Or, and hear me out on this, you could actually learn and understand it yourself! You know? The thing you go to university for?
What would you say if, say, it came to light that an engineer had outsourced the statical analysis of a bridge to some half baked autocomplete? I’d lose any trust in that bridge and respect for that engineer and would hope they’re stripped of their title and held personally responsible.
These things currently are worse than useless, by sometimes being right. It gives people the wrong impression that you can actually rely on them.
Now, I’m not saying you’re wrong, but having AI explain a complicated subject in simple terms can be one of the best ways to learn. Sometimes the professor is just that bad and you need a helping hand.
Agreed on the numbers, though. Just use WolframAlpha.
Anyone being patronizing about “not fully learning and understanding” subjects that calls neural networks “autocomplete” is an example of what they preach against. Even if they’re the crappiest AI around (they can be), they still have literally nothing to do with n-grams (autocomplete basically), Markov chains, regex parsers etc and I guess people just lazily read “anti-AI hype” popular articles and mindlessly parrot them instead of bothering with layered perceptrons, linear algebra, decoders etc.
The technology itself is promising. It shouldn’t be gatekept by corporations. It’s usually corporate fine-tuning that makes LLMs incredibly crappier than they can be. There’s math-gpt (unrelated with openAI afaik, double check to be sure) and customizable models on huggingface besides wolfram, ideally a local model is preferable for privacy and customization.
They’re great at explaining STEM related concepts, that’s unrelated to trying to use generic models for computation, getting bad results and dunking on the entire concept even though there are provers and reasoning models for that task that do great at it. Khan academy is also customizing an AI because they can be great for democratizing education, but it needs work. Too bad they’re using openAI models.
And like, the one doing statics for a few decades now is usually a gentleman called AutoCAD or Revit so I don’t know, I guess we all need to thank Autodesk for bridges not collapsing. It would be very bizarre if anyone used non-specialized tools like random LLMs but people thinking that engineers actually do all the math by hand on paper especially for huge projects is kinda hilarious. Even more hilarious is that Autodesk has incorporated AI automation to newer versions of AutoCAD so yeah, not exactly but they kinda do build bridges lmao.
Getting an explanation is one thing, getting a complete solution is another. Even if you then verify with a more suited tool. It’s still not your solution and you didn’t fully understand it.
It was the last reaming exam before my deletion from university. I wish I could attend the lectures, but, due to work, it was impossible. Also, my degree is not fully related to my work field. I work as a software developer, and my degree is about electronics engineering. I just need a degree to get promoted.
Or, and hear me out on this, you could actually learn and understand it yourself! You know? The thing you go to university for? What would you say if, say, it came to light that an engineer had outsourced the statical analysis of a bridge to some half baked autocomplete? I’d lose any trust in that bridge and respect for that engineer and would hope they’re stripped of their title and held personally responsible.
These things currently are worse than useless, by sometimes being right. It gives people the wrong impression that you can actually rely on them.
Now, I’m not saying you’re wrong, but having AI explain a complicated subject in simple terms can be one of the best ways to learn. Sometimes the professor is just that bad and you need a helping hand.
Agreed on the numbers, though. Just use WolframAlpha.
Anyone being patronizing about “not fully learning and understanding” subjects that calls neural networks “autocomplete” is an example of what they preach against. Even if they’re the crappiest AI around (they can be), they still have literally nothing to do with n-grams (autocomplete basically), Markov chains, regex parsers etc and I guess people just lazily read “anti-AI hype” popular articles and mindlessly parrot them instead of bothering with layered perceptrons, linear algebra, decoders etc.
The technology itself is promising. It shouldn’t be gatekept by corporations. It’s usually corporate fine-tuning that makes LLMs incredibly crappier than they can be. There’s math-gpt (unrelated with openAI afaik, double check to be sure) and customizable models on huggingface besides wolfram, ideally a local model is preferable for privacy and customization.
They’re great at explaining STEM related concepts, that’s unrelated to trying to use generic models for computation, getting bad results and dunking on the entire concept even though there are provers and reasoning models for that task that do great at it. Khan academy is also customizing an AI because they can be great for democratizing education, but it needs work. Too bad they’re using openAI models.
And like, the one doing statics for a few decades now is usually a gentleman called AutoCAD or Revit so I don’t know, I guess we all need to thank Autodesk for bridges not collapsing. It would be very bizarre if anyone used non-specialized tools like random LLMs but people thinking that engineers actually do all the math by hand on paper especially for huge projects is kinda hilarious. Even more hilarious is that Autodesk has incorporated AI automation to newer versions of AutoCAD so yeah, not exactly but they kinda do build bridges lmao.
Getting an explanation is one thing, getting a complete solution is another. Even if you then verify with a more suited tool. It’s still not your solution and you didn’t fully understand it.
It was the last reaming exam before my deletion from university. I wish I could attend the lectures, but, due to work, it was impossible. Also, my degree is not fully related to my work field. I work as a software developer, and my degree is about electronics engineering. I just need a degree to get promoted.