4 ms·

The fun thing about getting math help from the ai is that okay, sure it can explain how fractions work to a third grader, but it can also explain how fiber bund

The fun thing about getting math help from the ai is that okay, sure it can explain how fractions work to a third grader, but it can also explain how fiber bundles work to a graduate student. Maybe it gets the details wrong, but like even if it's wrong sometimes, it's far better than googling or wikipedia or even a text book sometimes, because you can interrogate it interactively and ask for clarifications. Yes, a tutor or a teacher is going to be better, but not everyone has access to a math expert.

skydhash 2y ago
> Maybe it gets the details wrong, but like even if it's wrong sometimes, it's far better than googling or wikipedia or even a text book sometimes Are people consulting only one book/source on any given subject? I remember learning Python and C, and it was such a mixture of books/articles/forums/wiki, I can't even remember the process. I do remember understanding pointers easily because of a chapter of another book about memory models in OS. Learning is an iterative process and the expert is just there to shorten the way, not to carry you through it.
ndriscoll 2y ago
I've found that at least chatgpt still produces complete nonsense with graduate level material (category theory). It's slightly better than the mLab[0] as a reference. When you try to guide it back onto something meaningful, it just ignores what you told it. In fact, I had a similar experience with programming where I asked it to explain a diff, and when it got it wrong and I told it so, it still just kept repeating the wrong information. Maybe the paid version is better, but the public demo seems like a useless toy to me. I've found Wikipedia to be an excellent resource for math/physics once you're ~halfway through a math degree to have a good baseline level of knowledge to understand it. The trouble with math is one of the important goals is to teach people not to produce nonsense and to be able to tell the difference between and argument that sounds good vs. an argument that's sound and good. A nonsense generator (presented as authoritative) is perhaps not the best way to do that. Obviously its abilities could change in the span of a couple years, so it's probably still worthwhile to explore how we would use it if it were useful. [0] https://cemulate.github.io/the-mlab/ https://cemulate.github.io/the-mlab/
- empath75 2y ago
  GPT4 is many times better than the free version. You can't evaluate it based on the free version.
footy 2y ago
> Maybe it gets the details wrong, but like even if it's wrong sometimes, it's far better than googling or wikipedia or even a text book sometimes, because you can interrogate it interactively and ask for clarifications this to me is an insane way to think. I do not consider something better because I can ask it a question, something is better because it is more correct.
- empath75 2y ago
  Wikipedia and textbooks are not necessarily correct, either and if you don't understand the topic, you really have _no way of knowing if they're correct_. You have to always check multiple sources and chase down references if you want to really know if something is true or not.

skydhash 2y ago

> Maybe it gets the details wrong, but like even if it's wrong sometimes, it's far better than googling or wikipedia or even a text book sometimes Are people consulting only one book/source on any given subject? I remember learning Python and C, and it was such a mixture of books/articles/forums/wiki, I can't even remember the process. I do remember understanding pointers easily because of a chapter of another book about memory models in OS. Learning is an iterative process and the expert is just there to shorten the way, not to carry you through it.

ndriscoll 2y ago

I've found that at least chatgpt still produces complete nonsense with graduate level material (category theory). It's slightly better than the mLab[0] as a reference. When you try to guide it back onto something meaningful, it just ignores what you told it. In fact, I had a similar experience with programming where I asked it to explain a diff, and when it got it wrong and I told it so, it still just kept repeating the wrong information. Maybe the paid version is better, but the public demo seems like a useless toy to me. I've found Wikipedia to be an excellent resource for math/physics once you're ~halfway through a math degree to have a good baseline level of knowledge to understand it. The trouble with math is one of the important goals is to teach people not to produce nonsense and to be able to tell the difference between and argument that sounds good vs. an argument that's sound and good. A nonsense generator (presented as authoritative) is perhaps not the best way to do that. Obviously its abilities could change in the span of a couple years, so it's probably still worthwhile to explore how we would use it if it were useful. [0] https://cemulate.github.io/the-mlab/ https://cemulate.github.io/the-mlab/

empath75 2y ago
GPT4 is many times better than the free version. You can't evaluate it based on the free version.

footy 2y ago

> Maybe it gets the details wrong, but like even if it's wrong sometimes, it's far better than googling or wikipedia or even a text book sometimes, because you can interrogate it interactively and ask for clarifications this to me is an insane way to think. I do not consider something better because I can ask it a question, something is better because it is more correct.

empath75 2y ago
Wikipedia and textbooks are not necessarily correct, either and if you don't understand the topic, you really have _no way of knowing if they're correct_. You have to always check multiple sources and chase down references if you want to really know if something is true or not.