AI in my opinion (at least in it’s current form) should not have a place on this forum.
Currently it’s a word association algorithm. There is no reasoning experience or expertise behind it. It just scans texts and looks at what word is often used next after the last one.
This is a perfect example of such a word association algorithm getting it wrong.
It probably read fruit tree growing texts. And quite often grafting to an established rootstock is advised for propagating fruit tree cultivars.
However in the context it put it in now. It does not make sense anymore. But the AI does not understand what a rootstock is, or what grafting is. It just looks at texts and tries to guess the next word in a sentence.
If you asked me how best to propagate a rootstock. And i said i propagate all my rootstocks by grafting onto established rootstocks. You would not trust anything i write afterwards.
please stop with the AI writing posts for you. Or more clearly mark it. (different colour or quotation marks) Warn at the beginning of the post that it is AI generated so we can skip it if we don’t want to read AI text.
Also at least mention the prompt you gave the AI.
Without the prompt it is even more unreliable or untrustworthy for the rest of the forum users!
Note that this is not meant as a personal attack. If anyone else was letting AI write reply’s in a topic i would have had a similar response.
I’m not aware of how I’m violating forum rules. Could you explain that to me? I’m happy to edit it further.
If the AI or you agrees with my experience or not, is not the point here. Or at least not the point I’m trying to make about not using or responsibly using text generative AI on this forum.
I’m not against the way you used AI in the above post, because i perceived it as disproving my own experience or claims (which it didn’t) But because i think text generative AI (at least in it’s current form) is bad for the forum. Regardless of what forum member posts it. Regardless if it supports or disproves my own posts.
I’m not sure i completely understand what your saying here.
But i said that I’m amazed that you are using these AI generated reply’s on the forum. Because in the past (and currently) you have always asked for or demanded a high standard of scientific proof or argument/experience from others on the forum. Something i quite like about you on the forum.
But using AI to write reply’s while admitting you lack the knowledge/experience to verify the validity of the AI generated text your posting. Seems amazing and a stark contrast to your normal standard for scientific accuracy.
If some-one asked me a year ago which user would post AI generated text. I would have guessed you last. That’s why i was amazed. It was not meant as a personal attack or claim about your character. I did choose my words poorly. And if there is still something in my post that offends you. Please let me know what specifically and ill change it. (either by public post or pm)
My response was not meant as a public textual flogging. You have in the past similarly responded and critiqued my posts. So i assumed it was okay to critique your post. It was meant as a critique on the post/use of AI. And not on you as a person. My apologies if it came off that way.
I’m not criticizing something you did in the past. I’m criticizing your current use of text generative AI to write forum reply’s.
Do you want me to remove the whole post? Or what part specifically?
glad to hear you liked me previous response. I also like a lot of the forum responses you have.
My disliking the use of text generative AI to write forum reply’s. Has nothing to do with you personally. It’s just my general opinion. Because you have been open to critique in the past. And critiqued others and had meaningful discussions in the past. I assumed it was okay to use your post to start a discussion. I made another topic to discus AI further to not derail this topic to much.
If you want to discus further we can in PM or in that topic. (or another new topic if you like)
I believe chatai is an excellent quick source of information even if it is better to take the time to spend the hours often necessary to find appropriate research that might give you a more accurate answer. A growing % of that research is now owned by private companies anyway.
I would never suggest that my robot trumps personal experience or that the program is anywhere near infallible but I will continue to refer to it for its great convenience and if I post a quote from it members will know where it came from and are free to offer contradicting opinions, especially ones based on personal anecdote. I love all the sources of information available and none are completely reliable. There are just too many variables for absolute truth in biological sciences.
The best part of this forum to me are member’s personal anecdotes which are often both interesting and useful. If someone thinks conclusions from anecdote may be mistaken, that is where the discussion begins.
What aspect of this question hasn’t been answered?. I certainly devoted a nice piece of time to explain what I know about it. This forum allows conversations to wander once the main topic has been covered.
Doing some root pruning and determining the right planting depth is done very well. in my opinion.
However they seem to be planting leafed out (they say grown in shade) tree’s.
This is not ideal. You’d better plant them befor they have leaves.
I know that’s not always an option. But when planting like this. Most of the hair roots that actually take up most of the water get damaged.
And if a heatwave or really sunny week where to come along now. Those leaves could evaporate more water than the damaged rootsystem could take up.
I personally would prune the above ground part of the tree in this scenario. This would more closely balance it with what the damaged rootsystem can handle.
Sure it does but modern rootstock has been selected and tested to provide health and size benefits to the tree. If the tree is planted with the graft in the ground those benefits are lost.
Yet any negatives of the root stock are also conveyed. Studies show root stocks have differing nutrient uptake then other root stocks. Much less the scion. Here I will plant one deep, and one on G214. I do not expect a lot of differences. But available chemicals and nutrients influence a lot.
But then I plan on being more of a testing nursery rather then a pretty orchard. I will even promote burly, unruly Polish root stocks in search of better heat tolerance.
Recall many methods can achieve size control. Where the very vigorous gets you is pruning. But then I’m also going to use a minimal pruning technique too. Just the basic necessary stuff.
I’m really interested in trying Hibernal as a standard size apple rootstock. Reading through old literature it was a common rootstock for orchards around here in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. It had it’s own issues of course but for diversity I wanted something to go along with the modern rootstocks I have.
I got a scion of Hibernal and grafted it to MM111 this year. I was trying to work out in my head how I would eventually get the Hibernal rootstocks from that tree, but I like your thoughts. Maybe just bury the graft next year and see if it roots. I was also thinking of trying to root soft wood cuttings from it this summer as another option. I’m open to any ideas.
