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 ref

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/