4 ms·

I did a Google search for the same topic and personally found the top link full of much more useful and practical information. YMMV but a high level summary li

I did a Google search for the same topic and personally found the top link full of much more useful and practical information. YMMV but a high level summary like that isn’t necessarily what people want. You can probe the bot harder but why bother when I could just Google and read a little? It’s actually less effort for better information in some sense.

IanCal 3y ago
I'm not arguing here what I did was better than a search, but that it's not some forbidden information. I often feel like complaints about what you can do with these things come from not knowing how to use them. It did also take virtually no effort. A benefit is being able to ask questions though, you can see I proposed a specific idea and had it reply - you can delve more or less into that. Don't want a high level summary? Ask for more details on the part you're interested in. Want a higher level one or simpler one? Ask. As things get less direct this gets better. I talked to it about projects for my son, narrowed down through different interests and got some great recommendations. One involved building a radio, which it then could explain at several levels of detail for children. That gets into "hope someone made a list and then go through loads for relevant things, lookup more detail from them then find several different resources for kid friendly explanations".
- shrimpx 3y ago
  Btw I didn't mean to imply it's forbidden information. It's just not that good/impressive/sharp. It often just doesn't inspire going back for more. Also like I said, I find it useful for software design. It ultimately makes a bunch of mistakes but I find the conversation useful and I walk away with usable ideas. I don't often start new software, so I don't go to it often for this. I think it's useful at the high level stuff; giving you ideas and laying out options, like the chat log you posted. But as you dive into detail I find two things happen: (a) It starts to make egregious errors. (b) You bias it with your more detailed questions. When I talked to it about electricity, it started contradicting itself about how energy is carried, whether by electrons' kinetic energy or by "the field". I asked it "so is electrical energy encoded in electrons' kinetic energy or not?" and then it started to say that oh yes, that's how it's encoded. It seems it used my question to reinforce that knowledge which previously it was confused about. Since I personally don't know how electrical energy is carried, I lost confidence that I'm learning correctly. This happens often. "I'm sorry about the confusion. You are right. ..."

IanCal 3y ago

I'm not arguing here what I did was better than a search, but that it's not some forbidden information. I often feel like complaints about what you can do with these things come from not knowing how to use them. It did also take virtually no effort. A benefit is being able to ask questions though, you can see I proposed a specific idea and had it reply - you can delve more or less into that. Don't want a high level summary? Ask for more details on the part you're interested in. Want a higher level one or simpler one? Ask. As things get less direct this gets better. I talked to it about projects for my son, narrowed down through different interests and got some great recommendations. One involved building a radio, which it then could explain at several levels of detail for children. That gets into "hope someone made a list and then go through loads for relevant things, lookup more detail from them then find several different resources for kid friendly explanations".

shrimpx 3y ago
Btw I didn't mean to imply it's forbidden information. It's just not that good/impressive/sharp. It often just doesn't inspire going back for more. Also like I said, I find it useful for software design. It ultimately makes a bunch of mistakes but I find the conversation useful and I walk away with usable ideas. I don't often start new software, so I don't go to it often for this. I think it's useful at the high level stuff; giving you ideas and laying out options, like the chat log you posted. But as you dive into detail I find two things happen: (a) It starts to make egregious errors. (b) You bias it with your more detailed questions. When I talked to it about electricity, it started contradicting itself about how energy is carried, whether by electrons' kinetic energy or by "the field". I asked it "so is electrical energy encoded in electrons' kinetic energy or not?" and then it started to say that oh yes, that's how it's encoded. It seems it used my question to reinforce that knowledge which previously it was confused about. Since I personally don't know how electrical energy is carried, I lost confidence that I'm learning correctly. This happens often. "I'm sorry about the confusion. You are right. ..."