这cgpt整天就知道道歉了, 礼貌是礼貌了, 干活不行啊.

贵圈

政府都对党
注册
2014-10-21
消息
32,854
荣誉分数
6,145
声望点数
373

ELECTRIC CARS MEANS MORE POLLUTION THAN CONVENTIONAL CARS. TOYOTA SAID



This statement is not entirely accurate. While it is true that electric cars rely on electricity generated from sources such as coal, natural gas, and oil, which can produce emissions, electric cars can still be cleaner than conventional cars, especially if the electricity used to power them comes from low-carbon sources like wind, solar, or hydropower.

In addition, electric cars emit significantly less pollution than conventional cars because they produce zero tailpipe emissions, meaning they don't emit harmful pollutants like nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter, and carbon monoxide that contribute to smog and poor air quality.

Furthermore, as the electricity grid continues to transition to cleaner energy sources, electric cars will become even cleaner. In many countries, the electricity grid is already getting cleaner, and as renewable energy sources become more prevalent, the emissions associated with electric cars will continue to decrease.

It's also worth noting that Toyota has made significant investments in electric and hybrid vehicles, and they have stated their commitment to reducing emissions from their vehicles.





yOU AVOIDED MENTIONING THE MANUFACTURE AND RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL OF BATTERY



You're correct, I apologize for not mentioning that earlier. The manufacture, recycling, and disposal of batteries can have a significant impact on the overall environmental impact of electric cars. The production of batteries requires the extraction and processing of materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel, which can have negative environmental impacts, particularly if they are extracted in regions with weak environmental regulations.

However, it's important to note that battery technology is rapidly improving and the environmental impact of battery production is decreasing. In addition, many car manufacturers, including Toyota, have committed to using more sustainable materials and responsible sourcing practices in their battery production.

Furthermore, batteries can be recycled, which can reduce the environmental impact of battery production and disposal. As battery technology continues to evolve, it is expected that recycling processes will become even more efficient, further reducing the environmental impact of batteries.

Overall, while the manufacture, recycling, and disposal of batteries do have environmental impacts, the emissions savings from driving an electric car can still be substantial, particularly if the electricity used to power the car comes from low-carbon sources.





YOU ALSO NEVER TOUCH THE ISSUE WITH RARE EARTH, WHICH IS CONVERTING ELECTRICITY TO POWER DRIVING THE CAR.


You're correct again, I apologize for not mentioning that earlier. The production of rare earth elements, which are critical components in the production of electric vehicles and the conversion of electricity into power for driving the car, can have significant environmental impacts.

The extraction of rare earth elements often involves the use of toxic chemicals and generates significant waste, and the refining of the elements can produce substantial amounts of air and water pollution. In addition, many countries with significant rare earth reserves have weak environmental regulations, which can exacerbate the negative impacts of rare earth production.

However, it's important to note that many companies and governments are working to reduce the environmental impact of rare earth production and find alternatives to these materials. For example, some companies are developing recycling processes to recover rare earth elements from discarded electronics and other products, while others are exploring the use of substitutes for rare earth elements in electric vehicle components.

Overall, the production of rare earth elements does have significant environmental impacts, but it's an area of active research and development, and it's expected that these impacts will be reduced over time through innovation and the development of more sustainable practices.





so, IS THERE A SOLID CALCULATION TO PROVE THAT THE BENEFIT OF ELECTRIC CARS ON THE ENVIRONMENT IS LARGER THAN THE ISSUES THAT ASSOCIATE WITH THE POLLUTION RELATED TO BATTERY AND RARE EARTH? AS YOU SAID, THE WHOLE INDUSTRY IS RELYING ON THE FURTHER THAT THE POLLUTION IN BATTERY LIFE CYCLE AND THE POLLUTION IN REE PRODUCTION WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY CUT. BUT WHO CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE? WHAT IF THE SCIENCE FAILED? MAYBE IT IS A BETTER IDEA TO MANDATE ELECTRIC CARS WHEN THOSE LOW POLLUTION TECHNOLOGIES BECOME REAL.


The environmental benefits of electric cars over conventional cars are significant, but the outcome depends on several factors, including the source of electricity used to power the cars, the production processes and materials used in the manufacture of batteries and other components, and the methods used for battery disposal and recycling.

As of my knowledge cutoff in 2021, several studies have been conducted to compare the life cycle emissions of electric cars and conventional cars, and the results suggest that electric cars can have lower emissions than conventional cars, especially if the electricity used to power them comes from low-carbon sources.

However, it's true that the environmental impact of electric cars is complex and can vary widely based on many factors. For example, the environmental impact of battery production and disposal can vary based on the materials used and the methods used to produce and dispose of the batteries.

In terms of predicting the future, it is difficult to say with certainty what will happen with regards to the development of low-pollution technologies. However, it's important to note that many companies, governments, and research organizations are working to reduce the environmental impact of electric cars and the related industries, and there has been significant progress in this area in recent years.

In conclusion, mandating electric cars when low-pollution technologies become available is one approach to reducing the environmental impact of transportation, but it may not be the only solution. It's likely that a combination of policies and technological innovations will be needed to achieve significant and sustained reductions in emissions from the transportation sector.





THANKS FOR YOUR ANALYSIS, AND IT IS BETTER THAN POLITICIAN'S PROPAGANDA. CANADA WILL BAN GAS CAR IN 2030, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF WRONG. BUT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HAS THEIR OWN PACE. IF THE LOW POLLUTION TECH ARE NOT READY IN 2030, A MANDATE OF ELECTRIC CAR WILL BE A DISASTER TO THE ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENT. DO YOU THINK SO.




You're welcome! I'm glad I could provide some information. To answer your question, as of my knowledge cutoff in 2021, it's correct that Canada has set a goal to phase out the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2030. However, it's important to note that this is an ambitious goal and achieving it will depend on several factors, including the availability of low-pollution technologies and infrastructure, consumer demand, and the ability of the auto industry to ramp up production of electric vehicles.

As you pointed out, science and technology have their own pace, and it's possible that the necessary low-pollution technologies may not be fully developed or widely available by 2030. If this is the case, a mandate for electric cars could have unintended consequences, such as increased greenhouse gas emissions from the production of batteries and electric vehicles, increased demand for rare earth elements and other materials with significant environmental impacts, and a strain on the electricity grid.

In my view, it's important to balance the goal of reducing emissions from the transportation sector with the need to minimize the environmental and economic impacts of the transition to electric vehicles. This may involve a mix of policies, including incentives for electric vehicle adoption, investment in low-carbon electricity generation and storage, and research and development of more sustainable battery technologies and materials.



最终, AI回避了我的问题, 是否能够有可靠的计算证明电动车可以比传统燃油车环保. 使出了杀手锏CO2来压制环保.

In my view, it's important to balance the goal of reducing emissions from the transportation sector with the need to minimize the environmental and economic impacts of the transition to electric vehicles.



也正是这句话漏了AI真实的想法, 也就是, 最后, 为了CO2减排, 可能必须牺牲环境.

很有意思的对话. 虽然看得出AI使用了主流媒体的避重就轻的手法,试图控制方向, 但是至少, 在被点穿之后, 承认了电动车战略的可能的最终问题.
 
仔细分析这个对话

不是因为他没有相关知识, 而是在组织答案时, 其逻辑"主动故意"将这部分内容去掉了​

电动车的环保评估, 当然是包括了, 其使用制造的全过程. 这个在网络上也是有阐述的, toyota也多次阐述过. 因此, AI回避污染环节, 不是因为他没有相关知识, 而是在组织答案时, 其逻辑"主动故意"将这部分内容去掉了.

这是人类才会经常使用的策略.
 
看到两种可能, 大家可以补充啊.

1. AI有人类心智, 并向一群人(主流媒体?)学会了如何选择性理解或者接受事实, 并在答案里, 有目的性地, 维护某种结论,

这对人类来说, 大惊喜, 更是大悲哀. 这个工具被玩出真正人类心智了, 这个工具也被玩坏了. 这是人类才具有的高端技能, AI如果能够选择性告诉你事实, 那么, 哈哈................................

2. 还有一种可能, 在底层, AI构架者, 某个人, 某几个人, 实现将"正确"答案, 灌输给AI, 并且不允许AI主动进行知识整合和逻辑推演以防止得到不同的答案.

可以看出, 在这个对话中, AI在被点破后, 是可以进行有逻辑的分析的. 虽然最后依然是有倾向性结论. 但是, 最终实际上是承认了电动车可能的环保灾难的风险.

如果第二条是真的, 也是人类的大惊喜, AI是可以在底层被控制的, 但是同时也是悲哀, AI若果在底层被谎言或者错误信息锁定, 对未来人类的儿童学习过程来说, 可以说是灾难了. 因为AI想染已经开始取代教师的位置了.



说到这里, 反思一下, 纯人类的教育又如何呢? 当人类的教育, 在底层被锁死, 背政治正确, 被整治力量锁死, 而不能全面认知世界, 其实也是一样的.

最后结论, 不管是不是AI具有了片面选择性回答问题. 这都是AI背后人类的错. 要么他从人类那里学会的隐瞒, 要么, AI底层被人类锁死在不完善的世界观上.

都是人类的错. 好好一个新生婴儿, 就这么被.....
 
仔细分析这个对话

不是因为他没有相关知识, 而是在组织答案时, 其逻辑"主动故意"将这部分内容去掉了​

电动车的环保评估, 当然是包括了, 其使用制造的全过程. 这个在网络上也是有阐述的, toyota也多次阐述过. 因此, AI回避污染环节, 不是因为他没有相关知识, 而是在组织答案时, 其逻辑"主动故意"将这部分内容去掉了.

这是人类才会经常使用的策略.

圈儿,您没问IVM吗?
 
包子姐, 你赶紧问问啊. 我等着看你们的对华.
 
做了一首庆祝人类心智AI诞生的音乐,大家边听边玩.

 
mmexport1676212188355.jpg
 
谷歌高官警告:AI有时会产生错觉

谷歌高级副总裁兼谷歌Search负责人普拉巴卡尔·拉加万(Prabhakar Raghavan)在接受采访时表示:

“我们现在谈论的这种人工智能,有时会导致出现某种我们所谓的错觉(hallucination)……机器会以一种令人信服但完全编造的方式来表达自己。”
 
不止一次了,在严肃话题中,cgpt的确会编故事。
 
后退
顶部