On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 09:03 AM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

Of course, this "AI" is capable of learning (i.e. adding to its knowledge base and its inferences).
So having read, say, annotated criticisms of its own output, it can make further investigations and
refine what it 'knows'. It should also be able to "footnote" every inference that it makes by walking
back the inputs that got it there. So it should be "self-correcting" as long as its output has referees;
which is not that much different from how we learn stuff -- and go way off track, when we have no
referee. :-)

I read it on the Internet, so it must be true :-) And therein lies the problem of web based knowledge; the incorrect blather grows exponentially while the actual source data remains constant so eventually the AI bots will be quoting each other as authoritative sources :-(

Dennis Storzek

ChatGPT is a proof-of-concept system, it a commercial or public
offering on which anyone can rely, and the developers never have said
otherwise. It's a demo to gauge interest … of which there is a lot,
leading to a reported investment of Microsoft of up to $10 billion.
When commercial versions arrive that use curated, factual sources,
look out.
I've been writing patents covering this stuff for four years. It works
given the right training corpus.
Chris
Links:
------
[1] https://RealSTMFC.groups.io/g/main/message/198672
[2] https://groups.io/mt/96592982/645454
[3] https://RealSTMFC.groups.io/g/main/post
[4] https://RealSTMFC.groups.io/g/main/editsub/645454
[5] https://RealSTMFC.groups.io/g/main/leave/11334620/645454/765963421/xyzzy

On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 02:00 PM, Robert kirkham wrote:

That said, i’m fascinated by how much useful information the App has been able to provide.

The problem is, you have no idea if the information is correct.

Dennis Storzek

lol, great to have had the feedback.  Thank you all.  I too was doubtful about the information, and even more so some of the opinions.  

That said, i’m fascinated by how much useful information the App has been able to provide.  I was thinking about the first 2 minutes of a clinic, where big picture information providing context for the talk is commonly provided.  Sometimes that can take a fair amount of time to find out “when was that line built”, or where did it start or end.    I’m thinking this kind of app is going to make some of the stuff a fair bit easier to bring together, so long as one is careful to varify.

rob

On Jan 28, 2023, at 11:55 AM, Tony Thompson <tony@...> wrote:

Ken Montero wrote:

One statement that the author made probably is incorrect on its face. The author stated that "It featured two layers of wooden planks, with an insulating layer of cork or sawdust in between. This made the car more resistant to weathering and wear and tear, and it was able to carry heavier loads."
The double sheathed boxcar was a 40 ton car, whereas the single sheathed car was a 50 ton car.

Ken is right about this description of the USRA double-sheathed car; it most certainly did NOT have an insulating layer.

I would also disagree with the statement that the double-sheathed car was “more successful.” The USRA single-sheathed car opened the eyes of many railroad chief mechanical engineers, and the day of the double-sheathed box car was ending. By 1925, very few were being built, to the USRA design or any other design. OTOH, it is true that many railroads re-roofed their USRA single-sheathed cars, as the roof chosen turned out not to be the best design.

Tony Thompson
tony@...

On 01/28/2023 1:55 PM Robert kirkham <rdkirkham@...> wrote:


I was listening to a podcast this morning, and the speaker mentioned the fun he was having playing with the search function on openai.com. So, i signed up, and started typing search terms. Thought i’d copy and paste some here - with the goal of asking the most knowledgeable “How solid is the information provided by the app?” (I’m not presuming to test it; just having fun.)

I am not sure what the facts are from an industry point of view re the longevity/performance of the double versus single sheathed boxcar designs. But I’m not sure i “buy” the answers this app is providing. So - thought i’d ask some people who have thought about those questions.

I realize this could be a can of worms, so suggest we keep the conversation focused on “what do we think about the USRA boxcars” and topics related to freight cars.

Rob


Q. explain why the USRA (United States Railway Administration) ceased operation
A.The United States Railway Administration (USRA) was a government agency established during World War I to take control of the country's railroads and coordinate their operations in order to support the war effort. The agency was in operation from 1918 to 1920. After the war ended, the USRA was disbanded and the railroads were returned to their private owners. The USRA was dissolved because its purpose of coordinating the railroads during the war was no longer necessary, and the government no longer saw a need for its existence. Additionally, many of the temporary wartime measures put in place by the USRA were seen as unnecessary and burdensome by the private railroad companies, so they lobbied for the agency's dissolution.

Q. explain the political forces at work that were instrumental in the USRA (United States Railway Administration) ceasing to operate after World War One.
A. There were several political forces at work that led to the dissolution of the United States Railway Administration (USRA) after World War I. One of the main factors was the belief among many government officials and private railroad companies that the USRA's temporary wartime measures were no longer necessary and were burdensome to the railroads. Many private railroad companies had been opposed to the government's takeover of their operations during the war, and they lobbied for the return of their companies to private ownership after the war ended.
Another factor was the changing political climate of the time. After World War I, there was a shift in the United States towards a more conservative, pro-business attitude, and many government officials saw the USRA as an unnecessary government intervention in the private economy. The Republican Party which was in power during the immediate post-war period and favored laissez-faire economic policies, which opposed government interference in the economy and advocated for the return of the railroads to private ownership.
Additionally, the government had invested significant resources into the USRA during the war, and it saw little justification for continuing to fund the agency in the post-war period. The USRA was dissolved as it was seen as an unnecessary expense for the government.

Q. over their service lives, which of the two designs of boxcar developed by the United States Railway administration proved the most successful, the single sheathed boxcar or the double sheathed boxcar?
A. During its service life, the United States Railway Administration (USRA) developed two designs of boxcar: the single sheathed boxcar and the double sheathed boxcar. The double sheathed boxcar design was considered to be more successful than the single sheathed design.
The double sheathed boxcar was designed to be stronger and more durable than the single sheathed design. It featured two layers of wooden planks, with an insulating layer of cork or sawdust in between. This made the car more resistant to weathering and wear and tear, and it was able to carry heavier loads.
The double sheathed boxcar also had a larger capacity than the single sheathed design and could carry more goods, making it more efficient for transporting goods. Additionally, the double sheathed boxcar design was easier to maintain, with fewer repairs needed over time, which led to less maintenance cost.
The single sheathed boxcar, while cheaper to produce, was less durable and less efficient than the double sheathed design. It was also less resistant to weather and wear and tear, and had a smaller capacity.
Overall, the double sheathed boxcar design proved to be more successful and efficient over their service life than the single sheathed design. It was adopted by many railroads after the USRA was dissolved, and it remained in use for many decades.

Q.While the double sheathed boxcar designed by the United States Railway Administration was considered more successful than the single sheathed design, was there a difference of views, with, for example, western railroads holding a different perspective from eastern railroads?
A. It is possible that there were differences of views among different regions or railroads regarding the double sheathed boxcar and single sheathed boxcar designs developed by the United States Railway Administration (USRA). It's likely that the western railroads and eastern railroads had different needs and priorities that influenced their opinions of the two designs.
Western railroads, for example, might have had different transportation needs than eastern railroads. The western railroads may have had to deal with longer distances, harsher weather conditions, and rougher terrain, which could have made the double sheathed boxcar design more appealing to them because of its durability and resistance to weathering.
Eastern railroads, on the other hand, may have had different needs, such as shorter distances, milder weather conditions, and flatter terrain. They may have found the single sheathed boxcar design more appealing because of its lower cost.
It's also possible that some railroads were more focused on cost and others on capacity, which would influence their preference between the two designs.
However, it is hard to say for sure without more detailed information about the specific opinions and preferences of individual railroads during the time period. It's also worth mentioning that the USRA boxcars were built during the WW1 and were intended for war-time needs and were not meant to be a long-term solution for the railroads, so the preferences of the railroads may have been different.

Q.While the single sheathed boxcar designed by the United States Railway Administration was, over the long run, considered more successful than the double sheathed design, at what point in the operational history of the boxcars was it clear the single sheathed design would survive longer in service?
A. I apologize for any confusion, but in my previous response, I stated that over their service lives, the double sheathed boxcar design developed by the United States Railway Administration (USRA) was considered more successful than the single sheathed design.
It is likely that the superiority of the double sheathed boxcar design over the single sheathed design was apparent relatively early in their operational history. This would be because the double sheathed boxcar design was stronger, more durable, and more resistant to weathering and wear and tear, which would have become clear during testing and early use. Its larger capacity and ease of maintenance would have also been obvious advantages over the single sheathed design.
It's worth mentioning that the USRA boxcars were built during the WW1 and were intended for war-time needs and were not meant to be a long-term solution for the railroads, so the railroads may have had to replace them with newer boxcars as soon as possible.
It's also possible that individual railroads had different opinions and preferences regarding the two designs, based on their specific needs and circumstances. However, overall, the double sheathed boxcar design was considered the more successful of the two.