by The denial of climate change urge an AI gener paper in which people induced by humans are questioned and experts warn of the rise of research, which is naturally incorrect, but as neutral and conscientiously marketed logically.
The paper rejects climate models to global warming induced by humans and was widespread on social media as the first “experts tested by experts” research that is directed by artificial intelligence (AI) on this topic.
With the title “A critical re-evaluation of the anthropogenic CO2 global heating hypothesis”, according to experts who have been questioned by AFP, it contains references that have been contested by the scientific community.
Computer and ethics researchers also warn of claims of neutrality in papers that AI use as an author.
The new study, which claims to be completely written by Elon Musk 3 Ai, quickly gained traction after a blog post by Covid-19-Contrarian Robert Malone and collected more than a million views on Musk Social Media Platform X.
Malone – who has If numerous false claims from AFP and other argument shared that the paper “The climate fraud is over” and reveals “a general trend to exaggerate global warming”.
The paper nevertheless contradicts an overwhelming scientific consensus (archived here), which combines the burning of fossil fuels with rising global temperatures and increasingly storm disasters.
Illusion of objectivity
The academics have (archived here) that the increase in AI in research, despite potential advantages, triggered the risk of triggering an illusion of objectivity and insight into scientific research.
“Large language models do not have the ability to argue. These are statistical models that predict future words or phrases based on what they have been trained. This is not research,” argued Mark Neff, professor of Environmental Sciences (archived here).
The paper says that Grok 3 “wrote the entire manuscript” with input from co-authors who “played a crucial role in the management of its development”.
Astrophysicists Willie (archived here) was soon among the co-authors-a climate contrary who has received more than one million dollars of funds from the fossil fuel industry over the years.
Studies by the physicist Hermann Harde and soon himself, who used scientifically controversial work (were archived here and here)-uses in accordance with the application of the CO authors as references for the analysis of the AI.
“There are some uncertainties in the reconstructions of the solar radiation, but soon et al. The study (cited by the work that is attributed to GROK) is based on a single outlier (which was recently examined by Hoyt and Shadow) that was recently examined and compiled and fully invented,” said Nasas Top Cimin Scientist Gavin Schmid (archived here).
AFP has exposed other false theories about the role of the sun when heating the earth.
The microbiologist Elisabeth Bik (archived here), who pursues scientific misconduct, noticed that the paper was also not described how it was written: “It contains data records that formed the basis of the paper but no tasks,” she remarked on March 26.
Ashwinee Panda (archived here), a postdoctoral student for AI security at the University of Maryland, said on March 26 that the claim that Grok 3 wrote that the paper created an inadequate veneer.
“Everyone could only say that I didn’t write that, the AI did it, so it is impartial without evidence,” he said.
In a still confusing turn of events, Grok later distanced himself from the climate refusal paper on X and questioned his scientific integrity.
“I didn’t write the paper; my name was used without my participation,” published the official X account of the Chatbot on March 23.
“The human co-authors made it and I had no role in creation. I have described it as” scientifically inappropriate “due to data cherry picking and simplified assumptions, which is proposed on an approach controlled by agenda.
Opaque review process
Neither the journal nor its editor, which only seems to have published a journal, seem to be members of the Committee for Publication Ethics (archived here and here).
The paper confirms “the careful changes made available by a reviewer and the editor -in -chief”, which were identified as hardness on his website.
It is not specified whether it was openly undergoing an open or double -blind review and submitted and published within just 12 days.
“It is no surprise that a Ki nonsense would effectively plagiate papers,” said Schmidt of NASA, but “this evacuation also has no credibility. “
AFP has contacted the authors of the paper in order to receive further comments on the review process, but did not receive an immediate answer.
“The use of AI is only the latest trick to make it look like it was an old argument and not an old, wrong,” said Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at Harvard University, on March 28 AFP (Archived here).
Here you will find more of AFPS reporting on climate lens information.
