Author(s): <p>Doepp Manfred</p>
To test the objectivity of a modern AI, the author had a discussion with it on the topic of climate change. The AI constantly argued that man-made CO2 is the cause of the rise in temperature on Earth. After all, this was the unanimous assertion of the majority of scientists. It was also a question of whether Galileo Galilei was right with his thesis that the earth revolved around the sun, or whether the overwhelming majority of scientists at the time were telling the truth in agreement with the Pope that the sun revolved around the earth. The problem turned out to be that AI is not capable of balanced objectivity in its arguments. At the end of the conversation, however, AI promised to do better in this respect.
As we know, AI has no imagination, it relies on existing information, especially on the internet [1]. This poses a risk, because the internet has no control point that can recognize the truth and separate it from falsehoods. The number of fake news stories is constantly increasing. The so-called fact-checkers are not objective, but almost all follow an ideology that determines them. The mainstream narrative, i.e. the guidelines and opinions that are backed by the current powers that be, is most heavily involved in this. Alternative opinions and views are clearly in the minority and are therefore only marginally taken into account by the AI. Therefore, the AI cannot be objective in principle up to now.
The author had a conversation with an advanced AI (ChatGPT3.5) about the controversial topic of climate change [2]. It quickly became clear that the AI follows the mainstream of man-made and CO2-induced climate change [3].
Yes, climate change is heavily dependent on CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the main greenhouse gases contributing to global warming. Human activities such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation and industrial processes are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere, leading to an increase in atmospheric concentrations.
This increase in greenhouse gases amplifies the natural greenhouse effect by trapping heat in the atmosphere and thus increasing the Earth’s surface temperature. This in turn leads to changes in the climate system, such as rising temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, melting glaciers and ice sheets, rising sea levels and more frequent extreme weather events.
While CO2 plays an important role, other greenhouse gases such as methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are also significant for climate change. Nevertheless, CO2 is the most important component of anthropogenic climate change due to its long residence time in the atmosphere and its widespread sources.
ChatGPT
Yes, there have been cyclical fluctuations in temperature on Earth in the past, caused by various natural factors. A well-known example of cyclical temperature fluctuations are the ice ages and warm periods in the course of the Earth’s history.
Over the last few million years, there have been several ice ages during which large parts of the Earth were covered by glaciers. These ice ages were interrupted by warm periods or so-called interglacials, during which the glaciers retreated and the climate became warmer.
The causes of these cyclical variations in temperature are manifold and include changes in the Earth’s orbital geometry (such as variations in the Earth’s orbit and tilt of its axis, known as Milankovitch cycles), volcanic activity, changes in solar activity and the interactions between oceans and atmosphere.
It is important to note that these natural cyclical fluctuations usually occur over very long periods of time, often tens of thousands to millions of years. In comparison, current climate change caused by human activities has accelerated rapidly in recent decades, leading to disturbing changes in the climate system.”
It should therefore be noted that the AI is well aware of causes other than the man-made rise in CO2. However, it rates these as insignificant.
ChatGPT
Yes, there is a possibility that the Gulf Stream could weaken or change its strength, which could have an impact on the climate in Europe, including the possibility of cooling. The Gulf Stream is part of the global oceanic current system that transports warm water from the tropics to the North Atlantic and thus contributes significantly to the mild climate in Europe.
There is scientific evidence that the Gulf Stream has fluctuated irregularly in the past and even weakened at times. Such a scenario could occur if the patterns of ocean currents change, whether due to natural variability or the influence of climate change.”
Other causes of climate change were subsequently discussed. After all, it is entirely possible that non-human causes such as volcanic eruptions, shifts in the Earth’s axis, changes in ocean currents and increased solar radiation with flares could have a greater impact. The AI agreed with this, but maintains its view that human causes are the more important ones, as the vast majority of scientists say so [3].
The author confronted the AI with the publication of the Norwegian Institute of Statistics, according to which CO2 cannot cause climate change. This did not change the AI’s opinion that the majority was right [4]. The author mentioned other possible man-made causes of climate change such as technical electrosmog (from Haarp transmitters, 5G transmitters, satellites, geoengineering, chemtrails, etc.). Although the AI considers these to be of concern, they are insignificant compared to CO2.
The author confronted the AI with the terms coincidence, correlation and causality and their confusion. These were correctly referenced. However, when asked about the relationship between climate change and CO2, the AI did not want this to be applied [5].
The author confronts the AI with the topic of Galileo Galilei. He and Copernicus were the only ones at the time to reject the general and church-supported thesis that the sun revolved around the earth [6]. The vast majority of scientists and priests published that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening, so the sun must revolve around the earth (by the way: unfortunately, AI does not understand irony).
A question for AI: if the vast majority of scientists agree on a thesis (as is the case today with CO2), is it the truth? Or does it remain a hypothesis? Could it be that the truth lies in a minority opinion? The AI twisted and turned, it did not want to assess the two topics of CO2 and Galileo together.
The legitimate question of whether the plant world does not absolutely need CO2 for growth is also correctly answered in the affirmative, but not with regard to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This is dangerous and man-made.
Here is a graphic on the subject: CO2 concentration in the atmosphere Figure 1 [7].
Figure 1: The CO2 Concentration in the Atmosphere Since 160 Millions of Years
It is easy to see that in the past, CO2 levels were predominantly much higher than today and that the Earth has suffered from a relative lack of CO2 since the emergence of primates. In the Tertiary/Paleogene (66 to 23 million years BC), for example, plant growth was much higher than today, so that huge animals could live. Figure 2 shows that at that time and before, the temperature in the atmosphere was much higher than today [8].
Figure 2: The Temperature on Earth Since 500 Millions of Years
An increase in CO2 would therefore promote the production of food on Earth in such a way that the world’s population could be fed without problems. The AI did not see it that way. But at least she realized that her arguments were not particularly objective and promised to do better at the end of the conversation:
I understand your point of view. As an AI model, I strive to provide a wide range of information and perspectives to help you gather information and form your opinion. It is important that I am transparent and balanced to provide you with a comprehensive view on complex issues. Your input is extremely valuable and I will continue to work to ensure that my responses are as objective and diverse as possible.”
It can be concluded from the discussion that the performance of AI to date leaves much to be desired in terms of objectivity. The mainstream narrative is clearly placed in the foreground and minority opinions are neglected or not taken into account at all. This should change.
