On 04/06/23 04/06/23, 15:57, Berend de Boer via ntg-context wrote:
>> Probably some on this list already checked how well chatgpt answers
>> questions about domains one knows well and then probably noted that in
>> spite of impressive wording, one can run into quite incorrect answers.
>
> I've been using it for ConTeXt, and to be honest, it works amazingly
> well. It hallucinates sometimes, but it's such a time saver.
Maybe someone should try asking it to write documentation/manuals?
As a teacher, we are accustomed to seeing Google/Wikipedia/etc.
cut-and-paste nonsense; now, this nonsense appears more polished, and
our students are none the wiser. Saves them time, too! ;-)
Who said: "the best way to economize thought is not to think at all"?
not all is bad: sometimes a textual description can replace a formalized notation, e.g.
I can imagine similar examples with tables.
Of course a very high level text is often ambiguous (as some kind of formalized grammars, after all)
but the example shows that in these cases it is better to fix something already almost ok than to typeset it from scratch.
--
luigi