The great ai v ai

Upping the ante on my quest to better understand the ai phenomena which was given a real push along by the openai chatGPT phenomena and which has now spawned literally hundreds if not millions of Large Language models (LLMs), I have started to experiment with ai agents.

I am very early into a tutorial about how to use the autogen coding library and the python coding language, which learning is heavily assisted by my own private coding co-piloting who helps me understand the many new concepts coming at me. I am up to a place in this tutorial explaining how to get 2 ai agents chatting to one another.

To be clear about what this means. A chat between two ai agents is in fact two software agents, each accessing the knowledge of an LLM like chatGPT. The LLM accessed by the agents acting as their knowledge base. In my case the LLM is the very recently released Meta Llama3 model, that sits on a web-based platform called Groq, a company I am sure we will be hearing a lot more about in the not to distant future.

I can set up a circumstance where these agents will independently communicate with each other - while I sit back and watch on. My tutorial coded a situation of a student asking a math teacher about a complicated math concept.

What I did with that example was to change the set up and initiate a chat between two experts about climate change. an overview of the set up being:

Advocate, As a climate change advocate it is imperative that you convince as many people as possible using only provable science that the world is entering a dangerous period of climate evolution that can be slowed by man.

Sceptic, As a sceptic about man’s ability to have any significant impact on climate change you want to convince world leaders that we are wasting time, energy and costs that is doing more harm than good trying to halt climate change.

I limited the discussion to 3 turns each and sat back. The first turn for each is below.

climate change advocate (to climate change sceptic):

I understand your scepticism, but I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that reducing human impact on climate change will have little to no effect. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are significantly contributing to the increase in global temperatures and associated climate change impacts.

Here are some key points to consider:

1. Temperature records: The past decade (2010-2019) was the warmest on record, with the last five years being the five warmest years globally. This trend is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including thermometer readings, melting glaciers, and shifts in the timing of seasonal events (e.g., earlier springs and later autumns).

2. Greenhouse gas emissions: The concentration of CO2, a potent greenhouse gas, has increased by about 40% since the Industrial Revolution, primarily due to fossil fuel burning and land use changes. This increase is largely responsible for the observed warming trend.

3. Climate models: Complex climate models, which are based on the laws of physics and validated by observations, consistently project that the Earth's temperature will continue to rise if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase. These models have been validated by their ability to reproduce the observed warming trend over the past century.

4. Impacts of climate change: The consequences of climate change are far-reaching and devastating, including more frequent and severe heatwaves, droughts, and storms, as well as sea-level rise, ocean acidification, and disruptions to ecosystems and biodiversity.

Now, I understand that you might be thinking, "But even if we reduce our emissions, won't China and India just continue to pollute and negate our efforts?" While it's true that global cooperation is essential, it's essential to recognize that:

1. Cumulative emissions matter: The total amount of CO2 emissions, not just the rate of emissions, determines the total amount of warming. Reducing emissions now will slow the rate of warming, even if others don't follow suit.

2. Leadership and diplomacy: By taking bold action, we can set an example for other nations and encourage them to follow suit. International agreements, like the Paris Agreement, provide a framework for cooperation and collective action.

3. Economic benefits: Transitioning to a low-carbon economy can create jobs, stimulate innovation, and improve energy security. In fact, the cost of renewable energy has decreased dramatically in recent years, making it more competitive with fossil fuels.

In conclusion, while it's true that individual actions might seem insignificant in the grand scheme, collective action can lead to significant positive change. By working together, we can reduce our carbon footprint, invest in clean energy, and create a more sustainable future. The science is clear: human activities are driving climate change, and reducing our emissions can slow its pace. It's time to take action and work together to mitigate this global crisis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

climate change sceptic (to climate change advocate):

I understand your perspective, but I still believe that we're overestimating our ability to control the climate. Let me counter with some points:

1. Climate variability: The Earth's climate has always gone through cycles of warming and cooling, long before human industrialization. We're not considering the natural fluctuations that have occurred throughout history.

2. Uncertainty in climate models: While climate models are based on physical laws, they're also subject to uncertainties, simplifications, and assumptions. They're not perfect, and their predictions are often exaggerated.

3. Overemphasis on CO2: CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, and its impact is often overstated. Water vapor, methane, and other gases play significant roles in the Earth's energy balance.

4. Economic costs: The cost of transitioning to a low-carbon economy is staggering, and the benefits are uncertain. We're diverting resources from pressing issues like poverty, education, and healthcare to combat a problem that might not be as severe as predicted.

5. Adaptation over mitigation: Instead of trying to control the climate, we should focus on adapting to its changes. This approach acknowledges that some level of climate change is inevitable and prepares us for its consequences.

6. Inefficient solutions: Many proposed solutions, such as carbon capture and storage, are expensive, inefficient, and often unproven. We're wasting resources on untested technologies instead of investing in proven, cost-effective solutions.

7. Global cooperation is a myth: International agreements are often toothless and unenforceable. We can't rely on other nations to follow our lead, and even if they do, it won't make a significant difference.

8. Climate change is not the only environmental issue: We're neglecting other pressing environmental concerns, such as deforestation, pollution, and biodiversity loss, in our singular focus on climate change.

In conclusion, while I acknowledge the importance of environmental stewardship, I believe we're misallocating resources and attention to a problem that might not be as solvable as we think. We should reassess our priorities and focus on more pressing, tangible issues that can be addressed with greater certainty and effectiveness.

and it continued...............................

Not only can I see a great little website idea evolve out of this line of thought where anyone interested in any subject could just set up the two expert debater’s, the proposition that they debate and then the first expert question and then let it go....

I can also see a circumstance where if we were to add to the LLM knowledge base the private inhouse knowledge base about a company - done thru a RAG process to give a couple of ai finacial experts knowledge about a company's products, marketplace, goals & company financials etc ... we could ask the experts to debate and then summarise for us the pros and cons of a pending business decision. A couple of extra seats around the management table maybe?

?