4 ms·

I guess we have to agree to disagree, because I am not particularly interested in chemistry and ChatGPT has been extraordinarily helpful in demystifying electro

I guess we have to agree to disagree, because I am not particularly interested in chemistry and ChatGPT has been extraordinarily helpful in demystifying electronics. Having 24/7 access to a patient person who can unpack the difference between TTL and CMOS logic or when you'd choose a buffer instead of a Schmitt trigger without belittling you for not already knowing what they know is awesome and not going to get anyone even slightly killed.

muh_gradle 8mo ago
noooo we have to go back to stackoverflow to feel small.
paulryanrogers 8mo ago
Electronics can kill too. IIRC capacitors in CRTs are particularly deadly. Though I suppose someone using LLMs only as a first step, much like Wikipedia, is probably at much less risk than someone using it as their only source.
- peteforde 8mo ago
  Yeah, okay but... look, I concede that someone who shouldn't be doing anything except watching passive entertainment could absolutely take insane advice from an LLM (or a sociopathic human) and seriously hurt themselves. But raw dogging capacitors in CRTs is such an overtly straw man argument in this conversation. People who are cleaning bathrooms for the first time can hopefully be trusted not to drink the bleach, right? If someone licks a running table saw because an LLM said it would be fine, we're talking about entirely different problems.
  - fao_ 8mo ago
    Don't worry, LLMs are perfectly ok for getting information. Just ask drugs.com about penisomab https://bsky.app/profile/harrisonk.bsky.social/post/3mfs6adwh6k2v https://bsky.app/profile/harrisonk.bsky.social/post/3mfs6adw...
    - peteforde 8mo ago
      Again: not doing anything at all with health or chemistry. They aren't what I am interested in, even peripherally. What you seem to be missing is that LLMs are better at/for some things than others. Legal review, 3D geometry, therapy and apparently chemistry are off the list. It doesn't make sense to project that onto domains where it excels.
      - fao_ 8mo ago
        > What you seem to be missing is that LLMs are better at/for some things than others. I guarantee it is using the same system to write code and teach you about electronics that it is using to teach people about chemistry, and if you can't see how that means the resulting information is suspicious at best, then I don't even know what to say anymore.
        peteforde 8mo ago
        The worst thing social media has done to our species is convince everyone that they are supposed to have something to say about everything. It's genuinely alright to stfu sometimes when you don't have anything productive to add to the conversation.
        fao_ 7mo ago
        Indeed, which is exactly what you should have done, instead of writing a comment that is simply an insult.
  - paulryanrogers 8mo ago
    My concern is that about half of folks are below average intelligence. And new generations will be exposed to AI from a young age, possibly lacking the rigor and experience of those who came before. I'm afraid they will trust the AI too much, and find themselves quickly in over their heads with no way back. Perhaps I'm just pearl clutching. I guess time will tell.
latexr 8mo ago
> Having 24/7 access to a patient person It’s not a person. You understand that, right? I have to ask considering the amount of people who are “dating” and wanting to marry chatbots. It’s a tool. There’s no reason to anthropomorphise it.
- peteforde 8mo ago
  I'm glad that you brought that up, because I actually hovered on my response precisely because of those words. Specifically, I wondered if I could reliably count on someone showing up to say something patronizing and unnecessary. This particular combination of snark, faux-concern and pedantry doesn't help the point you're trying to make about my loving AI wife.
  - latexr 8mo ago
    It was not my intention to be patronising nor snarky, nor was I the least bit concerned for you (faux or otherwise). Though on a reread I do understand how my reply can be understood as unkind. I regret that and apologise for it. It was not my intention but it was my mistake. I should’ve made it shorter: > It’s not a person, It’s a tool. There’s no reason to anthropomorphise it.
    - peteforde 8mo ago
      Fair enough; I appreciate the follow-up. Without wanting to be argumentative, I would push back and say that I really did stop to consider my implied assignment of personhood before committing to it. I went with it because it reflects both the role it plays - you'll be relieved that I stopped short of deploying "mentor" - and the fact that English is highly adaptable and already the linguistic tug to use They feels very comfortable in relation to LLMs. Buckle up!
      - latexr 8mo ago
        > you'll be relieved that I stopped short of deploying "mentor" Funnily enough, I think that might’ve been better. I don’t think a mentor has to necessarily be human; one can learn from nature or pets. Or even a machine: Stockfish can teach you to play better chess and give context as to why you fumbled and how to do better next time. I just don’t think LLMs are people and that we should avoid anthropomorphising them (for a whole plethora of reasons which are another discussion). I’m not even saying I think there could never be a robot which is a person. Just not what we have now.
klodolph 8mo ago
What are you doing with TTL logic in 2026, out of curiosity? (I’m not saying it’s not used, but the only thing I’d use TTL for is building old circuits out of the Forrest Mims books.)
- peteforde 8mo ago
  Reasonable question and hopefully an interesting answer... The simple lack of reasons to use TTL logic in 2026 was exactly why I didn't know what the deal was. It'd never come up, but I'd see it referenced. I'm self-taught and in defiance of the people who insist that LLMs turn our brains to passive mush, the more things I learn the more things I have to be curious about. LLMs remove the gatekeeping around asking "simple" questions that tend to make EEs roll their eyes. I didn't know, so I asked and now I know!
  - klodolph 8mo ago
    What was the answer? I’m just curious at this point about what the quality of the answer is, just because you made a point about LLM use not turning your brain into mush. I’ve not really used LLMs to answer questions, since it hasn’t gotten me the answers I wanted, but maybe I’m just set in my ways.
    - peteforde 8mo ago
      I'm actually pretty thrilled that you asked, because I think that this chat is an extremely solid example of LLM usage in the EE domain, and I'm happy to share. https://chatgpt.com/share/69a184b0-7c38-8012-b36d-c3f2cefc13b7 https://chatgpt.com/share/69a184b0-7c38-8012-b36d-c3f2cefc13... I definitely led some questions to try and squeeze new-to-me perspectives out of it; for example, there could be tricks that make the active high variant more useful in some scenarios. I think it does a good job of surfacing adjacent questions you might not realize you were eager to ask, as well as showing how it's able to critically evaluate real-world part suitability. I do find that ChatGPT in particular does better with a screengrab of the most likely parts vs a URL to the search engine.

muh_gradle 8mo ago

noooo we have to go back to stackoverflow to feel small.

paulryanrogers 8mo ago

Electronics can kill too. IIRC capacitors in CRTs are particularly deadly. Though I suppose someone using LLMs only as a first step, much like Wikipedia, is probably at much less risk than someone using it as their only source.

peteforde 8mo ago
Yeah, okay but... look, I concede that someone who shouldn't be doing anything except watching passive entertainment could absolutely take insane advice from an LLM (or a sociopathic human) and seriously hurt themselves. But raw dogging capacitors in CRTs is such an overtly straw man argument in this conversation. People who are cleaning bathrooms for the first time can hopefully be trusted not to drink the bleach, right? If someone licks a running table saw because an LLM said it would be fine, we're talking about entirely different problems.
- fao_ 8mo ago
  Don't worry, LLMs are perfectly ok for getting information. Just ask drugs.com about penisomab https://bsky.app/profile/harrisonk.bsky.social/post/3mfs6adwh6k2v https://bsky.app/profile/harrisonk.bsky.social/post/3mfs6adw...
  - peteforde 8mo ago
    Again: not doing anything at all with health or chemistry. They aren't what I am interested in, even peripherally. What you seem to be missing is that LLMs are better at/for some things than others. Legal review, 3D geometry, therapy and apparently chemistry are off the list. It doesn't make sense to project that onto domains where it excels.
    - fao_ 8mo ago
      > What you seem to be missing is that LLMs are better at/for some things than others. I guarantee it is using the same system to write code and teach you about electronics that it is using to teach people about chemistry, and if you can't see how that means the resulting information is suspicious at best, then I don't even know what to say anymore.
      - peteforde 8mo ago
        The worst thing social media has done to our species is convince everyone that they are supposed to have something to say about everything. It's genuinely alright to stfu sometimes when you don't have anything productive to add to the conversation.
        fao_ 7mo ago
        Indeed, which is exactly what you should have done, instead of writing a comment that is simply an insult.
- paulryanrogers 8mo ago
  My concern is that about half of folks are below average intelligence. And new generations will be exposed to AI from a young age, possibly lacking the rigor and experience of those who came before. I'm afraid they will trust the AI too much, and find themselves quickly in over their heads with no way back. Perhaps I'm just pearl clutching. I guess time will tell.

latexr 8mo ago

> Having 24/7 access to a patient person It’s not a person. You understand that, right? I have to ask considering the amount of people who are “dating” and wanting to marry chatbots. It’s a tool. There’s no reason to anthropomorphise it.

peteforde 8mo ago
I'm glad that you brought that up, because I actually hovered on my response precisely because of those words. Specifically, I wondered if I could reliably count on someone showing up to say something patronizing and unnecessary. This particular combination of snark, faux-concern and pedantry doesn't help the point you're trying to make about my loving AI wife.
- latexr 8mo ago
  It was not my intention to be patronising nor snarky, nor was I the least bit concerned for you (faux or otherwise). Though on a reread I do understand how my reply can be understood as unkind. I regret that and apologise for it. It was not my intention but it was my mistake. I should’ve made it shorter: > It’s not a person, It’s a tool. There’s no reason to anthropomorphise it.
  - peteforde 8mo ago
    Fair enough; I appreciate the follow-up. Without wanting to be argumentative, I would push back and say that I really did stop to consider my implied assignment of personhood before committing to it. I went with it because it reflects both the role it plays - you'll be relieved that I stopped short of deploying "mentor" - and the fact that English is highly adaptable and already the linguistic tug to use They feels very comfortable in relation to LLMs. Buckle up!
    - latexr 8mo ago
      > you'll be relieved that I stopped short of deploying "mentor" Funnily enough, I think that might’ve been better. I don’t think a mentor has to necessarily be human; one can learn from nature or pets. Or even a machine: Stockfish can teach you to play better chess and give context as to why you fumbled and how to do better next time. I just don’t think LLMs are people and that we should avoid anthropomorphising them (for a whole plethora of reasons which are another discussion). I’m not even saying I think there could never be a robot which is a person. Just not what we have now.

klodolph 8mo ago

What are you doing with TTL logic in 2026, out of curiosity? (I’m not saying it’s not used, but the only thing I’d use TTL for is building old circuits out of the Forrest Mims books.)

peteforde 8mo ago
Reasonable question and hopefully an interesting answer... The simple lack of reasons to use TTL logic in 2026 was exactly why I didn't know what the deal was. It'd never come up, but I'd see it referenced. I'm self-taught and in defiance of the people who insist that LLMs turn our brains to passive mush, the more things I learn the more things I have to be curious about. LLMs remove the gatekeeping around asking "simple" questions that tend to make EEs roll their eyes. I didn't know, so I asked and now I know!
- klodolph 8mo ago
  What was the answer? I’m just curious at this point about what the quality of the answer is, just because you made a point about LLM use not turning your brain into mush. I’ve not really used LLMs to answer questions, since it hasn’t gotten me the answers I wanted, but maybe I’m just set in my ways.
  - peteforde 8mo ago
    I'm actually pretty thrilled that you asked, because I think that this chat is an extremely solid example of LLM usage in the EE domain, and I'm happy to share. https://chatgpt.com/share/69a184b0-7c38-8012-b36d-c3f2cefc13b7 https://chatgpt.com/share/69a184b0-7c38-8012-b36d-c3f2cefc13... I definitely led some questions to try and squeeze new-to-me perspectives out of it; for example, there could be tricks that make the active high variant more useful in some scenarios. I think it does a good job of surfacing adjacent questions you might not realize you were eager to ask, as well as showing how it's able to critically evaluate real-world part suitability. I do find that ChatGPT in particular does better with a screengrab of the most likely parts vs a URL to the search engine.