doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com google ai

When I hear of Computers thinking like Humans, I always reflect back to >>The Marriage Machine<< episode of >>The Beverly Hillbillies<<. Even then, the Punch-Card Computer was always right....


Serbus,

Raimey
rse

Use AI-generated answers at your peril. As mentioned above, AI is more than happy to regurgitate widely believed falsehoods as ‘fact.’ Think of the times you’ve seen where people have written about guns with great certainty, but they were wrong. AI can’t distinguish between fact and fiction, especially if the fiction is widespread.

And it gets worse. If AI doesn’t have the facts you’re looking for, it makes them up. Newspapers are full of stories about lawyers presenting cases in court with AI-made-up citations; these are just the instances we hear about. Keeping the discussion on guns, I recently had a troubling experience when, after much prompting to use AI for research, I gave it a good workout.

I’m currently researching the Birmingham firm of J&W Tolley, for my book and an upcoming article. I wanted to know how far back the Tolley firm started making breech-loading game guns. Records haven’t survived, so a review of every known morsel of information was necessary. In an online, private, source of obscure gunmaker data I’ve grown to trust, was the following statement: “An 1862 advertisement stated ‘Gun rifle and pistol manufacturers, Contractor for Military Arms, Breech Loading Guns, Pistols, also all guns suitable for the African markets’.” This was the earliest date I could trace that mentioned breech-loaders, so it was a good starting point. I have also learned that every fact and statement about historical gunmaking needs to be checked and double-checked to avoid repeating errors, including published ones. A straightforward Google search did not turn up the 1862 advertisement or any Tolley advertisement along the same lines. Nor did a search using several other popular search engines. I subscribe to the British Newspaper Archive, and no such Tolley advertisement could be found in their voluminous database.

I then turned to AI, using the latest version of ChatGPT. I started a back-and-forth conversation with the language model, looking to identify the source of the advertisement. It started by quoting back to me my own writings on Tolley and Internet board posts influenced by the original online quote. By pushing harder for specifics, ChatGPT then informed me of the source of the Tolley advertisement, using those words:

“The 1862 advertisement for J. W. Tolley (James William Tolley) appeared in the South Australian Register, an Adelaide-based newspaper (National Library of Australia – NLA). In the November 20, 1862 edition, the firm was listed as “Gun, rifle, and pistol manufacturers” and explicitly described itself as: “Contractor for Military Arms, Breech Loading Guns, Pistols, also all guns suitable for the African markets.” This publication reflects the firm's early business model, which relied on exporting large quantities of “trade guns” to international markets, including Africa and Australia, before they became famous for their high-end “big bore” sporting rifles.”

Excellent, I thought; I couldn’t have asked for anything better (though a red flag appeared when it got the firm's name wrong). An Australian paper could explain why other databases didn't catch it. I could have stopped there, but I didn’t, as I double-check everything. So I was able to track down a scanned copy of that newspaper for that date, from the National Library of Australia. The Tolley advert wasn’t there. I checked issues from several days before and after that date, without success. So I went back to ChatGPT and challenged the model with this result. It basically said: “Correct, there is no such advertisement. The original published statement may have been in error,” without acknowledging that moments earlier it had presented its ‘findings’ as fact. This absurdity, of giving factual statements, then after challenging them, being informed that the earlier ‘facts’ were indeed wrong, was repeated several times. This was my first experience with large language models being biased towards pleasing you rather than being accurate/objective. I wanted an answer, pressed hard for one, so it gave me what I wanted, but it totally made it up.

The Wikipedia entry for AI hallucinations explains: “In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), a hallucination or artificial hallucination (also called bullshitting, confabulation, or delusion) is a response generated by AI that contains false or misleading information presented as fact.” Yeah. “For example, a chatbot powered by large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, may embed plausible-sounding random falsehoods within its generated content.” No kidding. I could have been satisfied with the first ChatGPT response, and written about that data point online. This would have been scraped up by bots, and further solidified the misinformation with a new reference. Others, or chatbots, might have quoted me as a reference, and there you have it: false data as fact, stronger with every repetition. As AI becomes further and further embedded in Google searches and academic research, how long before we can’t trust any ‘fact’ out there? It was an interesting and frightening learning experience.

Case in point, I just noticed a recent YouTube video about an SKB over/under made in...1854? I guess AI wrote that script...

As script writers cut corners to speed up money-generating online output, things are going to get much worse. At least with non-AI search engines, you could trace back to sources more easily. With AI, not so much. Welcome to the Misinformation Age.

Preacher, you yourself have posted photos of several other brands of vintage American SxS doubles that suffered cracked frames. These include Baltimore Arms, Syracuse Arms, and the famous Fox Sterlingworth. You also posted pics of a Belgian Thos. Parker with a cracked frame. I can repost them if you'd like everyone to know the whole truth...

So it seems intentionally deceptive for you to even suggest that the Ithaca Flues alone had some inherent frame design defect. I haven't heard of any Flues guns blowing open upon firing, as sometimes happens to Fox and L.C. Smith rotary bolted guns. I also have never seen a Crescent with a cracked frame. However, I've seen a number of them that were shot loose, and countless others have been scrapped and parted out. There's a very good reason that Ithaca Flues guns are worth more than a Crescent in equal condition.

Collecting and doing repetitive Copy and Pasting of old data and advertisements is one thing. It might actually be impressive if you really were able to understand it. A self-styled shotgun "expert" ought to be able to grasp and understand simple concepts like this.

You have posted the Proof Pressures used by various countries countless times. You of all people should know that many of the vaunted British shotguns were proofed for lower pressures than the "double powder charge with 1 1/2 times norma shot load" you cited above for the lowly Ithaca Flues. Same for the 15,000 psi Proof figure you cited for many other common American machine made doubles. One can only wonder how many of those British guns that are worshipped by many would have failed in some catastrophic manner if subjected to those Ithaca or other American factory Proof loads. Wasn't the term "off the face" coined by British gunmakers? Whose loose guns were they describing?

Everything mechanical has a failure point. Every chain has a weakest link. Even the 16" guns of an Iowa class battleship would fail if subjected to extremes beyond their design limits. The Ithaca Flues will never be mistaken for a "Best Gun", but it doesn't deserve the reputation a few hysterical people have unfairly given it.

bobski, do you remember pogo?

doc drew...of the 100 or so flues guns that have passed thru my hands over the years, this is the first one I know of with a cracked frame...

not sure of the point of your post, but in my experience, flues guns are safe, light weight hunting guns, which should like all old guns, be treated with gentle respect...

I'm sorry William. You've lost me again. Maybe google "associative looseness"
I thought you highjacked poor ed's thread about AI for another rant about cracked frame Flues?
"I've never seen a Smith...Lefever, NID or Ithaca Lefever, or even a Crescent (!) with a cracked frame" is factual, and many more Smiths and Crescents were manufactured than Flues, SAC or BAC.
What is the connection with loose Crescents? Or guns with top lever extensions and rotary bolts? (BTW I've never seen nor heard of an 'auto-opening' Smith. Should we start another thread?)

The point regarding proof testing is that Flues were proved for Nitro pressures, AS WERE BRITISH GUNS if marked 'NITRO PROOF' after 1896.
Pressure with 6 1/4 Drams “Tower Proof” Black Powder and 1 2/3 oz. shot was about 14,000 psi
Curtis & Harvey’s No. 4 T.S. Black Powder was about 13,000 psi
90 grains (42 grains = 3 Dram) “Schultze” about 13,300 psi
90 grains “E.C.” about 15,400 psi

Amazing what one can find with hours of searching even for those of us with simple minds

like the wise man once said...

ifn youse has somethin positive to say, den say hit...

udderwise...(wait fur hit)...shut duh flock up...

Stan, you are right to be skeptical, but I have used AI a lot the past couple of years to determine herbicide mixes. I remember last summer I was going to spray a mix of gly and garlon on a field border, planning to enlarge the field in October. I knew the rate I used for each alone, but wasn't sure about a mix. Grok gave me what sounded like a reasonable answer and the mix worked well. I have gotten some wild replies from Gemini on similar questions, but I have not gotten a really bad reply from Grok on herbicides.

I think that in general you can get better answers to technical questions on forums than from AI, IF, and this is a big IF, you know the posters. When you don't know the posters, you have gotta decide who to believe because there is usually disagreement involved.