Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Science and Math Textbooks
STEM Educators and Teaching
STEM Academic Advising
STEM Career Guidance
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Science and Math Textbooks
STEM Educators and Teaching
STEM Academic Advising
STEM Career Guidance
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Science Education and Careers
STEM Educators and Teaching
Stephen Wolfram explains how ChatGPT works
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="ZapperZ, post: 6868860, member: 6230"] The difference between a "calculator" and ChatGPT is that the calculator does not do the "thinking" for you, while ChatGPT often tries (and in many cases, fail) to do just that. What I mean in doing the thinking is that it tries to make correlations and THEN tries to establish the causation, something that a calculator doesn't do. What is concerning is that it does this using a language that makes it sounds very confident that it is correct. I would point out this [URL='https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/why-did-shazam-fury-of-the-gods-bomb-box-office-we-asked-ai-bot-132042116.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMVuinijWL6cdkZsm1AE75AXmGBfUj9bvefzylb8JrxxGs-QmkxvfR0SJvnwymIoudf3pbPm3qOJJVrV6FmkWVQ-2pLD3GXp6gRAmG3M_BCcD6RNM9HXumCuZlefsBWqYbY91MJrwZeadNAK2Xmbys-qVWVlXOGJb8guxf1z5m23']amusing interaction[/URL] with it on the question on why the movie "Shazam" bombed at the box-office. It states several things with such confidence as if they are valid facts, and only retreats when challenged of their validity. Of course, if one wants to view what Chat GPT does with physics/astronomy, one can view something like this: [MEDIA=youtube]GBtfwa-Fexc[/MEDIA] As of now, it still cannot handle figures and pictures, so questions regarding those are still safe from being used there (Chegg is still an issue). But I intend to use Chat GPT as a tool for the students to hunt for its mistakes or inaccuracies. I've been trying to compile a typical General Physics questions where it gives rather puzzling or dubious responses. I have to revise the list because ChatGPT4 seems to be getting better at it. Zz. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Science Education and Careers
STEM Educators and Teaching
Stephen Wolfram explains how ChatGPT works
Back
Top