Playing with the AI stuff for coins again, this time with ChatGPT

ElmerFusterpuck

I asked it the coin question below, it actually gave me a not too awful response. It doesn't mention the chain reverse and there are a couple of grammatical errors. What do you think about this "intelligence"? Can it become a grader eventually?

Q: Can you explain and give me a background of only the first large cents struck at the US mint in 300 words or less?

A: In the late 1700s, the United States government first began minting coins, including the first cents, which were made of copper. The first cents were large, around the size of a modern half dollar, and featured the image of Lady Liberty on one side and a wreath on the other. These coins, known as Flowing Hair cents, were produced by the United States Mint starting in 1793. The coin design was created by Henry Voigt, the first Chief Engraver of the United States Mint. The Flowing Hair cent was minted for only one year, 1793, and due to the high cost of production, it was soon replaced by the Liberty Cap cent.

The Flowing Hair cent has a relatively small mintage and is considered a rarity today among collectors. In 1793, around 36,103 Flowing Hair cents were minted. Although the Flowing Hair cent was short-lived, it was an important step in the development of American coinage. These large cents were used to introduce small denomination coinage to the American economy and was an important step in the establishment of the United States Mint. It's also notable that these large cents was the first coin minted by the US government at their own facility after they gain the independence from the British.

The Flowing Hair cent was succeeded by the Liberty Cap cent which was produced from 1793 to 1796. The coin featured a portrait of a liberty with a cap on a pole on the obverse and the denomination "ONE CENT" on the reverse. The coin was larger in size compared to the Flowing Hair cent but smaller than the Flowing Hair. The Liberty Cap design continued to be used on cent coinage until 1796 and also was relatively rare and is sought after by collectors.

In summary, the first large cents struck at the US Mint were the Flowing Hair cents. These coins were produced in 1793, featured the image of Lady Liberty on one side and a wreath on the other. Due to high production cost, it was only produced for one year and considered a rarity among collectors today. The Flowing Hair cent was replaced by the Liberty Cap cent which was produced from 1793 to 1796, although it's also a relatively rare coin.

messydesk

@ElmerFusterpuck said:
I asked it the coin question below, it actually gave me a not too awful response. It doesn't mention the chain reverse and there are a couple of grammatical errors. What do you think about this "intelligence"? Can it become a grader eventually?

Perhaps an auction lot cataloger.

ricko

AI is the future for many, many applications. My belief has been that AI will eventually become the grading process. Of course, that will force the development of standards. Cheers, RickO

johnny010

I agree
In one of my industries they are loading millions of pictures and the subsequent outcome and teaching the computer. So far initial results are accurate 95% of the time.

I can see this with coin grading
Millions and millions of images against the current actual coin scores and now we can all get our coins back in a week. Careful what you wish for.

JohnF

I think the response was incredible.

SIowhand

AI is getting quite good. In fact, I’d be willing to bet a few of you have had a conversation with a customer service rep and didn’t realize you weren’t speaking with a human.

LanceNewmanOCC

@SIowhand said:
AI is getting quite good. In fact, I’d be willing to bet a few of you have had a conversation with a customer service rep and didn’t realize you weren’t speaking with a human.

i'm pretty sure a LOT of youtubers are using a more sophisticated version(s) for the dialog for their vids as i recognize a few different ones across many different videos and channels.

i haven't chatted with CS on the phone in quite a while, i'm a pretty big fan of the chat windows although i think once the "conversation" begins, they are people based on some rather specific responses but if at least once (or more) it turned out to be a bot, can't say i'd be completely surprised. (unfortunately)

what do the 8 billion people do when there are no more jobs? are caves still for rent...

edited to add:

love the op description of the early us mint and its large cent coinage. enough specifics without putting the unfamiliar into a daze.

BStrauss3

So anyone figure out where that response was stolen from?

dsessom

@BStrauss3 said:
So anyone figure out where that response was stolen from?

A quick Google search shows that this forum is the only place where this exact test shows up in its entirety. I don't think the AI stole it from anywhere (not plagiarized anyway).

jmlanzaf

@BStrauss3 said:
So anyone figure out where that response was stolen from?

AIs do not plagiarize. Those are search engines. The AI takes the search results and synthesizes it. The better ones do it so well they fool instructors and they do not get flagged by plagiarism checking software.

Take a random sentence and search for it. I bet you won't find it.

BStrauss3

All of the content used to train the engine was scraped from the web, usually without permission...

jmlanzaf

@BStrauss3 said:
All of the content used to train the engine was scraped from the web, usually without permission...

All of the content in anything ever written was scraped from somewhere. The AIs do write term papers with citations. And humans on these boards don't cite the source for every factoid.

BStrauss3

Speak for your self. If I have to research an answer, I always note sources.

ElmerFusterpuck

It's a huge stretch to call this particular instance of AI 'stealing'. Info for early large cents is pretty much available everywhere out there and the wording is pretty generic. Though the answer was pretty good, the style of writing for the answer is cringe worthy in spots.

Now if it's very narrow research on a particular new die variety containing close-up photos that gets grabbed, that's another story altogether.

jmlanzaf

@BStrauss3 said:
Speak for your self. If I have to research an answer, I always note sources.

I didn't mention you. But i rarely see anyone, for example, cite the source for a coin mintage. Even things like varieties don't usually have explicit sources mentioned. If someone mentions that the S VDB cent is the key to the series, do they cite a source.

I'm not sure there's any information in that AI response that requires citation as it is all pretty generic.

lilolme

Perhaps I am expecting to much but I think the AI response is okay at best. Some items I noted.

As the OP noted the chain cent was not mentioned. The AI states that the first cents had a wreath on the other side.

The AI states 'about the size of a modern half dollar' is okay but better would be to state slightly smaller (more but maybe to much detail would be the diameter range).

The AI states:
"The Flowing Hair cent was minted for only one year, 1793, and due to the high cost of production, it was soon replaced by the Liberty Cap cent."

My quick review did not find this. If true, then it should perhaps state how the change to Liberty Cap cent reduced production cost. The information I found stated that the design was changed due to a continued public dislike of the design (and then some information on new designer).

The AI states:
"In 1793, around 36,103 Flowing Hair cents were minted."

The Redbook indicates that the Flowing Hair Chain cent had a mintage of 36,103 and the Flowing Hair wreath cent had a mintage of 63,353.

The AI states when discussing the change to Liberty Cap:
"The coin was larger in size compared to the Flowing Hair cent but smaller than the Flowing Hair."

I believe this mangled wording might be referencing the change or increase in diameter in the Liberty Cap cent. Then later in the production the change or reduction in the weight of the Large cent. If so, then certainly this could have been stated better and probably worth mentioning.

Perhaps the AI could have noted that there were numerous smaller variety changes but I suspect that is an invitation to more confusion and/or misinformation.

Conclusion from this single example - anything the AI writes if I don't know it for fact, then I would want to go and review to confirm. But it is a decent start.

Dentuck

Factual errors . . . repetitive in places . . . with awkward construction . . . does not pass muster . . . DOES . . . NOT . . . PASS . . . MUSTER