An exchange with ChatGPT this morning

[Beesnaturally]

You (me): How can the breeding methods of traditional husbandry be used to raise strains of varroa-resistant bees?


ChatGPT
Given your interests in bee breeding and ecology, it's fascinating that you're looking into varroa-resistant bee strains. Traditional husbandry methods can indeed be applied to achieve this goal. Selective breeding is a key approach. You might consider:

1. Selective Breeding for Traits: Identify bees that show natural resistance to varroa mites. Over successive generations, selectively breed from those colonies that exhibit resistance traits. This involves choosing the best-performing colonies for reproduction.
2. Artificial Selection: If you have identified specific traits associated with varroa resistance, you can artificially select and breed bees with those traits. This could involve controlled mating or using instrumental insemination to ensure specific genetic traits are passed on.
3. Crossbreeding: Introduce genetic diversity by crossbreeding with strains known for varroa resistance. This can enhance the overall resistance of your bee population.
4. Monitoring and Evaluation: Regularly monitor and evaluate your colonies for varroa resistance. This involves assessing not only the resistance of individual bees but also the overall health and productivity of the colony.

Considering your interests in evolution and natural selection, applying these principles to bee breeding aligns well with your background. Have you already started implementing any of these strategies in your beekeeping practices, or do you have specific questions about the application of these methods?

You
I've been running a 'live and let die' operation for over 10 years. Have you heard of 'live and let die'?


ChatGPT
Could you elaborate on what exactly your "live and let die" operation entails in the context of beekeeping? Are you emphasizing a more natural selection process, allowing the colonies to adapt and evolve with minimal interference, or is there a specific strategy you follow in managing your bee colonies over the years?

You
broadly yes. Note colonies can't adapt, only populations


ChatGPT
Thank you for the clarification. You're absolutely right; it's the populations that evolve through mechanisms like natural selection. Allowing colonies to undergo natural processes with minimal intervention can be beneficial for fostering traits that contribute to varroa resistance.
By letting colonies face challenges like varroa mites and observing the outcomes, you're essentially allowing the selection of traits that enhance survival and resistance within the population over time. It's a fascinating approach that aligns with the principles of natural selection.
Are there specific traits or characteristics you've observed in your bee populations that seem to indicate increased resilience or resistance to varroa mites? Additionally, have you faced any particular challenges or successes with this "live and let die" approach in your beekeeping operation over the past decade?

You
feral bees develop resistance naturally, but systematic treatment by beekeepers . undermines that process. Explain why


ChatGPT
The development of resistance in feral bee populations to challenges like varroa mites is a natural outcome of the process of natural selection. In a feral or wild environment, colonies that possess traits providing resistance or tolerance to threats like varroa mites are more likely to survive and reproduce. Over time, these traits become more prevalent in the population.
However, systematic treatment by beekeepers can interfere with this natural process of evolution. Here are a few reasons why:

1. Artificial Selection Pressure: When beekeepers routinely treat colonies for varroa mites, they may unintentionally create an environment where only those colonies that are treated survive. This artificial selection pressure disrupts the natural process of allowing the fittest and most resistant colonies to thrive.
2. Reduced Selection for Resistance: By treating all colonies, regardless of their natural resistance, beekeepers might inadvertently eliminate the selective pressure that would favor naturally resistant traits. This can hinder the development of a varroa-resistant population.
3. Evolutionary Arms Race: Varroa mites, like many pests, can evolve and adapt to the treatments used by beekeepers. Continuous treatment without allowing natural selection to occur may contribute to the development of mite populations that are resistant to common treatments, making control even more challenging in the long run.
4. Genetic Diversity: Frequent treatments can also reduce genetic diversity within managed colonies. In a natural setting, genetic diversity helps populations adapt to changing conditions. Overreliance on treatments may limit the genetic diversity of the managed bee population.

It's a delicate balance for beekeepers to find ways to manage varroa mites while also allowing natural selection to operate and promote resistance. Strategies such as selective breeding, as we discussed earlier, can be a way to achieve this balance and enhance the natural resistance of bee populations over time. What are your thoughts on this delicate balance in beekeeping practices?

You
My main thought is that most beekeepers are sceptical even of the possibility of natural resistance, and interested mostly in maximising their returns.

ChatGPT
You raise a valid point, and it reflects a common challenge in commercial beekeeping. Many beekeepers prioritize maximizing honey production and overall hive health, which often leads to a reliance on treatments and management practices that ensure immediate gains.

The skepticism towards natural resistance could be influenced by the desire for quick and reliable solutions, especially in the face of threats like varroa mites. Additionally, there might be concerns about the potential economic losses associated with colonies that may not survive without treatments.

However, the long-term sustainability of beekeeping operations could benefit from a more balanced approach. While maximizing returns is crucial, there's growing recognition of the importance of fostering resilience within bee populations. This involves considering strategies that not only ensure short-term gains but also contribute to the development of colonies with inherent resistance to pests and diseases.

Educating beekeepers about the potential benefits of natural resistance, coupled with methods like selective breeding, can be crucial in shifting the mindset within the beekeeping community. It aligns with the broader understanding of sustainable and environmentally conscious practices, which is gaining traction across various agricultural sectors.

Have you encountered any specific challenges or successes in promoting the idea of natural resistance within the beekeeping community or in your own beekeeping operation?

Cont. in first reply below

 

[Beesnaturally]

You (MB, continuing)

I suspect that a lack of understanding of the processes of natural selection, and the complexity of the bee's population dynamics, together with the normalisation of treating, driven by advice from government bodies, the marketing of chemical solutions, and the tenacity of commercial beekeepers , combine to create a force that inhibits the acceptance of the real possibility of a more natural, and less damaging solution.

Your suspicion aligns with a common trend in the beekeeping community. The factors you mentioned—lack of understanding of natural selection processes, the complexity of bee population dynamics, and the normalization of treating—underscore the challenges in shifting practices towards more natural and sustainable approaches.

The influence of government advice, marketing of chemical solutions, and the economic pressures faced by commercial beekeepers can indeed create a powerful force maintaining the status quo. Overcoming these challenges may require a multi-faceted approach:

1. **Education and Awareness:** Providing comprehensive education on the principles of natural selection, the dynamics of bee populations, and the potential benefits of natural resistance is crucial. This can target beekeepers, government bodies, and other stakeholders in the beekeeping industry.

2. **Research and Evidence:** Supporting and disseminating scientific research that demonstrates the effectiveness and feasibility of natural resistance strategies can play a key role. This can build confidence among beekeepers by showcasing successful cases and dispelling misconceptions.

3. **Policy Advocacy:** Engaging with government bodies to reconsider and update guidelines or recommendations to reflect the potential advantages of natural resistance approaches. Encouraging policies that support sustainable and environmentally friendly beekeeping practices can be beneficial.

4. **Community Building:** Creating a community of beekeepers who share and promote sustainable practices can foster a supportive environment for those interested in exploring natural resistance methods.

5. **Economic Incentives:** Exploring ways to provide economic incentives for beekeepers who adopt and succeed with natural resistance strategies could help overcome financial barriers.

It's an intricate challenge that involves not only changing individual practices but also addressing systemic factors that contribute to the prevailing treatment-centric approach. Have you encountered or participated in any initiatives or discussions aimed at promoting the adoption of more natural and less damaging solutions within the beekeeping community?

 

[madasafish]

So treated bees don't develop resistance?

WRONG!

 

[Beesnaturally]

So treated bees don't develop resistance?

WRONG!

First: I'm talking about the general tendency, the general situation.

So: under what circumstances might treated bees develop resistance, and how would that work, what can you say about the mechanisms (in each circumstance)?

 

[JohnRB]

I write our association newsletter and just out of curiosity asked chatgpt to help write an article on queen rearing. The output looked initially good, but was actually factually incorrect in places. There have been several instances reported of ai generating fabricated content where it's knowledge is lacking. The tech is definitely not there yet, but has got noticeably better over the last year.

 

[Wilco]

You realise ChatGPT is a language model- it works based on predicting what the next most likely word will be. Basically it usually tells you what you want to hear with superficial detail and makes errors. For example that treating reduces genetic diversity which is logically impossible - treatment means more colonies survive which means more genetic diversity. Just like bringing in queens of favourable lines also brings in new genes, which increases genetic diversity not reducing it.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Ok, folks: why don't you take issue with something ChatGPT has said?

I have to say it all looks good to me.

 

[Beesnaturally]

You realise ChatGPT is a language model- it works based on predicting what the next most likely word will be. Basically it usually tells you what you want to hear with superficial detail and makes errors. For example that treating reduces genetic diversity which is logically impossible - treatment means more colonies survive which means more genetic diversity. Just like bringing in queens of favourable lines also brings in new genes, which increases genetic diversity not reducing it.

Your misunderstanding is sweet. Predictive text is a standard feature on all sorts of things. AI models don't use it (mine doesn't anyway), they simply wait for you to finish - spelling mistakes and all in my case - and then respond to the prompt as whole. As you can see in fact on the OP

It can make errors - in fact it warns you of that. So you have to get to know it, learn what sort of errors it makes, and check for them - and then do double checking.

What errors do you think Chat GDP has made on this occasion?

 

[Mint Bee]

You realise ChatGPT is a language model- it works based on predicting what the next most likely word will be. Basically it usually tells you what you want to hear with superficial detail and makes errors. For example that treating reduces genetic diversity which is logically impossible - treatment means more colonies survive which means more genetic diversity. Just like bringing in queens of favourable lines also brings in new genes, which increases genetic diversity not reducing it.

I think I'm block by the OP for previously calling him out on his science but everyone else can see this

 

[Erichalfbee]

I know we all have no bees to play with but can we please let the OP play quietly with ChatGPT

 

[abeille]

You realise ChatGPT is a language model- it works based on predicting what the next most likely word will be. Basically it usually tells you what you want to hear with superficial detail and makes errors. For example that treating reduces genetic diversity which is logically impossible - treatment means more colonies survive which means more genetic diversity. Just like bringing in queens of favourable lines also brings in new genes, which increases genetic diversity not reducing it.

That is not how ai works.
The "language based model" literally means it's inputs and outputs are language in the form of text.

 

[Beesnaturally]

You realise ChatGPT is [...] makes errors.

For example that treating reduces genetic diversity which is logically impossible - treatment means more colonies survive which means more genetic diversity. Just like bringing in queens of favourable lines also brings in new genes, which increases genetic diversity not reducing it.

Well, first if we accept that widespread treating suppresses the emergence of feral resistance, that would be one argument against that position. There will likely be more colonies in most places. However;

Second and more pertinent: increasing diversity is not always a good thing. To import unsuitable strains will massively increase diversity, but will weaken those that pick up their genes. Importing any strains with no or lower resistance to any pathogen will again increase diversity, but damage the next generation. Native populations (as pure as strains get) have lower diversity than native populations crossbred - and are generally stronger for it. They are perfectly adapted to their environment.

I'm curious to know what prompt would bring forth from GDP a statement to the effect; 'treating reduces genetic diversity'. I'm not saying I particularly disagree - it depends on other factors - by perhaps you'll share it with us?

 

[Beesnaturally]

I write our association newsletter and just out of curiosity asked chatgpt to help write an article on queen rearing. The output looked initially good, but was actually factually incorrect in places. There have been several instances reported of ai generating fabricated content where it's knowledge is lacking. The tech is definitely not there yet, but has got noticeably better over the last year.

I find it depends what you want to achieve. Its usually the case that a conversation with GPT will give me things to think about that I hadn't considered, supply new leads, variously strengthen and weaken items and the connections between then. Its more or less a sounding board. You don't have to take everything is says as gospel truth to get value from it.

The second part of the OP, posted as the first response is like that. I'd never really given a lot of thought to structured strategies that might actually change things. Its given me things to think about.

 

[Sutty]

Google "confirmation bias"

 

[Beesnaturally]

Google "confirmation bias"

I will if you will


Actually, lets do this instead:

(M) tell me about confirmation bias


ChatGPT
Confirmation bias is a cognitive bias that refers to the tendency of individuals to favor information that confirms their preexisting beliefs or values while ignoring or downplaying evidence that contradicts them. Given your background in philosophy, particularly in the philosophy of language, you might find confirmation bias interesting in the context of how language and communication can be influenced by our preconceived ideas.

You
Is there a common description for the idea that when you know about something, and you find something that matches your knowledge, that may be simply a measure of confirmation?


ChatGPT
Yes, what you're describing is often referred to as "confirmation" or "verification." In the context of information or knowledge, it relates to the tendency to recognize, seek, or give importance to information that aligns with what one already knows or believes. This can sometimes lead to a reinforcing loop where existing knowledge is validated, but potentially overlooking or dismissing information that challenges those preexisting beliefs.

You
So how can we tell apart confirmation, or verification, from confirmation bias?


ChatGPT
Distinguishing between confirmation or verification and confirmation bias is crucial in understanding the objectivity of our beliefs.
Confirmation or verification, in a neutral sense, refers to the process of substantiating or supporting a claim or belief with evidence or information. It involves seeking information that aligns with what is already known or believed. This process is not inherently biased; it's a natural part of learning and expanding one's understanding of the world.

Confirmation bias, on the other hand, introduces the element of bias into this process. It occurs when there is a disproportionate emphasis on information that supports existing beliefs, while potentially neglecting or dismissing contradictory evidence. Confirmation bias can lead to a skewed perspective and hinder the objective evaluation of information.

One key factor is the extent to which a person actively seeks out and considers information that challenges their beliefs. If there is a genuine openness to diverse perspectives and a willingness to critically evaluate information, it suggests a more balanced approach. However, if there's a consistent pattern of only accepting information that confirms pre-existing beliefs, that may indicate confirmation bias.

 

[roche]

knowledge, belief, objective fact.

 

[Beesnaturally]

knowledge, belief, objective fact.

Putting some little words in between those big boys might provide cogently, meaning....

 

[mbc]

What errors do you think Chat GDP has made on this occasion?

Having its musings shared with a board of humans?

 

[Beesnaturally]

Having its musings shared with a board of humans?

 

[Wilco]

Well, first if we accept that widespread treating suppresses the emergence of feral resistance, that would be one argument against that position. There will likely be more colonies in most places. However;

Second and more pertinent: increasing diversity is not always a good thing. To import unsuitable strains will massively increase diversity, but will weaken those that pick up their genes. Importing any strains with no or lower resistance to any pathogen will again increase diversity, but damage the next generation. Native populations (as pure as strains get) have lower diversity than native populations crossbred - and are generally stronger for it. They are perfectly adapted to their environment.

I'm curious to know what prompt would bring forth from GDP a statement to the effect; 'treating reduces genetic diversity'. I'm not saying I particularly disagree - it depends on other factors - by perhaps you'll share it with us?

See the second point four of your original post, which Chat GPT wrote in response to your own query. If you actually read the outputs you see it self contradicts.

The facts that firstly this happened and secondly you didn't notice should give you pause for thought.

BTW it's GTP, not GDP. Ruddy TLAs.

Anyway, that's me done on this thread as it's now marking season so I have 'better' things to do.