I disagree, because unlike those things, ai actually has a use case. It needs a human supervisor and it isn’t always faster, but chat gpt has been the best educational resource I’ve ever had next to YouTube. It’s also decent at pumping out a lot of lazy work and writing so i don’t have to, or helping me break down a task into smaller parts. As long as you’re not expecting it to solve all your problems for you, it’s an amazing tool.
People said the same things about 3d printing and yeah, while it can’t create literally everything at industrial scale, and it’s not going to see much consumer use, it has found a place in certain applications like prototyping and small scale production.
ChatGPT is OK at summarizing popular, low specificity topics that tons of people have already written a ton about, but it’s terrible at anything else. When I tested its knowledge about the process of a niche interest of mine (fabric dyeing) it skipped completely over certain important pieces of information, and when I prompted it to include them it basically just mirrored my prompt back at me.
Which has pretty much summed up my ChatGPT experience: it just regurgitates stuff I can find myself, but removes the ability to determine if the source is reliable. And if it’s something I’m already having trouble finding detailed information about it usually doesn’t help.
i’d argue that chat gpt is mostly great at taking human bullshit tasks from humans, who dontwant to dothe bullshit, like regurgitating the text from a textbook in different words, writing cover letters for job applications, that are often machine analyzed for buzzwords anyways.
So its use case only exist in the domain of bullshit tasks that only exist to occupy two people without any added value.
Yeah, that is one thing it can do, but it’s not the only thing it does. I’m not sure how to get my point across well but, just because it gives you the wrong answer 25% of the time doesn’t mean it’s useless. In whatever you ask it to do, it often gets you most of the way there as long as you know how to correct it or check its work. The ability to ask specific or follow-up questions when learning something makes it invaluable as a learning tool (if you’re teaching yourself that is (ie. If you’re a university student)). It’s also very useful when brainstorming ideas or helping you approach a problem from a different angle. I can also ask it questions that are far more specific than what a search engine would get me.
It really comes down to if the human operator knows how (and when) to use it properly.
i never trust that information id rather learn with a book videos or just from websites if i ever use it i always fact check it. never blindly trust a computer
That was an integral part to this whole thing, you always fact check the ai. I said this in both of my comments.
I totally get preferring textbooks or videos though. I just find that the ai saves me time since i can ask specific questions about things, and it often gives me concise information that i understand more quickly.
I disagree, because unlike those things, ai actually has a use case. It needs a human supervisor and it isn’t always faster, but chat gpt has been the best educational resource I’ve ever had next to YouTube. It’s also decent at pumping out a lot of lazy work and writing so i don’t have to, or helping me break down a task into smaller parts. As long as you’re not expecting it to solve all your problems for you, it’s an amazing tool.
People said the same things about 3d printing and yeah, while it can’t create literally everything at industrial scale, and it’s not going to see much consumer use, it has found a place in certain applications like prototyping and small scale production.
ChatGPT is OK at summarizing popular, low specificity topics that tons of people have already written a ton about, but it’s terrible at anything else. When I tested its knowledge about the process of a niche interest of mine (fabric dyeing) it skipped completely over certain important pieces of information, and when I prompted it to include them it basically just mirrored my prompt back at me.
Which has pretty much summed up my ChatGPT experience: it just regurgitates stuff I can find myself, but removes the ability to determine if the source is reliable. And if it’s something I’m already having trouble finding detailed information about it usually doesn’t help.
i’d argue that chat gpt is mostly great at taking human bullshit tasks from humans, who dontwant to dothe bullshit, like regurgitating the text from a textbook in different words, writing cover letters for job applications, that are often machine analyzed for buzzwords anyways.
So its use case only exist in the domain of bullshit tasks that only exist to occupy two people without any added value.
Yeah, that is one thing it can do, but it’s not the only thing it does. I’m not sure how to get my point across well but, just because it gives you the wrong answer 25% of the time doesn’t mean it’s useless. In whatever you ask it to do, it often gets you most of the way there as long as you know how to correct it or check its work. The ability to ask specific or follow-up questions when learning something makes it invaluable as a learning tool (if you’re teaching yourself that is (ie. If you’re a university student)). It’s also very useful when brainstorming ideas or helping you approach a problem from a different angle. I can also ask it questions that are far more specific than what a search engine would get me.
It really comes down to if the human operator knows how (and when) to use it properly.
i never trust that information id rather learn with a book videos or just from websites if i ever use it i always fact check it. never blindly trust a computer
That was an integral part to this whole thing, you always fact check the ai. I said this in both of my comments.
I totally get preferring textbooks or videos though. I just find that the ai saves me time since i can ask specific questions about things, and it often gives me concise information that i understand more quickly.