| > I was criticized for pointing out spurious nonsense in LLM slop I can see that you experience it as such but I think it's more of a spectrum. Often times, LLMs give good answers. Often enough times they don't. One needs to keep that in mind. In my example, given that it was just a symbol, all I needed was knowledge at the level of a memnonic which would, on average, at least somewhat also point directionally to the truth. But that's a bonus. I could make up a memnonic myself, but I like having that bonus. Given that ChatGPT is directionally towards the truth, but not fully (on average), I'd need to test it or verify it if I want a better level of knowledge than that. If that's the case, then ChatGPT is basically acts as a sort of cache as it's quicker to ask a question to ChatGPT than to research on one's own. One can experience a cache hit or cache miss. Such a thing will happen in the verification stage. Specifically, for math this is quicker, in my experience. But anyways that's my experience. Your experience is that it's spurious nonsense slop. And I suppose you therefore find it a problem. I don't see the issue as there are different levels of knowledge and different time commitments you need to give to them. A lot of my knowledge is based on trust anyway and sometimes it's broken (e.g. replication crisis in psychology, I felt betrayed having studied the field). > I don't know why anyone would think they are owed a custom explanation for their specific questions I'm not sure if anyone said anything like it. Regardless of that, the need still exists. People will still act on that need. I suspect you see that as a problem. I'm neutral on it. > thinking like that will get you in trouble when you come to depend on what anyone (or anything) is willing to chew up for you. IMO teaching and learning is a 2 way street. It's the teacher's job to explain it well enough. It's the student's job to do their best to understand it. Math Academy offers exercises and explanations. Sometimes I find their explanations a bit lacking. So I use other sources to augment it. > Maybe I was terse but I don't think I was rude or illogical. Reading/writing text is tough, which is why I stated how I felt. It'd probably have been easier in an actual conversation. I didn't mean to imply you were being rude or illogical. |