From: none@none.com99   
      
   Let me first jump to the fact that correlation does not mean causation.   
   Correlation can be an indicator, but correlation itself does not prove a   
   relationship.  That would be like claiming linear contemporaneous   
   forward travel in time at the normally accepted rate causes a population   
   explosion in humans.   
      
   Over that last 15+ years I have noticed a reduction in the amount and   
   proliferation of a type of reed on the river we locally just call pencil   
   tulies.   
      
   Some time back 25+ (noticed in 1999) years ago we started having a   
   problem with a with an invasive species call giant salvinia.  A weevil   
   was introduced (2001) to combat giant salvinia, and it appears to be   
   doing a good job.   
      
   I generally started noticing the reduction in pencil tulies around 2010.   
     I'm not sure when it started, but I thought it might be a year to year   
   variation, but every year since there has been less and less.   
      
   I asked Google search if the weevil was having an affect on any   
   vegetation other than salvinia, and it was an emphatic, no.   
      
   After asking many questions each one framed to contain the previous   
   question and ask for more specific results.  The AI's last (useful)   
   response was speculation that it was caused by reduced water levels and   
   poor water quality due to human causes.  (generally)  The water quality   
   has generally not changed in the lower Colorado River.  In the lower   
   river the water level fluctuates constantly due to farm demand.  It is   
   not controlled (except during massive floods) by available water, some   
   areas fluctuate very little, and due to very controlled management one   
   lake doesn't fluctuate more than an inch or two, and then only during   
   extreme weather or during the rare repairs of facilities.   
      
   Now I realize there may be a number of political issues wrapped up in   
   both my questions and the subject matter at large, but my questions were   
   very carefully nonpolitical asking only about cause and affect in the   
   ecosystem.   
      
   More answers from AI just stomped its feet and said salvinia weevils   
   didn't affect native species.  Then I caught the nuance.  Maybe the   
   reeds or pencil tulies are not a native species.   
      
   I decided to see if I could determine if it was a native plant.  I tried   
   to determine if the AI could give me an answer, and simply trying to get   
   an answer is difficult.  It kept giving me wrong or misleading answers.   
      
   While I have no definitive proof, I am lead to be believe that when the   
   initial responses wanted proof and clarification the AI was deliberately   
   evading the question.   
      
   Now two things.  My original thought that the salvinia weevil might be   
   attacking other plants as its primary food source is gobbled up, and   
   that one followed the other is not in itself any sort of proof.  Just a   
   hypothesis, and correlation does not mean causation.   
      
   Second is that I have a healthy anti AI bias.  I do use results, but I   
   try to always look at the sources.  This I believe is a healthy bias   
   based on direct observation.  Not just prejudice.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Bob La Londe   
   CNC Molds N Stuff   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)