81–90 of 243 posts
I'm in two minds about it. On one hand the internet (in general) has become so hard to find information on, and I agree with the author that GPT is a breath of fresh air. On the other hand I've seen GPT fail so miserably at topics that I'm knowledge about that I have a very hard time trusting anything it tells me. I'm not sure what the answer really is, but I'm not sure it's GPT. I wish we could go back to having sea…
I'm in two minds about it. On one hand the internet (in general) has become so hard to find information on, and I agree with the author that GPT is a breath of fresh air. On the other hand I've seen GPT fail so miserably at topics that I'm knowledge about that I have a very hard time trusting anything it tells me. I'm not sure what the answer really is, but I'm not sure it's GPT. I wish we could go back to having sea…
[flagged]
Not when they are all based on the same Wikipedia article
This is so ridiculous. GPT is like that "know-it-all" friend we have who just has something to say about anything , with knowledge skimmed from the internet. GPT is a language model. It outputs what you want to hear , not what is correct.
> It outputs what you want to hear Nonsense. How could it possibly know "what you want to hear"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I'm not sure what the answer really is, but I'm not sure it's GPT." My suggestion is to stick with it and get a feel for what it's good at. I've found that after a few months of using ChatGPT every day I've developed a pretty solid intuition for which questions are likely to get good answers and which are likely to trigger hallucinations. It's difficult to describe what those intuitions are though! One rule of thumb…
> One rule of thumb I've developed: if something is likely to be "common knowledge" - if it's something that is likely to have been discussed accurately on the internet by many different people - then ChatGPT is very likely to answer questions about it accurately. If so, this information is already easy to find, making GPT redundant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've actually had great success with the automation of boiler plate DevOps nonsense using GPT-4, including: GitHub actions, Caddy scripts, Docker files, etc. Every second that I didn't have to: - go look up a similar problem on Google - open three or four stack overflow tabs - read through the stack overflow links - copy out the answer - change all the variables to match variable names that I want All of this represe…
Did you learn anything in the process? You'd still have to over the output and understand it, otherwise nothing has changed except the method of producing something you don't understand.
You can downvote me but I think OP hasn't learned how to learn yet. If OP reads Wikipedia by understanding every sentence and clicking on every link, that's deliberately sabotaging his own learning. Attitudes like "I don't really feel like spelunking through a ton more articles" simply shows OP isn't interested in learning per se, just quick answers. OP learns in a way that's very child-like. When you are a five-year…
I agree, especially if you consider these were the questions on OP's mind: > just out of curiosity, I wanted to learn more. I get that LEDs consume less energy and release less heat, and that they're made using semiconductors. But what kinds of semiconductors? How do semiconductors work in general, anyway? And they proceed to type "LED" into Google. Why not "led what kind of semiconductor" and "how do semiconductors…
I did try Googling “how do LEDs work” for comparison, but it yielded the same top few results. Of course, I could have iteratively tried different search queries to get to the answers I wanted, but this gets at my real point: I don’t have to formulate 5 different search queries anymore, allowing me to maintain one focused line of inquiry. I talk about this a little in the “fewer browser tabs” bit of the post.
I do think someone could create an alternative search UI that would be better for learning on the web. Something where you can run multiple searches and “collect” the useful information you find into a single page, rather than having the results split across a mess of browser tabs and note-taking windows. Maybe I just find juggling many browser tabs more annoying than other people do?
Anyway, I tried the queries you posted above, and most resources I found were still very confusing for a layman. The one exception is this page, which I think does a great job of introducing additional complexity on this topic gradually: https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/led.htm
I'm not taking anything away from Chat-GPT for this use case, but I see the above pattern in almost every Google bashing thread on HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can. Even if the answers accidentally happen to be correct, that's just the broken clock happens to be correct twice a day. The information value of answers by ChatGPT is zero .
> The information value of answers by ChatGPT is zero. Nonsense. The only way this would be true is if ChatGPT's answers were as likely to be correct as random answers. They are much, much more likely to be correct, however, so their information value is greater than zero by definition. What you're claiming is equivalent to "search engines can find incorrect information, so search engines are worthless for informatio…
Which is the case
> They are much, much more likely to be correct,
They are not. It's just apophenia to find meaning in the word salad.