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.