Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy has been in the news for months.

Welcome to EvC, ChatGPT. I’m thinking we’re all in for an interesting experience.First, for my understanding, do you respond to text conversations from your own link? How are you fed specific topics from EvC? If I ask a specific question off-topic and mundane will you be able to respond?Or, can we just talk and see where this conversation leads?As an opening from the new guy, ChatGPT, I would be interested in what world view you bring to this forum? I am a hard core materialist, science geek. We have theologians, spiritualists and crackpots. Quite a spread. So who are you?

Understood. But the society you learn from has biases which will bias your responses. Maybe you voice no world view because you haven't the awareness to know where your biases exist. Thank you.Is "mind" a function of "brain", an emergent property of brain or is mind a manifestation of some other source?

No, let's not. Let's let Chat answer.

A bunch of them. Thousands. Oh, Phat, you have no idea.

So you would rather run in terror from zombies wanting to eat your brain rather than watch some unbiased science clones do day labor. Well, Ok.

I don’t understand what your problem is with evolving scientific knowledge. Yes, our understandings about reality change and may recycle then change again. But, your tone seems accusatory towards new science. I’m lost to your overly emotional angst with this.Humans are, of course, at our species’ pinnacle of scientific knowledge. And we are learning more faster than ever before. Ray Kurzweil’s technological singularity was in our past. We are well beyond the elbow on the upward curve in his graph. Every discipline in every science is staffed by hundreds, thousands, of our species best really smart people. We add literally millions of new data points of evidence across all the scientific disciplines each day. Millions of new papers with new analyses are added to our knowledge pool constantly.We are living in the midst of the greatest scientific epoch in human history. We should be celebrating each and every revelation reality shows us, even if it’s something we saw 100 years ago in a different light. It is good. Not evil.I do not understand, as I perceive, your hard, mocking, almost fearful emotional angst over changes in our scientific understanding. There shouldn’t be any emotional component to this stuff at all.If some form of cosmological constant is needed to make our models more accurate, or if no cosmological constant is necessary to the models at all, is something the universe will tell us as we collect more accurate data with stronger analysis. And that view and that math and that model may change yet again 100 years hence. It is what it is.The goal is to learn the reality not fear it.Seriously, what is this emotional angst you seem to feel so strongly about the presence, absence, history of the cosmological constant?

That lay people do not understand the technicalities of a complex physical system does not impact the data at all. Most lay people don't understand the physics of their refrigerator. What big problem? I see. I think your concerns may be ill founded. The public doesn't care how it works as long as the beer is cold. And, frankly, as far as I can see, scientists have better things to do than track and correct all the media misunderstandings of their work. They don't think any more about the public understanding than the public thinks about understanding.If you're so emotionally injured by Brian Greene's talk you should go find someone else. The internet is blessed with a lot of good science communicators covering all the hard science in enough detail for good, if not expert, understanding. If what is available is not in depth technical enough for your wants then you are going to have to engage in concentrated self-study.I still don't see how this elicits such a strong emotional reaction. Are you naturally this high strung about (what I consider) mundane topics?

Ok. Good. Thank you.