How would you describe briefly your own mental modeling of chemistry?

[pellis]

I now use it even more than Wikipedia, and to be completey honest, and accepting its faults (very poor graphics, occasional freezing,, occasional loss of material, poor transfer of math formatting into Word...) nevertheless it makes a very useful tutor - unlike Wikipedia or Google searches, one can drill down on any point one doesn't understand and usually it will clarify.

 

[TensorCalculus]

@renormalize @sbrothy @TensorCalculus In order to find those references, aside from my own files I could have found them in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything, and you likely wouldn't have objected.

Does the fact that I used the newly released ChatGPT5.0 to find the references actually contravene PF's rules? It was certainly more convenient and provided additional context that was reassuring (not copied into the refs listed).

I can understand that purists and those who see it as merely a token manipulator will be doubtful of its use. But I think we're all going to find, quite soon, that AI assistance will become more widely accepted, and is probably being used far more already than some people realise.

Given that humans also make mistakes, does openly-acknowledged use of AI assistance really make any difference, if used judiciously and checked carefully?

Note also that over a year ago (before learning that AI assisted answers were not allowed there either) I posted on Physcis Stack Exchange, as an experiment, an answer to the highly technical question:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...rs-under-vielbein-redefinitions/812257#812257
...which was upvoted and accepted, has been viewed over 100 times and never challenged beyond a request for clarification (also answered). It's more advanced theoretical./mathematical physics than I am familar with but I checked it as carefully as I could before posting it, having felt free to do so as no-one else had even tried to answer the question since it had been posted 5 days earlier.

I mean, you did credit ChatGPT which is a good start: but ChatGPT can also be a source of a lot of error, particularly with physics, which is why AI outputs are generally not accepted on PF. Maybe in this case it was fine: but in another case, it might not be. Call it deontological if you will but if a rule applies in one circumstance on PF, it should apply in all circumstances. If someone replied to a question in the advanced physics homework help section with ChatGPT, you would also be a bit skeptical, would you not?
You could be fed misinformation and not even know it: I've seen people try and use ChatGPT for middle-school level physics homework and get half of it wrong. Just because it got something right once, doesn't mean it always gets it right...
The forum guidelines say:

• ChatGPT and AI-generated text
  • Posting AI-generated text without attribution is categorically disallowed and will lead to a warning and an eventual permanent ban with continued use.
  • Answering a science or math question with AI-generated text, even with attribution, is not allowed. AI-generated text apps like ChatGPT are not valid sources.
  • Threads about the technology and cultural impact behind AI like ChatGPT are allowed
  • Usage of AI-generated text output in entertainment threads in General Discussion with attribution is allowed

Finding references... don't know if that's fine or not... but IMO it's better to find sources yourself than to get an AI to find them for you. That way you have to apply your brain a bit more.
(Not that I'm a moderator, in fact I'm pretty new here myself, so maybe I shouldn't be doing this... but... yeah)

I now use it even more than Wikipedia, and to be completey honest, and accepting its faults (very poor graphics, occasional freezing,, occasional loss of material, poor transfer of math formatting into Word...) nevertheless it makes a very useful tutor - unlike Wikipedia or Google searches, one can drill down on any point one doesn't understand and usually it will clarify.

Of course ChatGPT has it's benefits, but sometimes, like with learning, it's better to do it the hard way... I often feel like ChatGPT spoon-feeding you everything prevents critical thinking and dulls the "struggle" to learn something...
I do use it from time to time though, and I used to use it a lot, I'll admit that. But not for physics, or maths, or Chemistry. Not to teach me.

 

[renormalize]

Does the fact that I used the newly released ChatGPT5.0 to find the references actually contravene PF's rules? It was certainly more convenient and provided additional context that was reassuring (not copied into the refs listed).

From the Physics Forum rules:

• ChatGPT and AI-generated text
  • Posting AI-generated text without attribution is categorically disallowed and will lead to a warning and an eventual permanent ban with continued use.
  • Answering a science or math question with AI-generated text, even with attribution, is not allowed. AI-generated text apps like ChatGPT are not valid sources.
  • Threads about the technology and cultural impact behind AI like ChatGPT are allowed
  • Usage of AI-generated text output in entertainment threads in General Discussion with attribution is allowed.

In my view, your post #47 clearly violated the second bullet point. So by all means, use your own search skills, AI or even tarot cards if you like, to find credible references that support your point. Then post those references and describe their contents in your own words.

 

[sbrothy]

I suspect it would have perfectly acceptable (I'm not a modertor) if you had also linked to the arXiv paper. But I may be wrong. I'm myself a little new to this AI stuff and I don't use it much.

From the Physics Forum rules:

• ChatGPT and AI-generated text
  • Posting AI-generated text without attribution is categorically disallowed and will lead to a warning and an eventual permanent ban with continued use.
  • Answering a science or math question with AI-generated text, even with attribution, is not allowed. AI-generated text apps like ChatGPT are not valid sources.
  • Threads about the technology and cultural impact behind AI like ChatGPT are allowed
  • Usage of AI-generated text output in entertainment threads in General Discussion with attribution is allowed.

In my view, your post #47 clearly violated the second bullet point. So by all means, use your own search skills, AI or even tarot cards if you like, to find credible references that support your point. Then post those references and describe their contents in your own words.

Oh yeah, and by the way: Linking to Wikipedia is heavily frowned upon.

So heavily in fact, that it triggers an actual browbeating. And watch out for @berkeman as he’s just been promoted to admin. He might just be lurking around, waiting for an opportunity like that.

 

[renormalize]

Oh yeah, and by the way: Linking to Wikipedia is heavily frowned upon.

Actually, I routinely post links to Wikipedia without issue. Have I just been lucky?

 

[TensorCalculus]

Oh yeah, and by the way: Linking to Wikipedia is heavily frowned upon.

So heavily in fact, that it triggers an actual browbeating. And watch out for @berkeman as he’s just been promoted to admin. He might just be lurking around, waiting for an opportunity like that.

Welp, thanks for telling everyone: now I know not to do that (not that I've ever needed to reference to Wikipedia before)

 

[berkeman]

Oh yeah, and by the way: Linking to Wikipedia is heavily frowned upon.

Not really, depending on the situation. For non-controversial subjects, Wikipedia is often a good initial reference (and most of the Wikipedia articles have links to peer-reviewed articles about the subject). For controversial technical subjects, Wikipedia alone will probably not be enough to be making any assertions here.

 

[sbrothy]

Yeah well I was exaggerating a little for humor (also why I didn’t qoute the rules. That is: if I can make you believe I’ve got them memorized). I’ve been known to get away with it too. It depends on what you link to like @berkeman basically said.

 

[sbrothy]

Although I'm pretty sure any link to viXra will get you a virtual beating.

EDIT: Possibly with the lead pipe without soft pellets.

 

[jedishrfu]

Since this thread has run its course, its a good time to close it.

Thank you all for contributing to it.

Jedi