I had some fun with AI and tried it on a more granular level.
I asked Grok how the steepness of the west gully exit from the Wind River Peak (Skurka’s high route) compared to something I already have some familiarity with: a black diamond ski slope or double black diamond ski slope. I asked it to rely on the contour lines of a topographical map to calculate the slope.
Grok said it didn’t have access to a topo map, offering to recalculate if I did, and assumed based on the height of the peak and lake 11,185 a certain slope of various pitches. After 25 pages and some formulas, it told me the upper sections of the west gully were likely double black diamond and the lower sections closer to black diamond slopes. It counseled, however, that some ski resorts have different standards. At that prompt I entered the name of a black diamond slope in Colorado I know well and it told me the west gully was steeper and longer.
I might have guessed that using Cal topo, but I was impressed with its willingness to acknowledge its limitations and still take a stab at answering the question, so I asked a question without an absolute answer. Instead, a question for comparison purposes given its apparent ability to be consistent between options with its assumptions. In other words, I didn’t care if the final numbers were accurate or not, only which of two options was better.
So, I asked whether I would burn more calories carrying 3lbs of inflatable raft and paddle (I have an old version of Alpacka’s Ghost Scout raft and carbon fiber paddle blades they used to sell that attach to trekking poles) on the Wind River high route. I said I would paddle the three Alpine lakes and Black Joe lake instead of hiking around them. It asked me how much I weigh, so I gave it that figure. Again, after acknowledging various assumptions, including the time inflating and deflating the boat, it told me I’d burn more calories/day with a raft over the course of the trip. But, that said, the numbers were very close. Like less than the calories from a candy bar a day difference.
Grok assumed paddling was more of a calorie burn than hiking. Having paddled through the Alpine Lakes to Alpine pass several years ago, I told Grok I felt the paddling was not as exhausting as it would have been to hike through all the talus around those lakes. Grok acknowledged the steep talus around the Alpine lakes and then recalculated the paddling with a lower caloric demand. This time it told me I would use less calories/day using the boat over the course of the route. But the numbers were just as close.
Surprised, I then asked which trip would be faster, with a boat or not. Grok told me I’d finish 15.8 minutes faster using the boat. The traveling time was calculated to be about 42 hours. Like the calorie difference, not much in the grand scheme of things.
Having paddled an Alpaca Scout raft into the wind and against it, I can attest to the impossibility of predicting a calorie burn on any given day. When I carried the dead weight of the boat and paddles up Alpine Pass and Indian Pass, I surely paid more of a price. But it sure was nice to get off my feet for a while and paddle past all that talus I saw from the lakes. And, I’m certain I paddled those lakes in less than a third of the time it would take to hike them.
What did I get out of this exercise? Is it just another example of garbage in garbage out?
The benefit I see from AI, is its ability to challenge your assumptions. Before AI, I’d have thought carrying those extra three pounds could not possibly have been worth the calories. Now, I’m not so sure. It could be a wash as far as energy and time. In the past, I’d used my boat to access areas I couldn’t have reached; I thought it was a luxury item, like my chair. Now I’m thinking, especially at my age, the boat and the chair might not be a compromise after all.
.
