Let’s emphasize reliability --heck, at least to some degree
of reasonablity. The long outputs of “AI” --how so : does
anyone recognize the format of the output (as being, say,
a ChatGPT resemblance?)-- in recent cases are just loads
of grot.
cf. Help identifying this rope. - #12 by Dan_Lehman
I did the old-fashioned real work of searching
for info about the so-called “man rope” & m.r. knot
(including books now viewable here courtesy of Richard
Hopkins et al.) and found not a hint of all the nonsense
that has been posted. And, egadz, much of it should be
pretty perspicuous to even a not knot-savvy reader!
Now, whatever AI that was --again, anyone got a guess?–
it certainly wasn’t a help. Frankly, given that I’m familiar
with much of knotting literature, I can’t imagine what
sources could AI-produce such statements!
(Whereas, e.g., I can guess a cause-&-effect when I
read G.Budworth in one of his hundred books write
“the Dbl.BWL is stronger, at about 70%, than the
single BWL” and later read other authors (no less
than Philippe Petit!) regurgitate that comically as
“The Dbl. BWL is 70% stronger than the single BWL”
..–and not caring to think that 70% stronger than
around 66% is . . . stronger than the rope : 112% !! (-;
And there is much of this, esp. in general-knots books.
(The “Stevefore knot” used by actual stevedores? NO,
as CLDay’ AKS noted ; but the presumption is parroted
all over.
)
Now, AI can --sadly-- accelerate the parroting of grot,
and bring the ability to more people to do more often.
Truth won’t have even chosen what shoes to race in
when the grot is already twice around the world in all directions!
–dl*
/====