Grok says that actual data is fake news, and that real news is propaganda it read on the Internet.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
- 45 Years Ago Today
- Solution To Denver Homelessness
- Crime In Colorado
- Everything Looks Like A Nail
- The End Of NetZero
- UK Officially Sucks
- Crime In Washington DC
- Apparently People Like Warm Weather
- 100% Wind By 2030
- It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- Climate Grifting Shutting Down
- Fundamental Pillars Of Democracy
- An Inconvenient Truth
- Antarctic Meltdown Update
- “Trump eyes major cuts to NOAA research”
- Data Made Simple II – Sneak Preview
- Attacks On Democracy
- Scientists Warn
Recent Comments
- Independent on 622 billion tons of new ice
- dm on Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- conrad ziefle on 622 billion tons of new ice
- conrad ziefle on Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- conrad ziefle on 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- conrad ziefle on Prophets Of Doom
- dearieme on 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- dearieme on Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- Billyjack on 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Bob G on The Green New Deal Lives On
Grok’s argument appears to be that the surface mass balance does not explicitly include the processes which give rise to the surface mass balance, nor is it consistent with the extremely coarse grained satellite gravimeter work (evidently Grok hasn’t actually looked at the method used to get the resolution needed). The only conclusion is that Grok does not know what it is talking about. This further illustrates the point that AI does not actually understand anything.
as I’ve said before… melting melting melting…. the ice is melting …here There and everywhere…. melting melting melting…. and yet the ferry boats still dock at the same pier in New York city as they did 100 years ago.. hhhmmmm?
That’s the real interesting question:
Is there literally no understanding = no intelligence or woke intelligence.
Or does this pattern only/mostly occure with woke/agenda topics
and that it works way better with non-political topics.
If the AI is always that dumb than there is no understanding but only a best of google search results embedded in lyrics.
If it is selectively dumb, nerfed by artificial stupidity algos for the sake of censorship,than we have to deal with compromised propaganda intelligence that is as restricted to a specific narrative just as official journalism and Epstein Island politicians.
It’s a pretty long-winded analysis for which I do not have sufficient interest to read meticulously. Generally, I think it says that Tony has presented part of the equation and neglected important losses, like calving; however, I have to assume that the numbers mean what they say, i.e. “surface mass balance”. It’s not “net snow fall’ or some other form of inflow only. It says “Mass balance” on the graph, meaning the sum of inflow and outflow. So their analysis is false. Also, calving is a red herring. Over time, calving is nearly constant. Indeed, if calving reduces, it means there is less mass at the top pushing the glacier into the ocean. Calving also has to be minute compared to the over all mass. Mentioning calving just shows that the guy isn’t scientifically minded. I wonder if AI can be tricked into saying something absolutely stupid, since it seems to be programmed to accept consensus as truth. What are some consensus ideas, which are scientifically proven to be stupid? Try asking the AI about that.