|
|
|
|
|
|
by yakaccount4
1276 days ago
|
|
|
Incorporating the tech into how current searches work for the best of both worlds is obviously the future. After having used ChatGPT, it has become clear that the workflow for discovering complex information in Google is usually just complete garbage in comparison. It's basically a complete dice roll to land on an actual good link these days, and more importantly, Google searches have no context, which is ChatGPT's killer features. Ex: I asked ChatGPT how ECDSA works, and it will give you a small quip about how it works overall, but then you can ask it go deeper, provide specific examples, ask it what provides the trap door function, how multiply is defined in such a system, etc. You can massage the answer output to give you what you want instead of a vomit of extraneous noise that links to internet forums/blogposts/papers will be able to provide. Google can't possibly offer the same experience as it is right now. |
|
|
I’d search for ECDSA, find and read a textbook, or even primary sources. I’d read other peoples code, but I prefer to write my own, or at least re-write it. I’d look for answers on Stack Exchange, but I’d rarely ask my own. I prefer documentation over tribal knowledge. I never fully trust what other people say, because (at best) much can be lost in communication.
Some people prefer to ask others for help, and those people will probably like using AI. Some people prefer to try and figure out stuff for themselves and they are not going to want to rely on AI any more than they’d want to rely on a colleague for answers.
And in the future, managers are going to be looking at the people relying on AI and wondering if they can just cut out the middleman.