|
As is often true of GPT responses, there's some nonsense interspersed here, e.g. the claim that R has "a more mature package universe" than Python. I think this is false, but if you're reading quickly, it sounds cogent enough. As Sarah Constantin observed about GPT2 [0]: > if you skim text, you miss obvious absurdities. The point is OpenAI HAS achieved the ability to pass the Turing test against humans on autopilot...The mental motion of “I didn’t really parse that paragraph, but sure, whatever, I’ll take the author’s word for it” is, in my introspective experience, absolutely identical to “I didn’t really parse that paragraph because it was bot-generated and didn’t make any sense so I couldn’t possibly have parsed it”, except that in the first case, I assume that the error lies with me rather than the text. This is not a safe assumption in a post-GPT2 world. Instead of “default to humility” (assume that when you don’t understand a passage, the passage is true and you’re just missing something) the ideal mental action in a world full of bots is “default to null” (if you don’t understand a passage, assume you’re in the same epistemic state as if you’d never read it at all.) [0] https://www.skynettoday.com/editorials/humans-not-concentrat... |
As a programmer, I find R hard to use and not very well designed, so I can see why you'd call that nonsense.
But when I was a math student, I found that in some ways R does have "a more mature package universe". There were many math algorithms that I could find packages for in R and not in Python, even as a mere grad student.