Re:Noam Chomsky: The False Promise of ChatGPT
by JohnFen on Thursday March 09, 2023 @04:10PM
(#35086761)
Do you not feel like you're losing something here, though? You haven't learned anything new or improved your understanding as you would have if you did the research.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Noam Chomsky: The False Promise of ChatGPT
by psyklic on Thursday March 09, 2023 @05:18PM
(#35087608)
This is my concern as well, since I learn so much by incidentally reading docs and example code. That said, many people copy-paste Stack Overflow code without reading or understanding it. So, this is not a new problem.
Re:Noam Chomsky: The False Promise of ChatGPT
by afpx on Thursday March 09, 2023 @07:15PM
(#35088771)
I definitely learned a lot. Since I had to cross reference to text books, Wikipedia, and github, I gained a good grasp of the material. It helped that I had a math and stats background, though. But, I imagine learning linear algebra this way would work well too.
Re:Noam Chomsky: The False Promise of ChatGPT
by rychco on Thursday March 09, 2023 @07:20PM
(#35088818)
Not necessarily, no. I still need to refer to the docs, but now I get some additional context. As a simple example, if there’s some library that needs initialization I can ask “how do I initialize a new <library thing>?”. Then it’ll spit out a maybe correct example of initialization, but most importantly it’ll have some new keywords/functions/buzzwords that provide extra context for my manual search through documentation & source code.
If I were a student, yeah it could probably do my homework. As a professional, I find that it greatly helps me navigate through related ideas.