I thought I could stump ChatGPT by asking, How many ways are there to lower the fidelity of hybridization during the annealing phase of the polymerase chain reaction But, During the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the annealing phase is when primers hybridize or bind to their complementary sequences on the template DNA. The fidelity of this hybridization ensures specificity in the amplification process. If you want to decrease the fidelity of primer-template hybridization during the annealing phase (though this would typically increase the risk of non-specific amplification), there are several methods: Decrease Annealing Temperature: This is the most common method. By lowering the annealing temperature, mismatches between the primer and the template can be tolerated, leading to reduced specificity. Shorten Primer Length: Shorter primers have a lower melting temperature and are less specific than longer ones. Alteration of Magnesium Ion (Mg2+) Concentration: Higher concentrations can promote mismatches by stabilizing the mismatched hybridization. Addition of Betaine or Dimethyl Sulfoxide (DMSO): These additives can sometimes affect the fidelity of primer annealing by changing the properties of the solution and potentially stabilizing mismatched hybridizations. Reduce Annealing Time: Shorter annealing times can reduce the time available for the primers to find their perfect match, potentially leading to non-specific binding. Using a Hot-Start PCR: Though typically used to increase specificity, if done incorrectly, it might lead to the opposite effect. Decrease Primer Concentration: Lowering the primer concentration might make it more challenging for the primer to find its perfect match, potentially leading to non-specific binding. However, this can also result in lower yield. Use of Low-Fidelity DNA Polymerases: While this mainly affects the extension phase, using a low-fidelity enzyme can also indirectly affect the fidelity of the annealing phase due to the lack of proofreading activity. However, be cautious when intentionally lowering the fidelity of hybridization, as it might lead to the amplification of undesired products or reduced PCR efficiency. Depending on your goals, the right balance between specificity and yield should be achieved.
Lol, I suck at chemistry, but yeah, ChatGPT is pretty wild. The only problem I have with it is it likes to double down on things when it says something wrong. And instead of admitting it’s mistake, it will start making up “facts” to support its position. This was all dealing with obscure history though, where there would be large gaps of knowledge anyway. I guess it used creative license to fill in those gaps. But yeah, 90% of the time it is mind blowing how much it knows.
there is a settings option to change the temperature and the creativity Supposedly, if you educate it of its mistakes, it can change its response
Weird, I have the opposite experience. Usually it's just correct and concise, but: A non-controversial example is I asked it why the naval bodyfat formula uses neck circumference. It said something about more fat in the neck leading to increased bodyfat. Then I told it, "Actually, a larger neck circumference leads to lower bodyfat values," and then it corrected itself saying that it's actually correlated with more muscle mass and lowers bodyfat percentage, which is correct. But if it knew that, why did it get it wrong in the first place. I feel like it needs to spend more time factchecking itself before it gives an answer, like how chess engines check the consequences of each series of moves before actually make a move. A more controversial example: Like if you ask it about whether the atomic bomb ended WWII, it will give the fairly standard line that it was critical to it. But then if you say "well nearly all of Japan's cities were destroyed by conventional bombing anyway, and the soviets attacked Japan when they surrendered," it then sort of compromised and said it was one of many factors. It always feels like talking to somebody very intelligent, knowledgeable and polite, though.
Most of the time that was the case for me as well, but a few times it was not. I was asking about Benedict Arnold and his time at Fort Western in Augusta, Maine. It was trying to tell me that during his trek through Maine to attack the British in Quebec, he laid siege to the British that were in Fort Western. It gave me the commanders name of the fort garrison, Captain Lithgow, and told me about the battle that was fought there by Benedict Arnold's forces against the brits in great detail. The problem was that there was no battle there. Fort Western was manned by American militia, and Arnold only spent a few days there before leading his men north through the Maine Wilderness. I told ChatGPT this, and i said it was trying to mislead me by making things up. It told me it was not capable of making up lies. It then produced what it said was a quote from a historical document, as well as where I could find it in the Library of Congress. But the entire thing was fabricated. You should have seen this quote! It was actually really awesome. It used all the weird spelling and apostrophes for short hand that they used at the time, and sounded incredibly authentic. It was listing supplies on hand, casualties in the battle, hourly events that took place, etc etc. It even told me after the quote that Captain Lithgow was honored by having the Library in Augusta named after him. The crazy thing is, there IS a Lithgow library in Augusta, but it is named for some philanthropist, not a British captain. I argued with it for a while. You are right, it was conceding it was wrong when I called it out, but then it would spin another fanciful story. It was actually incredibly impressive how believable it made the things it was telling me. To be fair, this was a while ago, and I am sure ChatGPT has been updated many times since then. And I didn't know you could alter parameters to make it more truthful. I think AI is going to be a key part of our future when the bugs are ironed out. I'm going to have to play around with it more to see how much it has improved. Its a hell of a lot of fun to talk to.
same thing people do. They repeat things they learn in school, or that they heard somewhere. At least Chat GPT is able to synthesize answers from many different sources and come to reasonable conclusions to questions. Most people are nowhere near capable of doing that.
I have stumped it a few times with colloquial regional terms where it said it didn't know or wasn't familiar with it or whatever. The when I told it what it meant it them gave me the standard generic response information on what I said it was. One of the terms I recall was asking it what was a fairy diddle.
hmmm, it sounds like you are afraid of AI. I’ll be the first to admit it still has flaws, as I have shown in the earlier posts, but that is changing very quickly. I sense you are looking at it as some sort of fad or as something that doesn’t belong in human society. AI is a tool, and one that will soon bring radical change to human society, much like the industrial revolution. Should be a wild ride. I am very optimistic about the changes. praying to AI? That sounds useless. Though I suppose no more misleading than many churches have been about spiritual issues throughout history.
No, not at all. I have spent most of my working life in the computer industry and I understand how they work. You are correct, computers are tools for use by humans. They deal with data faster than we do. They are not intelligent. They don't think. ChatGPT does database searches on input from humans and provides the results of the search. You could have gotten an answer to the question you posed by spending some time searching the internet. The computer does it faster and, hence, is a useful tool. Don't give it capabilities it doesn't have. It is a machine. It is good that the software is improving. It makes the computers more useful tools. Radical change? Probably not. More useful tool? Probably so.
I think it does a heck of a lot more than you give it credit for. It is more than old basic "IF-THEN" statements. And I think the potential AI has will leave the human brain in the dust before too long. What is the brain if not a biological computer? Now, if we are talking about consciousness, I probably agree with you. Consciousness is far beyond what a brain does, and has spiritual implications. A computer does not have that, and likely never will. But consciousness and intelligence are totally different things. I don't see how it won't result in radical change. With increased automation and AI implementation, there is no way there is going to be enough jobs to go around. What it means to be human is going to go beyond what it is now, which is being raised to work a job until you retire then die. The framework of society will change, as will how the economy functions. AI will result in space exploration and exploitation to become much more feasible, along with making fusion power much more likely. etc etc. Big changes coming, and I think they will be mostly positive changes.
A brain is sentient. It thinks. It decides. It creates. It has emotion. A computer is a machine. It processes. I don't argue that the new software is not impressive and useful. I have a problem with calling it intelligence. It misleads the public and you for that matter. The intelligence is in the programmer.
thinking, emotion, decisions… it’s all just chemicals and electrical impulses. Nothing that can’t be replicated by a computer. only consciousness itself cannot be replicated by a computer.
If you cannot pose the question in the first place can Chatgpt work??? But I will say chatgpt saves many hours, like hundreds of hours, of reading studies to get the information chatgpt gets in seconds. I think chatgpt will probably result in an exponential amount of innovation in science. It's kind of a shame though because i did enjoy the treasure hunt, reading studies to find the pertinent information regarding experiments. Chatgpt is impressive and scary at the same time.
I would be careful of making assumptions on this. For sure, software can be made to be inventive and creative. Just because it's not quite there yet, doesn't mean it won't be soon. And it has been long anticipated as the technological singularity. Barring a word-ending disaster, machines that believe they are beings will become a reality. And I can see the politics now - those who believe them and those who don't. At least it will be more interesting than the trans debates. I've never seen evidence that we are anything more than highly sophisticated biological machines, so I don't think we can rule out creating machines that can do the same things and more. Though in all likelihood, the future of mankind will be a hybridization with such immensely powerful technology, i.e. we will have things like artificial intelligence nodes helping our brains, and nanobots aiding our immune system. It's only a matter of time, even if the ethicists and conservatives get in the way. Uploading minds into computers like Battlestar Galactica, I am unsure if that's possible, but it's not something I'd rule out.
today’s science fiction is tomorrow’s reality. It is just a matter of time at this point until what I am talking about comes to pass. The rate is accelerating, not slowing down. it sounds like you are saying it is impossible, which is absurd. We are just about there.
Saying that anything is impossible is absurd. But since you wish to invent things that I said and then call what I didn't write absurd, I will check out of the thread. Go insult someone else. I'm not interested.
I just don't see what basis you would have for knowing the limits of technology. The evaporation of such limits has, if anything, accelerated in recent years. We harnessed bacterial immune proteins to edit DNA (CRISPR), drones are transforming warfare, flying and self-driving cars are finally becoming a thing, computers can write intelligible essays. I mean, it just seems crazy to state any limits that aren't based on things like laws of thermodynamics.
Nah, it just keeps repeating the same leftist woke crap that it is programmed by woke leftists to repeat, no matter how much one notes and corrects its mistakes... no different than the woke leftists who programmed it.
I stated an opinion that differs from yours. No apology. Sorry. When you understand that there have been improvements in software and stop calling it intelligence we can talk again.
Was looking more for explanation than apology. Sure, current software is not actually intelligence. That's true. People who say technology cannot do things though, are almost always wrong in the long run.
