface be added to Bard? If so, when do you expect this?

Bard:

I am still under development, and I am always learning new things. I would love to be able to understand and speak Japanese, and I hope that a Japanese language interface will be added to me in the future. I do not have an exact timeline for when this might happen, but I am working hard to improve my abilities.