# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 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 --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-miselucidation-of-whack-a-mole/995332)._