.223 for bear, mountain goat, deer, elk, and moose.

[mwoolsey5]

**** chat gpt. Stop using AI bullshit for stuff like this.

Genuinely asking—what specifically do you think is wrong with using AI for a thought experiment like this?

I completely understand the difference between estimated numbers and real pressure-tested data. If someone presented those velocities as fact, I’d be skeptical too. But this was clearly a speculative discussion about what a hypothetical .223 +Peak might look like.

I’ve actually used AI quite a bit when exploring handload ideas, and when I compare its predictions to published data or loads I’ve tested myself, it’s generally been surprisingly close. Not perfect, obviously, but often close enough to be useful for discussion.

So I’m curious—do you disagree with the concept of using AI at all, or do you think the specific velocity estimates are unrealistic? If it’s the latter, what numbers would you expect instead?

 

[TBoschma]

Was just looking at those... whats the accuracy and extraction like with those?

accuracy is decent seems to be able to group just at a inch. Ill have to do a legit 20 shot group and post it here.

 

[Plague]

Genuinely asking—what specifically do you think is wrong with using AI for a thought experiment like this?

I completely understand the difference between estimated numbers and real pressure-tested data. If someone presented those velocities as fact, I’d be skeptical too. But this was clearly a speculative discussion about what a hypothetical .223 +Peak might look like.

I’ve actually used AI quite a bit when exploring handload ideas, and when I compare its predictions to published data or loads I’ve tested myself, it’s generally been surprisingly close. Not perfect, obviously, but often close enough to be useful for discussion.

So I’m curious—do you disagree with the concept of using AI at all, or do you think the specific velocity estimates are unrealistic? If it’s the latter, what numbers would you expect instead?

I have an issue with ai as a whole. Do you honestly need the downsides pointed out to you? Are you too lazy to do that for yourself as well?

 

[mwoolsey5]

I have an issue with ai as a whole. Do you honestly need the downsides pointed out to you? Are you too lazy to do that for yourself as well?

We may just have to agree to disagree on AI as a whole.

From my perspective, AI is rapidly becoming another incredibly valuable tool available to us. I don’t see a good reason to ignore a potentially useful resource for a hobby we’re all passionate about, as long as its limitations are understood.

The irony is that shooters already rely on predictive tools all the time. Ballistic solvers, Kestrels, Applied Ballistics, QuickLOAD, GRT, WEZ analysis, and trajectory calculators are all models used to estimate outcomes based on inputs and assumptions.

I completely agree that AI is only as good as the data and assumptions behind it. But dismissing it outright doesn’t make much sense to me and my experience with it so far have all been positive and accurate.

That said, I’d appreciate it if we could keep the discussion focused on the topic rather than personal attacks. I posted this as a fun thought experiment and to learn from others perspectives, even if we disagree.

 

[Thegman]

I have an issue with ai as a whole. Do you honestly need the downsides pointed out to you? Are you too lazy to do that for yourself as well?

Well, if so, he could always ask AI...

 

[fwafwow]

We may just have to agree to disagree on AI as a whole.

From my perspective, AI is rapidly becoming another incredibly valuable tool available to us. I don’t see a good reason to ignore a potentially useful resource for a hobby we’re all passionate about, as long as its limitations are understood.

The irony is that shooters already rely on predictive tools all the time. Ballistic solvers, Kestrels, Applied Ballistics, QuickLOAD, GRT, WEZ analysis, and trajectory calculators are all models used to estimate outcomes based on inputs and assumptions.

I completely agree that AI is only as good as the data and assumptions behind it. But dismissing it outright doesn’t make much sense to me and my experience with it so far have all been positive and accurate.

That said, I’d appreciate it if we could keep the discussion focused on the topic rather than personal attacks. I posted this as a fun thought experiment and to learn from others perspectives, even if we disagree.

Sorry to belabor the tangent, but I agree. To say "AI is good" or "AI is bad" is an overstatement in both cases. I have been using it extensively on some personal projects and the key IMHO is to be aware of the limitations, and be vigilant in knowing that new limitations can crop up. Sometimes the problem isn't just AI, it's that using AI can put the user in a rabbit hole and if you don't realize it, AI isn't going to point that out. There are other examples. Maybe this tangent is best for a separate thread - perhaps "How are RS members using AI - pros and cons"?

 

[nm.otter]

I completely agree that AI is only as good as the data and assumptions behind it.

It's far worse than you've been led to believe