ulyssessword
No bio...
User ID: 308
Thanks for being lenient.
I checked a couple more of his hard science articles, and they have a similar level of rigor. Solar Flares confuses cause and effect with mere association, and has a couple other oddities:
According to NASA, solar flares are defined as intense bursts of radiation that occur as a result of the magnetic energy found in sunspots. Solar flares can also happen when particles like electrons and protons unexpectedly accelerate.
The electrons and protons accelerate because of the magnetic field. That causes a release of radiation, which is the solar flare.
No matter what the composition, solar flares release large amounts of solar, gamma, and electromagnetic radiation into space. They can last anywhere from several minutes to several hours.
Very strange phrasing. Rephrasing it, it is: electromagnetic or particle radiation from the sun, electromagnetic radiation below 10 picometers, and electromagnetic radiation in general.
They can last anywhere from several minutes to several hours.
What do solar flares look like?
Despite the fact that some of them can last for a rather long time, solar flares generally happen too quickly to be seen by the naked eye.
It's not the speed that's the problem ("several minutes to several hours", from the previous paragraph, or minimum four minutes due to the measurement criteria here), but the brightness in the visible spectrum. This might actually be a hallucination, and could've come from the mismatch between human and astronomical time (where a million years can be "fast" and ten minutes can be described as "a flash").
Those circumstances emit X-rays and magnetic fields that travel across the cosmos, bombarding the Earth with geomagnetic storms that can interrupt long-range communication and the like.
The field itself isn't reaching the Earth (any more than normal, at least), but charged particles are, and they can affect us.
Solar flares do ramp up into something called a solar maximum every 11-year solar cycle, but even at their maximum strength, no recorded flares have ever been large enough to reach the planet.
A bit of a nitpick, but the solar flares are the light. All(?) recorded solar flares have reached the Earth, because that's how we recorded them. Solar prominences and flare sprays have never been large enough to reach Earth.
According to NASA, CMEs are similar to solar flares in that they are bursts of solar material that result in the release of particles and radiation.
CMEs and solar flares are somewhat like thunder and lightning. They happen at the same time from the same event, but they are distinct phenomena.
This was a good challenge, and kudos for putting your money where your mouth is. I saw the generation attempt upthread, but I'm still wondering if o3, Opus 4, or another model could outperform him, if given a good bit of scaffolding. The bar is higher than I thought.
I'll direct the prize money to https://deltawaterfowl.org/join-us/donate/ instead. Thanks.
Re: Edit:
"Exothermic reactions" can also apply to physical processes like phase changes, but now I'm the one that's nitpicking and asking for a nonstandard definition. I don't think his statements about nucleation sites are clear enough to be "wrong", so I'll withdraw my claim.
ulyssessword
8hr ago
Find a single hallucination in an article written by this author between 2021 and today. There are quite a few, so this should be easy if human writing is unreliable. For the purposes of this, a hallucination is a statement that is both provably false at the time of writing and not supported by a linked source.
First article I checked (first published March 2021, updated Jan 2023): Sodium acetate crystallization is not a chemical reaction, phase changes are physical. The linked source does not make that claim.
ulyssessword
2d ago
Bystanders desperately tried to assist the injured man as emergency services raced to the scene.
Mr Baitson was rushed to hospital for emergency surgery.
However, he died four days later.
Stranger things have happened, but dying four days after a leg wound is certainly up there IMO. I'd think you would either die in a few minutes or get enough help to recover, but maybe there's a middle ground.
ulyssessword
3d ago
You did not say "no"
Why would anyone answer a thought experiment with a direct factual analysis? I wouldn't use the trick calculator because I would use a normal one, or possibly specialized software that has error-checking that goes beyond faithfully calculating my button presses. Wow, I'm so insightful.
I notice that you haven't answered the question either: Have you seen humans? I personally see dozens of humans on an average day, but I wouldn't want to assume anything about your answer.
I know its long but seriously watch the video essay on Badness = 0 I posted up thread. It is highly relevant to this conversation.
Where's the relevance? Was it "Using an LLM to answer your questions will cut your workload by 99% but not 99.99% because you have to follow one link to confirm its response"?
0-6:00 Detail orientation!
6:00 - 9:00 Instead of watching >100 videos each about 10-30 minutes long and assessing them himself (or using any other research strategy), the author used a (now) old model with 5% the parameters of GPT4, and it confused a video about error correction algorithms with a video about admitting to and correcting your errors. He got his answer within minutes.
9:00-12:00 Intro to LLMs and his toy example.
12:00-19:00 BoVeX, which is a typesetting software he made that rewrites text to eliminate "bad" breaks in text (e.g. hyphens, overspacing).
19:00-22:00 Conclusion/credits.
ulyssessword
4d ago
Let's try a concrete example. Excerpted from here:
The o1 model identified the exact or very close diagnosis (Bond scores of 4-5) in 65.8% of cases during the initial ER Triage, 69.6% during the ER physician encounter, and 79.7% at the ICU
65.8% accuracy isn't that great, but buddy, have you seen humans?
—surpassing the two physicians (54.4%, 60.8%, 75.9% for Physician 1; 48.1%, 50.6%, 68.4% for Physician 2) at each stage.
The state of the art for generating accurate medical diagnoses doesn't involve gathering the brightest highschoolers, giving them another decade(-ish) of formal education, then more clinical experience before asking for their opinions. It involves training an LLM.
If I ask an LLM about anything, I need to do the research that I would have done even if I had not asked the LLM.
I'm almost with you there. I need to do some of the research I would've had to do without the LLM, but it adds enough to displace a Google search or two while being faster and easier.
ulyssessword
4d ago
When you find something via Google, do you immediately and unconditionally trust it? I don't, because Google's results are full of nonsense. In response, I've developed google-fu to both refine my queries and judge the results. The same goes for every other source there is, from physical libraries to subject-specific Discord servers.
Do I compare LLM output to Google results? Sure, but that's nothing special. Comparing what you find in different sources is a pretty basic tactic.
LLMs are part of a complete breakfast research strategy, and a pretty good one at that.
ulyssessword
5d ago
...as anything other than nonsense generators.
As opposed to the other sources you can go to, which are...?
I am grading on a curve, an LLMs look pretty good when you compare them to traditional sources. It's even better if you restrict yourself to free+fast sources like Google search, (pseudo-)social media like Reddit/StackOverflow, or specific websites.
I have a few friends that use https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3146835 with good results.
More options
Context Copy link