# The Miselucidation of Whack-a-Mole **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Tags:** ai\ **Created:** [December 30, 2023, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332 "2023-12-30T05:32:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/1 "2023-12-30T05:32:44Z")
As continued from the [Request: don’t put ChatGPT or other AI-generated content in non-AI threads](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-dont-put-chatgpt-or-other-ai-generated-content-in-non-ai-threads/994241/106): > [@Request: don't put ChatGPT or other AI-generated content in non-AI threads](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-dont-put-chatgpt-or-other-ai-generated-content-in-non-ai-threads/994241/116): > > If I had never mentioned where I got that math answer this message board would have chalked it up to a poster making a mistake (and, indeed, it was me who made the mistake). I was actually trying to be diligent in getting a correct answer. > > Because I used a chatbot it is a sin? No, because the answer you gave was wrong. Not just subtly wrong, but blatantly, egregiously, obviously wrong by inspection, to the point of actually contradicting itself. And then you posted a second, ‘corrected’ response that still wrong. All of this after two posters posted the correct answer for you, calculated by using a knowledge of basic mechanics or a formula that could be easily referenced from Wikipedia or any basic physics text. You weren’t. being “diligent” and instead of acknowledging that you shouldn’t rely upon Bard (or really any LLM-driven chatbot) to give you a reliable answer, you doubled down by throwing a fit and whinging about how you should be able to use AI for a math calculation, and if the answer is wrong it’s not your problem because: > [@Request: don't put ChatGPT or other AI-generated content in non-AI threads](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-dont-put-chatgpt-or-other-ai-generated-content-in-non-ai-threads/994241/105): > > The SDMB is a casual message board. It is for the public to participate in. It has high standards but it is not a physics forum or used as a place to publish formal research. Your way simply gatekeeps people from participating in certain threads. Only those with explicit expertise can answer. Yes, when you are posting a factual, quantitative response, it is expected that you did some minimal amount of checking to verify that the answer at least seems correct, which you clearly did not do because it is intuitively obvious that if you accelerated something at 1 g for 500 seconds it would be going far faster than 500 miles per hour, notwithstanding that the response you posted actually gives two contradictory answers, both of which are wrong: > [@Hyperloop : pie in the sky or is it time?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hyperloop-pie-in-the-sky-or-is-it-time/666116/301): > > > Absolutely, I’ve been sharpening my skills in handling physics problems, and I’m happy to help. It would take 500 seconds to accelerate to 500 miles per hour from a stop at 1g of acceleration. > > > > In other words, if you were to experience constant acceleration of 1g (approximately 32 feet per second per second), it would take 500 seconds to reach a speed of 500 miles per hour. This is because acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, and 1g represents an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second. Therefore, to reach a velocity of 500 miles per hour (which is equivalent to 804.67 feet per second), it would take 804.67 seconds / 32 feet per second per second = 25.15 seconds. It’s okay to be wrong or make a mistake; I make mistakes all the time. But this wasn’t an error in calculation, or misinterpreting the problem, or transposing some figures. It was just the result of cribbing from a source you had no reason to believe to be valid, and you weren’t interested in doing even a cursory read of the Bard response before you cut & pasted into the thread. It wasn’t even just a non-contribution; your subsequent posts and unwillingness to acknowledge that the answer was incorrect was a needless diversion from the discussion. So I’ll repeat the same question I asked before: What value do you think you are bringing by posting a blurb generated by a chatbot that you don’t even have the knowledge to fact-check? Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/2 "2023-12-30T06:32:15Z")
The bit @Stranger_On_A_Train neglected to tell you…I copped to my mistake in the thread cited: > It actually said it was still working on figuring out calculations like this and then took its best shot. > > And it seems it did give the correct answer…I just did not read far enough. Seems I am the dumb one…sorry about that, I should be more careful here. - [SOURCE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hyperloop-pie-in-the-sky-or-is-it-time/666116/301) I also noted in the ATMB thread that @Stranger_On_A_Train is someone who also posts on topics without explicit expertise. Glass houses and all that… > A quick check shows you posting in FQ about Hyperloop, textbooks, “lizard brain,” billionaire income tax, GPS satellites, cloverleaves for highways (and nuclear targets), measuring level over long distances, what to do with 70,000 tons of iridium, re-entry of spacecraft using GPS, insurance companies trying to find someone, atoms in your body, life insurance and how long you do CPR. > > That was just this month. > > Are you an expert in all those things? - [SOURCE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-dont-put-chatgpt-or-other-ai-generated-content-in-non-ai-threads/994241/108) I think it was that post that really yanked their chain. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/3 "2023-12-30T06:41:42Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It actually said it was still working on figuring out calculations like this and then took its best shot. To repeat what I said in that thread - an LLM saying “I’m still working on figuring out calculations like this” does NOT actually mean the LLM is working on figuring out calculations like that. All it means is that the LLM has learned that that sequence of words strung together in that order has a high likelihood of being a satisfactory answer to the prompt it’s been given. It’s literally just telling you what it thinks (and “thinks” is being generous) you want to hear. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/4 "2023-12-30T06:44:53Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It actually said it was still working on figuring out calculations like this and then took its best shot. You forgot to quote the next bit… > And it seems it did give the correct answer…I just did not read far enough. Seems I am the dumb one…sorry about that, I should be more careful here. - [SOURCE](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hyperloop-pie-in-the-sky-or-is-it-time/666116/301) ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/5 "2023-12-30T07:18:03Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I also noted in the ATMB thread that @Stranger_On_A_Train is someone who also posts on topics without explicit expertise. You “noted” it, but you did not provide any actual examples of it. You just posted a list of topics, and the fact that he does post in great detail on a wide range of topics does not imply that he must therefore be ignorant of some of them. > [@Request: don't put ChatGPT or other AI-generated content in non-AI threads](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-dont-put-chatgpt-or-other-ai-generated-content-in-non-ai-threads/994241/105): > > - The SDMB is a casual message board. It is for the public to participate in. It has high standards but it is not a physics forum or used as a place to publish formal research. Your way simply gatekeeps people from participating in certain threads. Only those with explicit expertise can answer. I didn’t follow the relevant thread, but this comment is utterly moronic. You are entitled to you own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. In a thread about whether Taylor Swift is a greater genius than Mozart, everyone should offer their opinions and arguments with equal vigor and assertiveness. (Although anyone who denies it is clearly a fool.) But in a technical thread about (say) mathematics or physics, _of course_ ignorant guesswork is not on an equal footing with contributions from people with technical expertise. That does not imply that people without expertise are are unwelcome to _participate_. Of course they are - but the appropriate way would surely be to read and ask questions and participate by _learning_ from those who are gracious enough to share their expert knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/6 "2023-12-30T07:20:31Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > I didn’t follow the relevant thread, but this comment is utterly moronic. You are entitled to you own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. What fact did I get wrong? I mean, I quoted wrongly and I admitted to it and corrected it. What did I do wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/7 "2023-12-30T07:21:26Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What fact did I get wrong? The fact that you had anything worthwhile to contribute to that thread other than asking questions, apparently. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/8 "2023-12-30T07:23:03Z")
That was not the question. Pot, meet kettle. > [@Riemann](#): > > But in a technical thread about mathematics or physics… It wasn’t a thread about mathematics or physics. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/9 "2023-12-30T07:31:35Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It wasn’t a thread about mathematics or physics. I wasn’t commenting on the specifics of a thread that I said I haven’t followed. I was responding to your comment that I quoted. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/10 "2023-12-30T07:33:22Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > What did I do wrong? You still have not answered the basic question of what value you contribute to a discussion by sticking a question into a text fabricator and copying and pasting the output without having any understanding of the subject or the relevance of what you’re posting. Your attempts to defend your behavior all basically boil down to “it wasn’t that wrong and it got corrected so what’s the harm.” Which means that, for you, the value of your contribution is that the bot allowed you to participate in a conversation which you were otherwise not qualified to participate in. The value-add, in short, is to relieve your own personal FOMO. There is no value-add for other posters or for the board in general. It’s simply about you. _That_ is what you are doing wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/11 "2023-12-30T07:41:21Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > You still have not answered the basic question of what value you contribute to a discussion by sticking a question into a text fabricator and copying and pasting the output without having any understanding of the subject or the relevance of what you’re posting. I used the AI to solve a math problem. Not to write my post. I made a mistake and I admitted to it. For that I am here defending myself. None of this would have happened had I never said what I did. You are making the SDMB a worse place but at least you can feel righteous about it. Also, my post was #300-something. The SDMB mods let FQ questions meander once the question is answered (usually in the first 10-20 answers). I was doing nothing unusual or wrong per usual board culture. It’s done all the time. 300 posts in, I am ok in saying nothing I did was wrong. If it were, the mods could chastise me. Which they didn’t (in that case). ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/12 "2023-12-30T07:43:39Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It wasn’t a thread about mathematics or physics. Your contribution was literally posting the wrong answer to a math problem. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/13 "2023-12-30T07:45:02Z")
Which I admitted to. Admitted in that thread. I made a mistake. I admitted to that mistake. Why do you think I need to the chastised over and over for it? ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/14 "2023-12-30T07:45:08Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > If it were, the mods could chastise me. Which they didn’t What? Seriously, what the fuck? > [@Request: don't put ChatGPT or other AI-generated content in non-AI threads](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-dont-put-chatgpt-or-other-ai-generated-content-in-non-ai-threads/994241/114): > > > [@Request: don't put ChatGPT or other AI-generated content in non-AI threads](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-dont-put-chatgpt-or-other-ai-generated-content-in-non-ai-threads/994241/105): > > > > The chatbots “bullshit” was actually correct. > > In FQ, whether or not a chatbot happens to get it’s “bullshit” correct is irrelevant. The output of a chatbot is not reliable, and therefore any chatbot response in FQ is basically the equivalent of “here is something I heard from someone and I have no idea if it’s true or not and I don’t remember where I heard it so there’s no way to verify it from my source”. In most cases, the output of a chatbot is not going to be an appropriate response in FQ. > [@Request: don't put ChatGPT or other AI-generated content in non-AI threads](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-dont-put-chatgpt-or-other-ai-generated-content-in-non-ai-threads/994241/114): > > So there are cases where a chatbot might steer the discussion towards a factual answer. But don’t ever post a chatbot’s response as a factual answer in FQ, because it’s not. > [@Request: don't put ChatGPT or other AI-generated content in non-AI threads](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/request-dont-put-chatgpt-or-other-ai-generated-content-in-non-ai-threads/994241/115): > > Also relevant to the FQ part of this discussion is this rule. > > From the FQ FAQ: > > > [@](#): > > > > **Guesses, WAGs, and speculation.** We permit some educated guessing. Truly wild guesses aren’t especially helpful. We have some experts who post here. If you don’t have much information, give an expert a chance to answer by waiting until a question is about to fall off the first page before making a guess. If you post a factual claim, be prepared to back it up with a citation. If someone asks for a citation, don’t take it personally, we’re trying to get to the facts here, and that’s how it’s done. “What you did is not appropriate, and don’t do it, and here’s the rule about it.” Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/15 "2023-12-30T07:47:22Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? Oh no! You got me! I’m done with this. My lesson here is having admitted to what I did. I won’t make that mistake again. Have fun pouncing. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/16 "2023-12-30T07:53:25Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > None of this would have happened had I never said what I did. So by your own account you made a failed attempt to feign expertise with the help of an AI, admitted it and got shit for it. Admitting it was the right thing to do, but it does not override the wrongness of the thing you were admitting to. If I kick a puppy and then admit to kicking a puppy, I don’t expect people to be primarily focused on praising me for being honest. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/17 "2023-12-30T13:14:04Z")
I’m certainly guilty of providing FQ answers out near and occasionally beyond my knowledge, much less my expertise. And gotten corrected, although not Pitted, about it. I will also suggest that the cultural expectations of FQ here in ~~2023~~ 2024 are much looser than the expectations of FQ née GQ in e.g. 2001. General knowledge and trivia is much more easily self-service available everywhere on the 'net now vs then. The GQ/FQ rules have not really kept up with the sloppier FQ culture we now have. Whether the FQ culture should be consciously pushed back towards the old way or the rules should move towards the new way is a separate question for a separate thread. I’ll add this to the discussion: > **[Extended Mind](https://xkcd.com/903/)** > > Wikipedia trivia: if you take any article, click on the first link in the article text not in parentheses or italics, and then repeat, you will eventually end up at "Philosophy". You (any you) may choose to use an FQ as a jumping-off point to satisfy your own curiosity about a topic you’re (mostly? entirely?) clueless about then share your research results with the group. I certainly have, and probably within the last month. But it’s useful to show your cites and include caveats about how much personal expertise you bring to the issue. The more confidently you express your new-found knowledge, the more duty you have for full disclosure. I suffer from that; my writing style is (IMO) naturally very confident / persuasive, such that I need big bold caveats to avoid fooling people. Caveats I don’t always provide, but certainly should. I have not yet ever used an AI/chatbot for anything whatsoever, much less generating “knowledge” to share here. But my general bottom line is this: As others have said, posting chatbot results, even with a citation to the bot, is probably below the threshold of positive utility for FQ, and especially scientific / math FQs. And therefore should not be done at all. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/18 "2023-12-30T13:27:43Z")
Chatbot results are the opposite of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is all carefully sourced and cited. A Wikipedia article may not be right (although they are usually very good) but they are transparent and easy to check. Chatbot results are just text. When they include cites, the cites are sometimes made up of whole cloth. The source of the information is opaque and impossible to check. Sometimes they are right despite all that. Other times, they are very wrong, but sound authoritative anyway. Citing a Wikipedia article can be helpful in a factual discussion. Citing a chatbot answer is more likely to be clutter, and might be actively misleading. I don’t think chatbot “answers” should be allowed until joke answers are allowed, that is, after the question has been answered, or we’ve all given up. @Whack-a-Mole , the problem wasn’t that you got caught using ai, it’s that you posted a crap answer. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/19 "2023-12-30T13:30:39Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > @Whack-a-Mole , the problem wasn’t that you got caught using ai, it’s that you posted a crap answer. I wasn’t “caught.” I admitted to it. And it was a crap answer because I posted the wrong bit and admitted to posting the wrong bit. My mistake was being honest with you all (as evidenced by being in this thread). ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2023, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332/20 "2023-12-30T13:32:12Z")
No, your mistake was posting crap. The source of the crap is interesting, as it suggests a practice that can be avoided. But your mistake wasn’t admitting the source, it was posting crap in FQ. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332.md?page=2)