Taxacom: no artifical 'intelligence' yet

[John Grehan]

I find 'artificial intelligence' to be one of those metaphors that is more
about creating a state of reality than reality itself (a bit like the
'barcode' metaphor).

Just for the heck of it, I asked Chatgpg "is the genus Magnificus
monophyletic?" (this is a genus of ghost moths). Answer: "Based on current
research and taxonomic classification, *Magnificus* is *not considered
monophyletic*. In fact, it’s generally thought to be polyphyletic, meaning
that the species within the genus do not all share a single common ancestor
exclusive to that group. They are often found to be more closely related to
species in other genera than to each other."

This is about as much BS that anyone could invent. I think it shows that
the 'intelligence' of a computer is only as good as its sources. I expect
in taxonomy its sources are quite limited - especially if articles are not
open access or otherwise posted on the web.

In another time wasting exercises (relatively speaking I don't have that
much time left, so might as well waste some of it :) I asked 'what is
panbiogeography' . In one answer I was told that I created panbiogeography,
in another question it was Michael Heads who created it. Of course neither
is correct, and I guess 1958 sinks to the bottom of the swamp where AI does
not dare to tread.

Is there no hope for civilization?

Cheers,

John Grehan

-- 
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C9d2fff2794a94627d91708dd448b46c4%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638742087534064269%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=owJHJ2gmYavChID%2BU8LR6UcFzdcoExARb2fNOS%2Bd14s%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.