[sxp]

I currently, have a free two-month trial, but it's not worth paying for yet. It still fails in hilariously simple ways. E.g, one of the example prompts shows how to use it to generate an image. But asking [Can you generate pictures?] results in "Unfortunately, I am not currently able to generate images directly. However, I can help you explore some resources that can do just that!...". Forcing it to generate an image result in broken <IMG> elements.

It also fails at more complex tasks that I would actually use AIs for. E.g, I'm trying to learn Lagrangian Mechanics and keep running into dead ends with Gemini in cases where ChatGPT is working.

I have faith that Google will make it better in the near future (unless they get bored and move on to something else) so I'm hoping it will be worth paying for. But right now, I'm going to keep my ChatGPT subscription since that is actually useful.

[samatman]

I'd be careful using LLMs to learn mathematical concepts. I asked ChatGPT for the axioms of set theory, I was still in the "use ChatGPT as a search engine to see what happens" phase. It left out two of them and got one subtly wrong. It's the last bit you really have to watch out for.

Math is exact. It's a bad fit for a machine-that-guesses-words.

[sxp]

The good thing about math is that it's possible to verify the result in many cases even if the method used to produce the result is too difficult to understand. Also, if I ask ChatGPT & Gemini to walk me through the problem step-by-step, I know enough to follow and detect errors. E.g, Gemini kept getting errors because it used the wrong starting potential energy for a pendulum and assumed the pendulum had a max PE of 0 at the top of the swing (and a negative PE at the bottom) which caused it to have a max velocity of 0 due to incorrectly applying the conservation of energy.

But you're right that someone who doesn't understand a subject should be wary of trusting LLMs to teach the subject.