6 ms·

I think it depends on what you want to learn and what your definition of "learnt" is. The other day I realised I had no idea how DNA and life works. I guess I

by fy20 1mo ago

I think it depends on what you want to learn and what your definition of "learnt" is. The other day I realised I had no idea how DNA and life works. I guess I studied it at high school (25 years ago), but maybe it didn't go into much detail or it just didn't click. So I asked ChatGPT to explain it to me, I came up with my own mental model from it's explanation, told it that, then it corrected me where I misunderstood things. We went backwards and forwards for an hour, me asking questions, it correcting me, until I felt like I understood the whole picture. Am I going to become a biologist and study the origins of life from that? Definatley not! But if my kids need help on their biology homework, I now understand the basics of it.

bilbo-b-baggins 1mo ago
Or do you? Cause if you went back and forth with ChatGPT for an hour it definitely hallucinated and lied to you at some point. Maybe consider using something else like Brilliant.org if you want to learn a topic, yanno, so you don’t propagate whatever hallucination from ChatGPT to your kids.
- abustamam 1mo ago
  These days online courses like Brilliant and such are likely largely LLM generated. Are they actually vetted by experts before publication? Who knows. My money is on no, or at least, not until someone complains. Its easy enough to prompt ChatGPT for primary sources when doing research to validate any claims its making.
  - ImHereToVote 1mo ago
    You should actually do this. Ask ChatGPT to check what it said against sources. It does correct itself. The corrections are usually not major. Just mental shortcuts.
    - abustamam 1mo ago
      I personally do, but something tells me the commenter i was responding to wouldn't trust the llm correcting itself.
- endymion-light 1mo ago
  This would be a valid point maybe 3 years ago, but most chatbots will now query and verify direct sources, especially in research mode. This is very simple to validate and verify. You could argue it may find false primary sources. You can condemn models for a variety of other things, but acting as if this is still reality shows a lack of understanding as to modern model capabilities
  - dns_snek 1mo ago
    Your comment is phrased as if it somehow refutes their point but it doesn't. > Cause if you went back and forth with ChatGPT for an hour it definitely hallucinated and lied to you at some point. If you're asserting that this is not the case today then that's going to be require pretty extraordinary evidence. "Chatbots use Google now" is not evidence that the information they provide is in fact correct. They don't hallucinate all the time like they used to, no, but I'd be very surprised if the majority of these sorts of conversations were free of major factual errors. I frequently notice degradation in the model model's ability to remain coherent when it searches for information online. For example I might ask Sonnet 5 "how do I build a shed" and during its search it presumably comes across an article which talks about building a shed out of paper mache, then the model responds with something like "I caution you against your plan to build a shed out of paper mache" -- Wait, what? Who said anything about building it out of paper mache?
    - endymion-light 1mo ago
      Firstly, I can't refute a point that's little more than an opinion - my doubt is that a modern frontier model is significantly hallucinating within a relatively short conversation that can easily be verified. There is no way to refute or accept the point without a complete conversation log. I am criticizing the hyperbolic nature of the comment. I doubt you are getting to the context level of model degredation where it reaches context limits within a verbal hour conversation. I've just tried to recreate your example on sonnet 5, and as someone who has done DIY projects it reads completely appropriate, but I'm happy for criticism from a shed builder. It never once tells me about paper machie or creates a silly example. This is via a prompt requesting tools and materials, and could be further improved, unfortunately, I can't paste the markdown formatting provided. """ Reference size used below: 8x10 ft shed. Scale material quantities to your dimensions. Step 1: Check Regulations & Plan Materials: None yet — just your design/plan (graph paper or free shed-plan software) Tools: None Skills to find: None required, but if your shed is large or near a boundary, a quick chat with your local planning/building department saves headaches later What to do: Confirm permit requirements, setback distances from boundaries, and max height/size allowed without permission. Sketch your design and finalize dimensions. Step 2: Prepare the Site Materials: Landscape fabric (weed barrier) Gravel/crushed stone (for drainage base, ~4-6 in depth) Marking spray paint or stakes + string Tools: Shovel & spade Wheelbarrow Rake Hand tamper or plate compactor Spirit level (4 ft) or laser level Tape measure Builder's square (for squaring corners) Skills to find: Basic site leveling — not hard, but a laser level rental helps a lot if the ground has any slope If you have poor drainage/heavy clay soil, worth asking a landscaper for advice What to do: Clear vegetation, mark the footprint, excavate and level, add compacted gravel base for drainage. ... """ I won't include the whole document, can share it further but anyone can replicate just by asking sonnet I just don't understand the need for such hyperbole, and pretending that models are still gpt3, when you can get counter evidence in seconds. It reminds me of the craze teachers had against trusting Wikipedia - yes, you shouldn't take all claims at face value, but arguing that nothing from Wikipedia could be useful just makes the argument silly.
- Jtarii 1mo ago
  I would trust ChatGPT more than the average elementary school biology teacher.
fluoridation 1mo ago
>So I asked ChatGPT to explain it to me, I came up with my own mental model from it's explanation, told it that, then it corrected me where I misunderstood things. We went backwards and forwards for an hour, me asking questions, it correcting me, until I felt like I understood the whole picture. If you're only checking your understanding against the one source you used to obtain it, how can you tell whether your understanding coincides with reality (or rather, with general scientific understanding), and not just with the source you read? And I'm not asking just about ChatGPT; the same question could apply to any source. Books are not exempt from containing errors.
- ChrisGreenHeur 1mo ago
  Same question applies if you only check it against your children's biology books
  - fluoridation 1mo ago
    Uh, yeah. That's what I said. Did you have a point or...?
    - elAhmo 1mo ago
      For majority of people, especially children, book is an authoritative source. Virtually no one outside of research fields and very excited enthusiasts will check sources in depth to see whether what is shown in the book is true or not. So, I think the point OP is making is that most people don't really check sources while learning things 'the conventional way'.
      - fluoridation 1mo ago
        We have to distinguish learning from, let's call it, recreational education. If you're learning a topic, you're not going to be using a single book. Not even schoolchildren do that. Regardless of whether you consider a book an authoritative source, if you read multiple books those books will have to agree with each other, and where they don't you'll experience some confusion until you can resolve the contradiction. If you're only ingesting information from a single source, be that a book, a teacher, or an LLM, then you haven't really learned, because your knowledge base is unmoored. You can't learn history by studying Tolkien's mythos.
mariusor 1mo ago
Can you say in all honesty that a read of the Wikipedia article for DNA would have been less helpful? It's less convenient perhaps, but definitely more authoritative.
- Jtarii 1mo ago
  Just reading something is a fundamentally different experience that being actively involved in a conversation about the thing.
  - sien 1mo ago
    One thing you can do with the LLMs is ask them to make up quick quizzes for you one a subject. That can help a bit.
- lbriner 1mo ago
  Wikipedia is completely non-interactive so of course the experience is different. Do you want to look up something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_component_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_component_analysis and try and understand that from Wikipedia? If you don't understand it, you have to try and click elsewhere. With an LLM, I can be very specific, "I understand x, y, z about PCA but I don't understand why we have to do it? What happens if I don't apply it?" and the LLM most of the time will give very approachable explanations that can be refined further if I still don't get it. I am studying for a Masters degree in Computer Science with AI and the lecture notes are like Wikipedia sometimes. Incomplete, perhaps assume pre-knowledge that lots of Masters students won't have. All of these I have taken to ChatGPT and got great explanations, diagrams, graphs etc.
- gilleain 1mo ago
  Wikipedia is a great _reference_ but not necessarily the best way to learn about a topic. Of course, this depends on the topic, on who has been writing the page, etc A particularly bad example is higher maths - a wiki pages on a complex mathematics topic often reads like "A gruncheon is a worch in the brashation of plusters" and each of these words is a separate page or topic. Of course, you _can_ in theory 'just' click through all the tree of linked pages to understand a concept ... For DNA the page (scanning it now) is well laid out, with images (including a spinning Rasmol? image) and lots of detail. However, the detail could be a drag on understanding for some : There are 'nucleotides' and 'nucleosides' and 'nucleobases'? There are non-canonical bases? Supercoiling? Z-DNA? While I know (most) of these things, it is because I've learned about them in other contexts, or by direct instruction. I'm not saying it is impossible to understand DNA from that page, but it is likely to be harder (for some?) than a more conversational approach to learning.

by fy20 1mo ago

bilbo-b-baggins 1mo ago

Or do you? Cause if you went back and forth with ChatGPT for an hour it definitely hallucinated and lied to you at some point. Maybe consider using something else like Brilliant.org if you want to learn a topic, yanno, so you don’t propagate whatever hallucination from ChatGPT to your kids.

abustamam 1mo ago
These days online courses like Brilliant and such are likely largely LLM generated. Are they actually vetted by experts before publication? Who knows. My money is on no, or at least, not until someone complains. Its easy enough to prompt ChatGPT for primary sources when doing research to validate any claims its making.
- ImHereToVote 1mo ago
  You should actually do this. Ask ChatGPT to check what it said against sources. It does correct itself. The corrections are usually not major. Just mental shortcuts.
  - abustamam 1mo ago
    I personally do, but something tells me the commenter i was responding to wouldn't trust the llm correcting itself.
endymion-light 1mo ago
This would be a valid point maybe 3 years ago, but most chatbots will now query and verify direct sources, especially in research mode. This is very simple to validate and verify. You could argue it may find false primary sources. You can condemn models for a variety of other things, but acting as if this is still reality shows a lack of understanding as to modern model capabilities
- dns_snek 1mo ago
  Your comment is phrased as if it somehow refutes their point but it doesn't. > Cause if you went back and forth with ChatGPT for an hour it definitely hallucinated and lied to you at some point. If you're asserting that this is not the case today then that's going to be require pretty extraordinary evidence. "Chatbots use Google now" is not evidence that the information they provide is in fact correct. They don't hallucinate all the time like they used to, no, but I'd be very surprised if the majority of these sorts of conversations were free of major factual errors. I frequently notice degradation in the model model's ability to remain coherent when it searches for information online. For example I might ask Sonnet 5 "how do I build a shed" and during its search it presumably comes across an article which talks about building a shed out of paper mache, then the model responds with something like "I caution you against your plan to build a shed out of paper mache" -- Wait, what? Who said anything about building it out of paper mache?
  - endymion-light 1mo ago
    Firstly, I can't refute a point that's little more than an opinion - my doubt is that a modern frontier model is significantly hallucinating within a relatively short conversation that can easily be verified. There is no way to refute or accept the point without a complete conversation log. I am criticizing the hyperbolic nature of the comment. I doubt you are getting to the context level of model degredation where it reaches context limits within a verbal hour conversation. I've just tried to recreate your example on sonnet 5, and as someone who has done DIY projects it reads completely appropriate, but I'm happy for criticism from a shed builder. It never once tells me about paper machie or creates a silly example. This is via a prompt requesting tools and materials, and could be further improved, unfortunately, I can't paste the markdown formatting provided. """ Reference size used below: 8x10 ft shed. Scale material quantities to your dimensions. Step 1: Check Regulations & Plan Materials: None yet — just your design/plan (graph paper or free shed-plan software) Tools: None Skills to find: None required, but if your shed is large or near a boundary, a quick chat with your local planning/building department saves headaches later What to do: Confirm permit requirements, setback distances from boundaries, and max height/size allowed without permission. Sketch your design and finalize dimensions. Step 2: Prepare the Site Materials: Landscape fabric (weed barrier) Gravel/crushed stone (for drainage base, ~4-6 in depth) Marking spray paint or stakes + string Tools: Shovel & spade Wheelbarrow Rake Hand tamper or plate compactor Spirit level (4 ft) or laser level Tape measure Builder's square (for squaring corners) Skills to find: Basic site leveling — not hard, but a laser level rental helps a lot if the ground has any slope If you have poor drainage/heavy clay soil, worth asking a landscaper for advice What to do: Clear vegetation, mark the footprint, excavate and level, add compacted gravel base for drainage. ... """ I won't include the whole document, can share it further but anyone can replicate just by asking sonnet I just don't understand the need for such hyperbole, and pretending that models are still gpt3, when you can get counter evidence in seconds. It reminds me of the craze teachers had against trusting Wikipedia - yes, you shouldn't take all claims at face value, but arguing that nothing from Wikipedia could be useful just makes the argument silly.
Jtarii 1mo ago
I would trust ChatGPT more than the average elementary school biology teacher.

fluoridation 1mo ago

>So I asked ChatGPT to explain it to me, I came up with my own mental model from it's explanation, told it that, then it corrected me where I misunderstood things. We went backwards and forwards for an hour, me asking questions, it correcting me, until I felt like I understood the whole picture. If you're only checking your understanding against the one source you used to obtain it, how can you tell whether your understanding coincides with reality (or rather, with general scientific understanding), and not just with the source you read? And I'm not asking just about ChatGPT; the same question could apply to any source. Books are not exempt from containing errors.

ChrisGreenHeur 1mo ago
Same question applies if you only check it against your children's biology books
- fluoridation 1mo ago
  Uh, yeah. That's what I said. Did you have a point or...?
  - elAhmo 1mo ago
    For majority of people, especially children, book is an authoritative source. Virtually no one outside of research fields and very excited enthusiasts will check sources in depth to see whether what is shown in the book is true or not. So, I think the point OP is making is that most people don't really check sources while learning things 'the conventional way'.
    - fluoridation 1mo ago
      We have to distinguish learning from, let's call it, recreational education. If you're learning a topic, you're not going to be using a single book. Not even schoolchildren do that. Regardless of whether you consider a book an authoritative source, if you read multiple books those books will have to agree with each other, and where they don't you'll experience some confusion until you can resolve the contradiction. If you're only ingesting information from a single source, be that a book, a teacher, or an LLM, then you haven't really learned, because your knowledge base is unmoored. You can't learn history by studying Tolkien's mythos.

mariusor 1mo ago

Can you say in all honesty that a read of the Wikipedia article for DNA would have been less helpful? It's less convenient perhaps, but definitely more authoritative.

Jtarii 1mo ago
Just reading something is a fundamentally different experience that being actively involved in a conversation about the thing.
- sien 1mo ago
  One thing you can do with the LLMs is ask them to make up quick quizzes for you one a subject. That can help a bit.
lbriner 1mo ago
Wikipedia is completely non-interactive so of course the experience is different. Do you want to look up something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_component_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_component_analysis and try and understand that from Wikipedia? If you don't understand it, you have to try and click elsewhere. With an LLM, I can be very specific, "I understand x, y, z about PCA but I don't understand why we have to do it? What happens if I don't apply it?" and the LLM most of the time will give very approachable explanations that can be refined further if I still don't get it. I am studying for a Masters degree in Computer Science with AI and the lecture notes are like Wikipedia sometimes. Incomplete, perhaps assume pre-knowledge that lots of Masters students won't have. All of these I have taken to ChatGPT and got great explanations, diagrams, graphs etc.
gilleain 1mo ago
Wikipedia is a great _reference_ but not necessarily the best way to learn about a topic. Of course, this depends on the topic, on who has been writing the page, etc A particularly bad example is higher maths - a wiki pages on a complex mathematics topic often reads like "A gruncheon is a worch in the brashation of plusters" and each of these words is a separate page or topic. Of course, you _can_ in theory 'just' click through all the tree of linked pages to understand a concept ... For DNA the page (scanning it now) is well laid out, with images (including a spinning Rasmol? image) and lots of detail. However, the detail could be a drag on understanding for some : There are 'nucleotides' and 'nucleosides' and 'nucleobases'? There are non-canonical bases? Supercoiling? Z-DNA? While I know (most) of these things, it is because I've learned about them in other contexts, or by direct instruction. I'm not saying it is impossible to understand DNA from that page, but it is likely to be harder (for some?) than a more conversational approach to learning.