Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pseudosavant 998 days ago
I don't know enough to offer any real sources, but I'll share that I've found ChatGPT very useful for learning stuff like this - really solidly documented and established science/engineering.

I asked* "When making a wireless transmission what is the signal loss at 20km for 2.4Ghz?" and it gave an excellent explanation of free space path loss, stepped through the calculations, and gave the correct answer.

I've had it explain various kinds of first-order filters, especially for electric guitar circuits too. And asking follow up questions works well with how my brain works.

*Link in case you are curious: https://chat.openai.com/share/d0fcf90e-9d2e-4078-9bb4-60717f...
1 comments
palata 998 days ago
> but I'll share that I've found ChatGPT very useful for learning stuff like this

I get your point, but no way I use ChatGPT. Other than all the ideological issues I have with it, I just can't trust it.

> and gave the correct answer.

Are you saying that because you believe it did, or because you already knew the answer? I don't trust ChatGPT, so I don't want to learn anything it says. And I don't need it for stuff I already know.

link
TheHappyOddish 997 days ago
It's not that different to Wikipdia. Trust, but verify. It's usually correct, but regardless it's a useful starting point for a topic.
link
palata 997 days ago
Wikipedia shows sources, does not hallucinate, and shows the same content to all the users (meaning that if there is a mistake, someone else can actually report it).

That is very different to me.

link
TheHappyOddish 996 days ago
Those are accurate details, but if you zoom out they're still contextually very similar - a swathe of text on a subject written by someone (or something) you have no veritable trust in but is usually fairly accurate.

You should independently fact check either source. Wikipedia is slightly easier, but after you have a base subject matter understanding you should have the terminology to validate anyway.

I suspect you just don't like it, which is perfectly fine.

link
palata 996 days ago
> Those are accurate details, but if you zoom out they're still contextually very similar

I cannot go against that. To me, the points I listed make them fundamentally different.

> I suspect you just don't like it, which is perfectly fine.

Because you don't understand why I see it as a problem that people don't make the difference between Wikipedia and ChatGPT does not necessarily mean that I am just making up arguments because I don't like it...

link
TheHappyOddish 996 days ago
That's fair. I think we're arguing semantics here. Expanding my "you just don't like it" would be "you have immovable philosophical issues with one, ergo you won't pick it regardless of its accuracy". I didn't mean to imply you were just trying to be contrary - apologies if it came across that way.

I do like the ideals you have there, but I think for most people a tool is just a tool, and if it ms mostly accurate they're happy.

link
pseudosavant 997 days ago
Because there are other ways (simple Google search, asking an EE friend, etc) of validating the answer. Often I'm looking to learn a concept so it isn't like I'm using it to solve a bunch of things. Just validate my learning. It is easily as good as having one of my EE friends explain the concept to me.
link