[atrettel]

Generative AI is just the new "bottom" in terms of quality. All that you have to do to compete against it is to be a little better than it. The question to me really is whether the quality of this new "bottom" is adequate. Sometimes it is for some people and for some applications, and sometimes it is not.

I do not use it myself because I am a researcher and I often ask questions that don't have a lot of "training data" yet. And even if an area is well covered in terms of "training data", often there is a lot of "know how" that really isn't written down in an easily digestible form. It is passed verbally or through examples in person. So the idea that the "training data" is complete is also not true in general.

Many other people in this thread have already covered that books are much more structured and organized than any answer generative AI gives you. Let me discuss another reason why books still matter. Books can give you a wider view than the "consensus" that something like ChatGPT gives you. I know a lot of books in my field that derive results in different ways, and I often find value in these different approaches. Moreover, suppose that only one book answers the question that you want answered but others gloss over that subject. Generative AI likely will not know precisely what one random book said on the subject, but if you were searching through multiple books on the subject yourself, you likely would pick up on this difference.

Relevant Paul Graham quote [1]:

> We can't all use AI. Someone has to generate the training data.

[1] https://x.com/paulg/status/1635672262903750662