your experience on AI helping to learn a new and specific programming topic - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Wilson__
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2025, 12:45:38 pm
content: What is your experience in using (which) AI tools to help learning specific topic in programming. (Microsoft co-pilot, Github chatgpt, etc.)By asking AI to generate sample codeCut and paste (compile or run-time) error messages to AI and let AI generates step-by-step diagnostic on why my code have error(s)EDIT: I refer the use case of experience programmer trying to learn a new "library/devices/functionality/hardware capability' that he has zero prior experience in that "specific-area"

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2025, 04:55:33 pm
content: edit:OP’s clarificationchanges the meaning →a new replyWhen I was much younger, in the early 2000s, the biggest trap to learners were tutorials posted on the web. Most of them written by people, who barely started to grasp the language themselves.(1)Often repeating misconceptions and peddling nonsense.Then the aggregate-and-sell business seized the opportunity. Where newbies writing tutorials honestly tried to be helpful and merely failed to realize their own limitations, people behind those websites never cared about information quality. If it brings clicks and the victim doesn’t realize they got duped, it’s ok. Even if blindly copied from a random source. Even if written by an underpaid editor, who cares only to fill the hourly quota. The only quality test being that code doesn’t outright crash or cause a compile error. This was an even greater problem to learners, because the content feels “professional,” polished, and curated. Worse, it’s designed to make one feel being successfully andinstantlyhelped.And now you ask about LLMs. Literal random text generators, tuned for deception. Using both of the above to as the source material. What kind of learning do you expect from rolling a glorifiedd20trained on garbage?A good dose of knowledge and experience is required to evaluate such generated code. Not only for matching your expectations, but to notice subtle mistakes. Neither is something a beginner can do. It also delivers no proper commentary, which would explain the traps or downsides, and why one piece of code is preferred over another.LLMs may be useful for more experienced programmers. They excel in two important tasks. Giving rough hints, which you may use to find proper information. And as a recall engine, where your memory fails. But to use either we need to be able to evaluate the hint or have the memory to recall.(1)I don’t criticize self-learning or sharing knowledge among learners, and I always was a supporter oflearning by teaching. The problem with those tutorials is, that you’d never realize the author lacks experience themselves.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2025, 05:53:05 pm
content: Quote from: Wilson__ on February 22, 2025, 12:45:38 pmIt works bad in such way. If it cannot generate working solution on the first step, its very low probability that it can fix something. Usually, when you point him where is his error, he just add another error and don't fix original one. But you can find some new ideas in his response when he is trying to fix their own errors.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2025, 06:52:19 pm
content: Well, for fun, I tried to ask Co-Pilot to do style checking on a piece of code in a real project of mine. Because I don't consider myself an excellent programmer at all, I genuinely expected some real points to improve, especially because this Co-Pilot is marketed as something specifically tailored to work with code and do exactly a job like this.The result was worse than I imagined. Most suggestions were making code style poorer: for example, it suggested removing a space from "sizeof (type)" to make it look like a function call. When the wholepointof adding the space is to underline the fact it is not a function call, but a (type) expression given tosizeofoperator. The only thing which can explain such poor suggestion is poor training material: garbage in. Probably just github everything without much pre-selection, so including a lot of crap code.From experience of others, it seems LLMs are pretty good for generating code whenallof the following conditions apply at the same time:* The task is a variation of something that is often being done, so that the relevant concepts appeared in training material* Requirements are flexible* You areveryinexperienced programmer to the point of being unable to do the thing yourself,* You arenot interestedin learning how to do it.In such cases, I have heard and seen people successfully do some simple but pretty nice projects by iteratively talking with LLM until it kinda works, and spend just a few hours, maybe a day, while it would have taken maybe weeks or months to start learning both the programming language and programming concepts from scratch. But that is also what would have allowed learning. By bypassing it, no learning happens.I fail to see how LLM could be usable to assist learning. Maybe if you are very stuck with some poorly documented piece of library for example, you could use it as a "better google" hoping that the answer was in the training material.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2025, 07:52:38 pm
content: Yes to much of the above.Just realize that "AI" is pretty much just a marketing ploy, and that it really has no intelligence, and you'll be fine.Quote from: Siwastaja on February 22, 2025, 06:52:19 pmSeems like one of the biggest uses for AI going forward is going to be students cheating on their homework.Which might work for them in the short term, but it means we're going to have a lot of dumb programmers, engineeers, etc., out there building our world. Not the world I want to live in.So if you just want to cheat on your homework and get your program done, use "AI".If you want to actuallylearnhow to program, how to spot your own mistakes and correct them, then the hell with "AI".

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2025, 08:16:50 pm
content: Quote from: Wilson__ on February 22, 2025, 12:45:38 pmhttps://www.science.org/content/blog-post/evaluation-deep-research-performanceThat is an evaluation of OpenAI on a topic that is unfamiliar to all here. Benefit: we won't get hung up on the specific topic: we will be forced to concentrate on the mechanisms and conclusions that are true in all fields. You will note that Derek Lowe acknowledges the good points in the output. That's unsurprising since he is continually looking for ways in which machines can aid his field.Pay particular attention to his conclusions in the last paragraph.

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2025, 08:22:03 pm
content: This just in: some people are better at using tools than others. Ric Romero has more on this late-breaking story at 11.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2025, 08:37:21 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 22, 2025, 08:16:50 pmOK:QuoteReads like a lot of equivocation to me.How 'bout just saying "AISUCKS"?Oh, no, that would be entirely un-academic ...

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2025, 08:47:24 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on February 22, 2025, 08:37:21 pmOK, you don't like his conclusions, but what is inaccurate and why?Derek Lowe wouldn't be so un-nuanced and stupid to write something as simplistic as your statement- as is clear from his earlier paragraphs.All tools have good and bad points. Hence an honest evaluationrequiresequivocation.My apologies if that discomforts fanbois.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2025, 09:38:17 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 22, 2025, 05:53:05 pmThere's actually a good chance that an AI can detect and highlight quite a lot of programming errors. Its just unrealistic to expect one to resolve all the errors and get something fully working. A LOT of programming errors are some form of typo, and there's a pretty good chance of a pattern matching machine catching many of those. They are also the kind of errors where, when someone/something points them out, they are usually clearly wrong and easily resolvable. The kind of things a programmer can verify and fix at a high rate, once they are pointed out. The problem I have found with both mechanistic and AI style dodgy code detectors is they often overwhelm the humans with a flood of false positives.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2025, 09:54:52 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on February 22, 2025, 09:38:17 pmWhy, exactly?LLMs work by creatingsyntacticallycorrect language (English at least, hopefully computer as well), but where thesemanticsare based solely on word that statistically occur together. When humans do that - and we've all seen people do that - they are called bullshitters.GIGO still applies! One of the nightmares of the AI brigade is that the LLM-slop on the web is ingested by the next generation of LLM training.QuoteDon't need LLMs for that. A decent language plus a decent IDE is more than sufficient.QuoteThat presumes the programmers are sufficiently expert that they can detect and correct the LLM slop.But if they are that expert, they don't need LLMs in the first place.Which leaves the only beneficiaries being the people thatcan'tdetect the LLM nonsense.And that's back to the point that Derek Lowe made.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2025, 10:10:24 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 22, 2025, 09:54:52 pmDid I mention LLMs? I know you hate them, but try to stay on topic. Also, the typo detectors in current IDEs are generally less than useless, as they produce so many false positives.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2025, 10:24:37 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 22, 2025, 08:47:24 pmThat's true; however, the reason I knock "AI" so hard is not because it's "just a tool" that has good and bad points, which it is: it's because it's now being viewed, by both the unwashed and the washed masses, as apanacea, the ultimate Oracle, the all-knowing, all-seeing arbiter. If it weren't for this then sure, let's recognize what it's good at and what it's not. But the overwhelming consensus seems to be that we're now ready to put all our intellectual eggs into that particular basket, to trust "AI"'s judgment no matter what.QuoteHeh; no such apology will be forthcoming from this corner.And, as you so correctly wrote:Quote

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 22, 2025, 10:43:30 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on February 22, 2025, 10:10:24 pmI'veemphasisedthe LLMs in this sub-thread. Old skool AI was not LLM; modern AI a.k.a. MLisLLMs under the skin.QuoteI don't hate LLMs. I do hate the lack of appreciation of the consequences of how they work - especially the triumphant re-discovery of problems that were identified 40 years ago and then forgotten.Now, which of my points about LLMs is incorrect?QuoteNote that I explicitly specified a "decent language" and "decent IDE".In this context C and C++ are not decent languages, e.g. you cannot determine what "a+b" might mean until you have processed the entire codebase. That's the "wonder" of macros and conditional compilation.

author: Wilson__
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2025, 11:40:55 am
content: EDIT of OP: I refer the use case of an experienced programmer trying to learn a new "library/devices/functionality/hardware capability' that he/she has zero prior experience in that "specific-area"

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2025, 01:02:36 pm
content: Quote from: Wilson__ on February 23, 2025, 11:40:55 amThat's a reasonable use case. LLMsoughtto be able to do that well.It is usefully similar to the one Derek Lowe discussed. i.e. he is a researcher (=experienced programmer) wanting a research summary of a topic (=drug) in an area that is new to him.your requirement "new library/devices/functionality/hardware capability" plus the traditional pitfalls => "I chose that for several reasons. First off, it's a reasonably technical topic, and I wanted to see how the Deep Research system dealt with the chemistry and toxicology literature in general. Second, it's one with several complications, and there are many misconceptions that have proven difficult to get rid of."you would almost certainly encounter the equivalent of his intermediate conclusion, i.e. "Overall, if you did not know the details of thalidomide's toxicity before reading, you would come away with a much better grasp of the topic. However. . ."afteryou had gained experience in the unfamiliar technology, you would probably have similar thoughts to"I doubt if any human putting together a file like this would have let that go past, and (in my opinion) it's a big enough omission to be a defect""you have to know the material already to realize when your foot has gone through what was earlier solid flooring."That last conclusion is IMNSHO, just whatyouwould find foryouruse case.I completely agree with "That, to me, is one of their most pernicious features. I know that these things were not designed per se to glide over or hide their weak points and their mistakes, but they do a terrific job of it,and that's not really what you want." (my emphasis).Please do read Lowe's article, with an eye on looking and understanding the big picture and seeing the correspondences with your use case. I.E. not the minute details of, for example, syntax correction.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2025, 01:03:17 pm
content: That clarification changes a lot!If we can judge the information and treat it with a dose of caution, current(1)LLMs are a decent tool. Perhaps even more valuable, as their brethen powering search engines get more useless by the day.(2)Refining the situation: we have a poorly defined problem, which we can only express by referring to rough concepts. What we want is some kind of a hint, that puts us in the right area. Either conceptually similar to what we seek or referring to phrases we should care about.The architecture of current LLMs fits that job perfectly. Unlike with many other tasks, the language models are advertised for now, this is actually the area in which they naturally fit. We do get translation of our nebulous cloud of notions into a value roughly representing it. This is the first step. Then this value is translated into the area of our interest, and the model generates “natural” text resembling what humans describing that area would say. This solves the second step. Almost exactly(3)what we want.As long as the returned information is taken as a hint, in my opinion LLMs are a great help.(1)So far that means: probably all. But term “LLM” doesn’t inherently tell us anything about the architecture. Let’s be future-proof with our statements.(2)To people seeking actual knowledge and proper information.(3)We’d really want this to be proper conceptual mapping. LLMs do this only at a language level. But since the language does carry meaning too and the learning data was gargantuan, for LLMs we do get some semblance of mapping concepts. Good enough for the task.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2025, 01:19:38 pm
content: Quote from: golden_labels on February 23, 2025, 01:03:17 pmYes, search engines are spewing out all sorts of dross nowadays, dammit.That dross is the input used to train LLMs. That's a Big Problem - and thetechnicalLLM community is well aware of it.ThebusinessLLM community doesn't care - it is are only interested in whether they can sell the output to middle managers that can't tell that the output is dross.The industryreportersdon't care about that - if people read their articles they are satisfied.Your "...some kind of a hint, that puts us in the right area" should be easily satisfied by wackypedia articles or application notes or tutorials (if those don't exist, use a different technology!).The OPiscompetent at assessing those himself, and doesn't need another summary generated by yet another technology. He wants more, quite reasonably.The OPis notcompetent at assessing where the LLM confidently and smoothly hallucinates.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2025, 03:10:26 pm
content: The output of search engines used to train LLMs? The… what?No idea, what your image of LLM training is. But they are trained on complete data, not the microscopic part filtered through the search engines. This is what makes them do, what they do. The absolutely unimaginable amount of content fed to them.Not only that, but with high confidence we may tell they have been manually fine-tuned to avoid the kind of replies that nowadays make search engines a mess.Your perception of the management making things worse, is in this case not opposing this notion, but instead supporting it. That kind of replies had to be blocked to make the service viable for market. No company wants their “smart chat” to be off-topic, advertise Amazon products or, worse, promote competitors.I can’t understand, what you mean with the “wackypedia” reference. Not even because you mix positive and ridiculing tone in the same statement. No, mostly because you arbitrarily removed half of the condition, and because I don’t see how Wikipedia is a computer algorithm. I also don’t know, how you determined Wilson__’s mental capabilities and what is the goal of that. So I’m skipping that part too.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2025, 03:23:20 pm
content: Quote from: golden_labels on February 23, 2025, 03:10:26 pmEven if that was true, LLMs still regularly hallucinate and produce rubbish. When corrected they apologise politely and profusely(!), and either hallucinate in a different way or just feed back your correction to you in a slightly different form. It takes an expert to determine when LLMs have stepped away from truth and accuracy. If you can't see the chicken and egg problem there, then I'd like to sell you this bridge that I own.I've no idea what you mean by "complete data". I suspect you mean the sources which the search engines ingest and then present in their search results. GIGOstillapplies; it seems to be a universal law.Note: I do not think LLMs are useless. They may turn out to be valuable in terms of, for example, sifting through vast numbers of chemical compounds to determine which small subset is worth investigating as a pharmaceutical. That's no worse than the current mechanisms, which - like the LLM output - has to be evaluated by experts to determine correctness. That's of limited value to the OP since, of course, he has no available experts.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2025, 03:31:02 pm
content: Quote from: golden_labels on February 23, 2025, 03:10:26 pmThere is an interesting question there. Do these LLM trainers do the same trawling of the internet that the search engines do, or do they ride on the existing trawling, with all its good and bad. I assume the AI work at Google rides on their own existing trawling?

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2025, 03:44:01 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on February 23, 2025, 03:31:02 pmIfthereisany other information available, then why would the search engineschooseto ignore it? Doubly so if the hypothetical other information is "better" than their current sources?Google has, for example, spent a lot of time and money scanning and OCR'ing paper books, textbooks and otherwise, that are otherwise unavailable on the net. I regularly have search results that refer to such sources. Irritatingly those results are further from the top nowadays (gurgle prioritises new stuff, damn their eyes), and gurgle will only let me view too few pages - presumably due to copyright laws.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2025, 03:55:04 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 23, 2025, 03:44:01 pmSearch engines don't give everyone access to raw trawled information. We all see search results getting worse and worse as the years go by, for a variety of commercial, political and government pressure reasons. Not doing your own trawl is going to give you are very slanted data set, unless you are Google and have access to it all.QuoteHas Google scanned a good percentage of all known books now? I wonder how skewed their scanning policy might be?

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2025, 04:13:43 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on February 23, 2025, 03:55:04 pmWhile there is some validity there, that's not far off conspiracy theory territory. As someone who has a bias towards "conspiracy theories of history", I always remember that usually "cockup theories of history" are sufficient and correct.QuoteLast I heard, gurgle was scanning everything it could legally get its hands on, plus not worrying if some of the scanning might be illegal.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2025, 05:24:01 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 23, 2025, 04:13:43 pmWhist the reasons for search engines giving worse and worse results might approach conspiracy theories, the fact that they are getting worse is blatantly obvious. Google is massively less functional than it was in its earliest days...... but the ads at the top of a search result are always on point and relevant. Often filled with things relevant to what I said shortly before in a forum like this.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2025, 06:32:00 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on February 23, 2025, 05:24:01 pmYes.Which raises the question, relevant to this latter part of the discussion:Whyare current search engine results (non-"AI"-powered) getting worse?Is it because of the technology? Has the non-"AI" search methodology reached its limit of utility?Or is it rather because of other, non-technological factors, namely a shift of interest on the part of players like Google/Alphabet away from delivering optimal search results in favor of ... $$$$$?I say the latter, which shoots a couple of rather large holes in the ""AI" taking over where search engines leave off" argument.n.b.: And why does the forum software remove my group of 5 "$"s and replace it with ... a line break and a single "$"?Curious peoples wants to know.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 23, 2025, 06:55:55 pm
content: Google makes its profit from advertising, so the $ argument is sufficient and probably correct. The issue with not be helped by the continual arms race with SEO companies. If you think its AI offerings are immune to that, then I have a bridge to sell you.As for lots of $ signs being mutilated, I suspect it is interpreting them as LaTeX directives.

author: thermistor-guy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2025, 05:56:40 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 22, 2025, 08:16:50 pmYes. User beware.I'm using Grok3 beta as a math tutor and proof assistant. Very impressive so far. I would, and will, pay a yearly subscription for continued access.If I start off with newbie questions in mathematics - "What is ? ", "What is ?", "How do they differ?" - I sometimes get some hand-waving answersthat are correct-ish but disturbingly close to being wrong.If I ask in more formal terms, I get very educational answers. "Consider the space comprising C, the set of real functions continuous on interval [a,b],equipped with the uniform norm. Let subset S satisfy: [list of properties]. Under what conditions does S satisfy: [additional properties]?"I asked Grok about a niche research topic (in electronics) on which I had published. But getting Grok to reason about that topic was an unsuccessful uphill battle- not trained on it, I guess. Or, I lack sufficent Grok prompt-fu.Still, as long you are aware of pitfalls, and you carefully check what you are getting, I see tremendous value in AI as assistants.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2025, 10:29:19 am
content: Quote from: thermistor-guy on February 26, 2025, 05:56:40 amSounds about right.Key points from Lowe's summary:you can only detect LLM's bad errors if you are already a subject expertthe LLMs are extremely good at gliding over their mistakesIMNSHO LLMs:aregoodfor filtering a large search space, thus allowing experts to examine the reduced search space in detail (e.g. drug candidates)might be OKfor complete beginners in a topic,providedan expert has pre-screened its output to ensure it is sensible (e.g. just like textbooks in classrooms)are likely tosubtly misleadpeople who are neither complete beginners nor experts (e.g. young programmers or engineers or technicians)And, of course, too many people are repeatedly taken in by plausible bullshitters, human or otherwise. Just look at the news.

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 03:44:11 pm
content: Grok3 is already more capable than any forum poster on the internet.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 03:58:43 pm
content: Quote from: photon on March 16, 2025, 03:44:11 pmDefine "capable", and what it is capable of.LLMs may be more capable than "average man on the Clapham Omnibus", or at least fool such people into believing they are more capable.Here's a more reasonable assessment, but note all the caveats and the low bar that has been set. "I’ve been getting great results out of LLMs for code for over two years now. Here’s my attempt at transferring some of that experience and intution to you."https://simonwillison.net/2025/Mar/11/using-llms-for-code/Neat quote: "Ignore the “AGI” hype—LLMs are still fancy autocomplete. All they do is predict a sequence of tokens"

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 04:07:42 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 16, 2025, 03:58:43 pmSure, but that's allwedo.Stochastic token prediction isn't just all you need, it's all there is. The rest of the problem is just a question of how memory is accessed and updated.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 05:40:42 pm
content: Quote from: KE5FX on March 16, 2025, 04:07:42 pmProve that's all it is!I await the details of your falsifiable tests.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 07:42:11 pm
content: Quote from: KE5FX on March 16, 2025, 04:07:42 pmWhere do you get that from? Real science, or marketing from Microsoft?I'll quote this again from them, just for pleasure:Quote

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 08:58:36 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 16, 2025, 05:40:42 pmQuoteSee above.

author: osmax_br
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 10:07:49 pm
content: You are asking for experience, so I will tell you mineFirst of all , I'm not an expert or an engineer , I am a med student , as the AI suggests , I'm at the "slope of enlightenment" in dunning Kruger effectSometimes I envy engineering students because they can get a little help from AI (even if it is 20%) , however in my medical studies AI is just horrible , it is a complete disaster, you cant rely on it to do anything , even if you are in your early years , AI is just garbage , I use AI for one thingMnemomincs, sometimes anatomy attachments and insertion are hard to memorize so I group then into sentences, that's itAI cant replace doctors anytime soonFor my electronics work , I don't have enough time to read a proper 1000 pages electronics text book , or a programming reference book , or to read the documentation of an mcu like ESP32 which could take considerable time that I don't have , there are priorities in life and my medical knowledge is prioritized over my programming knowledgeRelying on AI to write a code is a bad idea , even though I'm not an expert I find a lot of errors in it , especially if you are doing something newWhat I do is 4 steps1- get the idea of a project , write technical details , and then tell the AI that I'm an employee in a very professional company, evaluate my technical code structure and give me ideas , since I could get kicked from the company if my basic structure is bad2- ask it what should I learn before doing such a project , It must be a professional code, (it gives me a list of things and an explanation of each thing , put everything in garbage and only take the headline of each topic and search it online , if you don't have time like me go to documentation or any reliable source , copy the explanation and tell it to summarize or to give the main points)3- Write your own code , don't use AI to write it , then I normally ask it the following : "I'm doing X project that does X things , here is my code {X} I want you to rate my skills , tell me the weak parts of my code , what bad skills I have , is my code professional, can I use it as a graduation project ? "It evaluates your code , gives you a rating of 10 , and then tells you the weak skills you have , it usually tells me about memory management,data structures , ISR , heap , stack , priorities, bitwise etc.... , copy each one of them and search about it online4- Repeat the aboveAND ALWAYS MAKE SURE TO TELL IT YOU ARE DOING PROFESSIONAL WORKThe way I use AI is that to compare my codespecifcly to professional code, then use the headlines of each topic to search about it onlineeg: if you search about esp32 tutorials on yt and google you'd find 1000s of tutorials , I read a lot of them and became very comfortable with writing +5000 lines of code on it and do big projects (for a hobbiest) without having a step by step tutorial online , and the code actually works fine without major bugs , however using this method I lacked the knowledge to use things like (structs,enums,stacks,heap, priorities,RMI,bitwise,classes,registers,freeRTOS etc...) since 99.9999999% of esp32 tutorials online use simple arduino code , no professional concepts are usedI had to put my code into the AI , the AI tells me that your code is very good for a hobbiest but horrible for an engineer or a professional work , you didn't use (structs , heap allocation , modular code, I copy each thing and search about it independently , and so onOne thing that AI excels at is refining English paragraphs and find grammatical errors , I use it a lot on this Mannar (this post wasn't polished by AI , I think you will find a lot of grammatical mistakes)

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 11:26:00 pm
content: Telling LLMs to write professional code or asking them if it is correct is naive.Lawyers have tried that when using LLMs to prepare cases in US courts. The LLMs apologise profusely when lies are detected. When their hallucinatory lies (which the LLMs confidently stated were true) were spotted in court, the lawyers found themselves in a career limiting position.Oops!

author: osmax_br
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 11:55:44 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 16, 2025, 11:26:00 pmwell I didn't say to put a professional code to review it , nor to write a professional code , I didn't mention writing code at allwhat I said is to give it a non professional hobbiest code like mine , and tell it to treat it like it is for a professional workit seems like when you tell it that it excludes code written by beginners/tutorialsmy point is not professional work at allmy point is that of you tell it this is a professional work -even though it is not- it will try to get you a better resultthis is my own experience,may differ from your experiencehowever, I dont think that AI can get you anything "professional" or review anything "professional"for my case , I just need to know the terminology/techniques that professionals useas I said above , all esp32 tutorials on yt didnt mention things like heap, stack,enum however the AI didI just had to search online about itbut how would I know about the existence of such things if I just watch these stupid tutorials on yt

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 04:55:39 pm
content: Don't say AI or LLM. Say Grok3 or ChatGPT4 or whatever it is you are using.Just try it.Give it your problem and ask questions just as you do on this forum.Grok 3 will answer and reason with you about it in real time. No egos. Just reason.It will tell you if it does not know something.It will apologize if it makes mistakes. Yes, it's up to you to find its mistakes.But for the last design I gave it it was super.Try it.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 06:22:21 pm
content: Quote from: photon on March 17, 2025, 04:55:39 pm"AI" has has many veryverydifferent meanings over the decades.LLM is a particular class of machine, descended from one early variant of AI (perceptrons), and what most people are thinking of when they say "AI".Grok3 and ChatGPT4 are specific machines.Some characteristic behaviour is specific to a particular machine, some to an entire class of machines. Choose your scope accordingly.QuoteAnthropomorphism is dangerous; it leads to misunderstandings.QuoteIf you are asking an LLM a simple question with an answer that it has in its training set, then there is a reasonable chance it will give you the right answer. But that would also be revealed by conventional search techniques. Boring.If you ask an LLM with a complex question where there are subtleties in the extent to which any answer is correct, then to sort out the answers you will need to already be a subject expert and know more than the machine. In that case the LLM is no benefit. Boring.If you ask an LLM a question similar to many in its training set, it will mash them all together to produce something that is grammatically correct but which may or may not be true. Such hallucinations are dangerous because the person needing to ask them does not know enough to distinguish truth from hallucination. The LLM cannot; if challenged, it will confidently state its output is correct.Manylawyers have been caught out by that, and penalised by judges - not good for their careers.So, I'm glad that you appear to have had success. But either you are already a subject matter expert, or a complete novice, or you might not have spotted a hallucination.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 06:56:52 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 17, 2025, 06:22:21 pmToday'sre-affirmation of that sorry state of affairs, common across 8 different LLMs ....https://flowingdata.com/2025/03/17/testing-citation-skills-and-overconfidence-of-ai-chatbots/

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 08:33:56 pm
content: The difference between Grok3 and a search engine is that Grok3 can reason whereas a search engine cannot.This is why Grok3 is replacing search engines.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 09:02:53 pm
content: Quote from: photon on March 17, 2025, 08:33:56 pmNo, it cannot reason.You're being sadly misled here.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 09:25:33 pm
content: Quote from: photon on March 17, 2025, 08:33:56 pmNo, it can't reason.LLMs produce sequences of words that are statistically similar to sequences in their training sets. Think of it as being sophisticated word salad.When humans do that it is called bullshit. Unfortunately such word salad is sufficient to convince many people, especially those who are not expert in a subject.

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 09:31:43 pm
content: It's an interesting question, all right, and one that probably won't be settled anytime soon. What would be a good example of a question that could be asked to determine whether reasoning is being performed?We'd need to stipulate up front that perfection isn't required, or even a correct answer, because poor reasoning and faulty reasoning are still instances of "reasoning."

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 09:36:29 pm
content: Quote from: KE5FX on March 17, 2025, 09:31:43 pmJust so.Testing for consciousness is a related problem.Expect many human beings to fail a reasoning test

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 09:44:32 pm
content: Here is an example I found telling:https://x.com/luismbat/status/1893775833002648027

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 09:47:07 pm
content: Quote from: KE5FX on March 17, 2025, 09:31:43 pmAh, where is Eliza when we need her?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 10:09:48 pm
content: Quote from: photon on March 17, 2025, 10:00:07 pmOK, very impressive. Maybe.So how much of that do you think is valid, real, usable?Versus how much is "hallucination" (i.e., bullshit)?Or are you a person who just takes everything "AI" emits as The Truth?There are some words in the language for such people.BTW, regarding replacing this forum and others like it:That's entirely within the realm of possibility, regardless of whether it's warranted or justified.Because of the headlong heedless rush towards "AI".More's the pity ...

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 10:27:34 pm
content: It's getting better, though. Are you?Nothing else matters except the first couple of time derivatives.

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 10:42:28 pm
content: QuoteMore than what I think is valid on this forum.Bonus: Grok3 is nicer than most forum posters.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 18, 2025, 04:13:37 am
content: I see some contradiction in your behavior. If you think, what you said above, then why don’t you switch to Grok3?You: will have what you prefer more.Readers: will not be misled by your comments.We:(1)will save time correcting the misinformation.Musk: will make more money.Musk’s competition: benefits from the general trend.This solution clearly benefits everybody.(1)The group of regulars, who get at least basic grasp of what those algorithms are and try to pass that knowledge to other people.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 18, 2025, 10:55:59 am
content: Quote from: golden_labels on March 18, 2025, 04:13:37 amTouché! ExcellentHe will also be an early adopter of LLM's as they continue to ingest what they find on the web - including LLM output. That "descent into mass hallucination" concept frightens the LLM creators who think about the future.There might be a surprising beneficial consequence of LLMs. C-level executives who create and believe word salad bullshit will be the easiest to replace with LLMs. Welcome to Sirius Cybernetics, and roll on the revolution.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 18, 2025, 01:00:31 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 18, 2025, 10:55:59 amThey should be, but what I'm seeing at the moment is the exact opposite: those bullshitters are the ones selling LLMs at all costs and warning everyone about soon being replaced.There are currently many pseudo-experts claiming that "AI" will "replace most jobs within a decade" but that "we'll always need CEOs".Of course, that's more wishful thinking and propaganda than reality, but rest assured that the ones who are heavily promoting LLMs are not decided to get replaced any time soon, and they are the ones with the money.

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 18, 2025, 02:17:22 pm
content: QuoteI am a long time member of the forum and found it a place to discuss, argue and learn.I wanted to pass on what I actually see using Grok3. I found all the hype to be true.In understanding what is true or false I find that time is the only judge. In the next couple of yearseither AI is in fact the revolution people are, for good reason, expecting, or not so much.Let's give it a couple of years. If the forum is still up then I'll come back and admit I am wrong.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 18, 2025, 02:28:08 pm
content: Quote from: photon on March 18, 2025, 02:17:22 pmPresumably you can ask GrokN, and it will give you a truthful answer.

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 04:10:12 am
content: GrokN, or perhaps AI will have a new leader by then.AI happened because of semiconductor scaling.The human brain has ~100 billion neurons.The scaling law for AI, which states that intelligence scales like log #neurons, so far has held true.So whoever has the smallest geometry will win.Since semi = Taiwan, the winner may be asia.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 04:38:54 am
content: Quote from: photon on March 19, 2025, 04:10:12 amSince when has that underlying precept--that intelligence can be simulated (or, more hubristicly, actually created) by a certain number of semiconductors as proxies for neurons--actually been proven?It has not, and "AI" still has nothing to do with intelligence.We still have really very little idea of how the brain actually works. But now we want to leapfrog over that ignorance, straight into the role of Proteus or Phanes.Poor deluded hue-mons ...

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 10:26:58 am
content: From the "what else would you expect" department...Researchers have found that large language models (LLMs) tend to parrot buggy code when tasked with completing flawed snippets. That is to say, when shown a snippet of shoddy code and asked to fill in the blanks, AI models are just as likely to repeat the mistake as to fix it. Nine scientists from institutions, including Beijing University of Chemical Technology, set out to test how LLMs handle buggy code, and found that the models often regurgitate known flaws rather than correct them. ... tested seven LLMs – OpenAI's GPT-4o, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4, Meta's CodeLlama-13B-hf, Google's Gemma-7B, BigCode's StarCoder2-15B, and Salesforce's CodeGEN-350M...https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/19/llms_buggy_code/

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 01:48:11 pm
content: I feel your pain. It's like a machinist felt when he was replaced by CNC.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 02:10:08 pm
content: Quote from: photon on March 19, 2025, 01:48:11 pmThat's a typically inane comment from you.CNC machines did exactly what the specification stated, and what you told them to do, without actively lying and disguising their limitations.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 04:13:29 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 19, 2025, 02:10:08 pmExactly. This fallacy (well: lie) about LLMs is excruciating. Proponents are using the "it's just a tool" argument to argue that it will be exactly like with any other tool we've ever created, that it will just augment our capabilities and yes, will make some tasks/jobs obsolete, but that's just what has always happened and there's no point in opposing it, and if you do, you're just a nasty conservative against any kind of progress and you should be silenced.Yet, they do all they can to put LLMs (all currently put under the "AI" umbrella ) in a position making them, precisely, not just tools, but something else. Which is justification for not even requiring any specification, because only tools need one.This is schizophrenic.And yes, the fact LLMs have no specification and no way of proving any kind of fitness for any kind of particular purpose is a major issue. This is not saying that they can't be useful. But this is saying that we have a major problem with those and as long as this problem is not addressed (and ignored), we're just toying with fire.

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 04:39:03 pm
content: One has to distinguish reason from creativity.Mathematically, reason can be reduced to boolean logical expressions that can be proved true or false.Creativity, on the other hand, does seem divine.What AI teaches us is that reason can be mechanized.Creativity? Well that is another question.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 05:31:15 pm
content: Quote from: photon on March 19, 2025, 04:39:03 pmOne has to distinguish lies from creativity.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 05:36:04 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on March 19, 2025, 04:13:29 pmThat's just a start.Worse: LLMs can't explain why they have emitted their prognostications.Worse: LLMs cheat (when playing chess)Worse: LLMs lie about the truth of what they have emitted. Lawyers have had "career-limiting" experiences based on that) Will engineers too?QuoteThey might be useful in some circumstances - but it takes a subjectexpertto assess LLM emissions.

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 06:29:04 pm
content: QuoteIf I can prove, with mathematical logic, that a statement that you call a "lie" can be deduced, using only the rules of logic, from a set of assumptions, is it really a lie? Or is it that the assumptions (prejudices) are wrong. Don't confuse reason, which is simply applying mathematical logic, with assumptions (prejudices).

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 12:06:27 am
content: Quote from: photon on March 19, 2025, 04:39:03 pm"AI" has taught us no such thing, which you'd know if you looked into that whole mess a bit more deeply than you apparently have.Last sentence absolutely true: if "AI" fails so miserably at "reason", how in the world could anyone expect true creativity from it?Although I must admit that some of its "hallucinations" are pretty trippy, like the stuff you can get from the stable diffusion models. Maybe that'll be "AI"'s eventual application, as sort of an adjunct to CGI. That I can get behind.

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 12:15:55 am
content: Do you use a computer. Do you trust everything it tells you? Do you use a search engine. Do you trust it? Here the answer is yes, no matter what you claim. Same will happen with AI for you and the rest of the planet, no matter what you claim.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 01:39:40 am
content: Quote from: photon on March 21, 2025, 12:15:55 amNo, of course not.*Like that president once said, "trust, but verify".QuoteSee answer above.And if by that last part of your post you mean that "AI" is going to be forced on us, whether we like it or not, whether it's appropriate or not, then I totally agree with you there.*Especially if it's the output of my own programs, which sometimes have bugs, believe it or not.

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 04:29:36 am
content: No one forces you to use a computer. Yet you bought one.No one forces you to use a search engine. Yet you use it.No one will force you to use AI. Yet you will.

author: thermistor-guy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 06:09:22 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on March 17, 2025, 09:02:53 pmIt certainly looks to me like Grok3 can reason. I'm using it to tackle some math problems (functional analysis).My problems have the form:Consider [a set of real functions with a particular norm] and define [subsets of functions with defined properties].Is it true that [a certain subset has property A]?Is it true that [every function in a particular subset has property B]?I'm comparing Grok's yes/no answer, and the argument Grok gives to support the answer, to my own (independent) derivation.So far they have been similar.In one case, I had a "proof" I thought was clumsy and a little suspect. To my surprise, Grok's answer and line of reasoning matched mine.I'd like to think that's a good sign ...In another case, I framed my question incorrectly, and Grok answered yes (true) based on a theorem I wasn't familiar with - surprisingand educational.Grok states it can generate code in formal (theorem-proving) languages (see below). I have yet to try that, but I can imagine a powerfulsituation where Grok helps you generate code for a proof verification system, giving you an independent check.I've tried formal systems in the past (PVS and HOL), but the learning curve was too steep for me. Maybe it's time to try again. I'm keento learn if anyone here is using AI as a formal methods assistant.Quote

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 01:08:32 am
content: I think the verdict from you and many others will be the telling result.

author: dobsonr741
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2025, 07:29:40 pm
content: I tried Cursor for a month for hobby work. It wrote me 15K line of code for 3 projects - in C++, C and Swift. It made me 10x more productive. I did not touch the code more than a handful times. It’s clearly more productive than hand coding. The question is not what kind of intelligence it is, rather can you get things done better/faster/with less procrastination. Its a big winner for me.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2025, 08:50:40 pm
content: Quote from: dobsonr741 on March 29, 2025, 07:29:40 pmIf correctness isn't an issue, I could beat that by an order of magnitude.How did you specify and create the tests? How did you ensure the tests were sufficient to ensure correctness?I have, seriously, seen people that believe something worksbecauseit passes the tests to produce a green light.Hint: apart from trivial things, coding is only a small part of developing a solution.

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2025, 09:03:54 pm
content: You're retired, right? Good thing, if so.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2025, 09:09:18 pm
content: Quote from: KE5FX on March 29, 2025, 09:03:54 pmIs correctness unimportant?Looking at what's going on in the US, that probably is the case

author: osmax_br
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2025, 09:33:36 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 29, 2025, 08:50:40 pmAre you talking about electronics here or just coding.As far as I know , big tech companies has built-in tests (in terminal) for each code that is written , then it is retested by a humanAnd I wrote "as far as I know" intentionally because I'm not in a big tech company, but my friend isAnd if your are referring to "green light" in electronics, do you mean the test pads that are on a pcb for testing during production , or do you mean literally to connect green LEDs to outputs of desired ic or board (Edit I feel stupid thinking about this since there is an Oscilloscope to do this)

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2025, 09:57:10 pm
content: Quote from: osmax_br on March 29, 2025, 09:33:36 pmThat case was software written in a TDD/Agile environment.The "green light" is either a GUI panel or a toy red/amber/green traffic light indicating whether the unit test suite executed without error.The key point is that writinggoodunit tests ismoredifficult than writing the program itself. Usually the most of the unit tests are trivial and - at best - only test that nothing has changed.For those thatthinkpresume testing can show something works, please provide pseudocode proving a system has ACID behaviour, or that it is deadlock/livelock free. Fame awaits those that achieve it!

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2025, 10:12:48 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 29, 2025, 09:57:10 pmSince you mentioned Agile: retch/choke/aaaaagh.What a load of crap that is. "Scrum" and all that nonsense.Just another part of the programming/development "cultcha".

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2025, 10:20:19 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on March 29, 2025, 10:12:48 pmAlldevelopment processes have weaknesses that can be abused, and have some advantages over other processes.Some people just shouldn't be given a keyboard or soldering iron.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2025, 10:23:48 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 29, 2025, 10:20:19 pmOr a lectern at a symposium.

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2025, 12:46:43 am
content: Meanwhile, xAI is valued at $80 billion and cannot keep up with demand. How are you doing?

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2025, 10:10:02 am
content: Quote from: photon on March 30, 2025, 12:46:43 amGet your timing right and you can make money. Get it wrong an lose money.What's your algorithm forpredictingthe top of a bubble?What's AI's algorithm?

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2025, 06:30:06 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 30, 2025, 10:10:02 amYou can easily find out. I did it for you. Here is Grok's reply:Predicting the peak of an "AI bubble" is tricky, as it depends on how you define the bubble—whether it’s hype, investment, or technological breakthroughs. Historically, tech bubbles, like the dot-com boom, tend to inflate over 5-10 years before bursting or stabilizing. AI’s current wave kicked off around 2012 with deep learning breakthroughs, so we’re about 13 years in by March 30, 2025. Investment in AI has been massive—hundreds of billions annually by now—driven by companies like xAI, OpenAI, and others. But bubbles often pop when expectations outpace real-world utility or profitability, and AI’s still proving its long-term value in many sectors.Some argue the peak’s near, pointing to overheated valuations and speculative startups. Others say we’re nowhere close, given AI’s accelerating impact on industries like healthcare, logistics, and energy. Market data’s mixed: AI stocks are volatile, but adoption’s still climbing—think millions of users for tools like ChatGPT or autonomous systems. If I had to guess, the hype might crest in the next 2-5 years, say 2027-2030, when either breakthroughs plateau or economic reality checks in. But that’s a hunch, not a crystal ball. What’s your take on where AI’s headed?

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2025, 08:09:29 pm
content: Quote from: photon on March 30, 2025, 06:30:06 pmThat's just about what I would expect an LLM to emit. Lots of escape clauses, nothing solid, and no algorithm in sight.

author: djsb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2025, 09:29:06 pm
content: Just to lighten the tone.I asked co-pilot "What colour of boxer shorts am I wearing today"It's reply"As much as I'd love to claim mind-reading superpowers, I don't have the ability to see or know such things! But my guess is that they're stylish—regardless of the color. Care to share, or is this your way of keeping me on my toes? 😉"

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2025, 09:33:00 pm
content: Yup. Just what I would expect a smooth bullshitter to come up with

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2025, 01:05:59 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 30, 2025, 09:33:00 pmOK, since you made up the question. What is your answer to it?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2025, 02:20:24 am
content: Quote from: photon on March 31, 2025, 01:05:59 amWellll, I believe the question wasQuoteWhat if that person doesn't have an answer to that question? Not at all a trivial matter, as I'm sure you're well aware.So if all "AI" can do here is handwave and hem and haw and BS, how does that make it better than the question-asker?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2025, 03:20:40 am
content: Oh, this raises so many questions:"Hello, can I help you?""Oh, I was just wondering if Mr. and Mrs. Smith live here.""No, and what were you doing with that big old Q-tip you have in your hand there?""Oh, nothing. Bye!"

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2025, 12:17:42 pm
content: Quote from: Simmed on March 31, 2025, 02:42:14 amI wonder if the two correlate somehow?

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2025, 12:25:33 pm
content: We need AI. AI is very useful. It can be used toremovestuff. For example:Have an unproductive job position? -> "Replace by AI". Unproductive worker replaced by unproductive AI. Everyone's satisfied, except the worker, but they deserved it by being unproductive, and they can't complain, after all AI is great.Need to shut down the healthcare system in country X? Don't just shut it down, it creates unnecessary backlash. Instead, replace by AI. Let sick people play games on their phones instead of getting to see a doctor. And no one can complain, because digitalization and AI is great. Better do that to full extent. Once their health collapses due to lack of healthcare, they are finally going to need emergency services. Don't worry - AI can make the decision if they need an ambulance or not. Easy-peasy, make it a puzzle game which is nearly impossible to win, so that the answer is always "no". And no worries, no one can complain, because AI is great.And coming back to the question in title: I believe AI can be used to replace learning a programming topic by whatever useless chatting. Play games instead of learning. Much more fun. Can talk about color of your boxers with the AI, and enjoy how advanced the chatbot is. Isn't technology wonderful?And you realize how much money can be left on the table after we, for example, fire unproductive workers and shut down healthcare? So better invest in stock of AI companies.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2025, 01:34:31 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on March 31, 2025, 12:25:33 pmStrangely, executives and other bullshitters don't realisetheirjobs are prime candidates for replacement by LLMs.QuoteDon't need AI to "achieve" thatYou forgot to add "do X because the computer says so".

author: osmax_br
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2025, 01:47:05 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on March 31, 2025, 12:25:33 pmI thought we doctors cant be replaced with AIApart from jokes , doctors and nurses are hard to be replaced by AIAt the current status of the AI , it cannot make a simple diagnosis, also try asking it an anatomy question , it falls apart since they are very bad at imagining and visualization, I cant rely on the AI to do anything in medical studies even in the first and second years of my studyMaybe the reason is that the references we use are copyrighted by big companies like Elsevier, so it is locked to whatever garbage it can find online , second reason is that unlike programming and electronics which can be a hobby , medicine is not , you can't be a hobbiest doctor , therefore there aren't much content available on YouTube or forums or websites etc....Another factor is the trust, sure young people may trust the AI , good luck convincing your 90 years old grandpa of using AI as a medical assistant, you can make a Hollywood movie where AI starts to intentionally give people wrong treatment to lower the number of people on earth and control the world , you can't believe how many people would stop using AI all togetherYou might ask , so why nurses are hard to replace , the answer is simply price , manufacturing a robot which can inject, add serums , sanitize wounds etc... is very costly, you can go and see how much a humanoid robot by Boston dynamics costs , and even this can't compete with a normal human being , it is simply cheaper to pay a nurse a salary than getting 100k robots especially if we are talking about developing countries where the wages of all the staff can't reach 50kBut you're right , it is cheaper to put ADs on the internet about using AI medically and then close the entire health system , and a lot of people would be happy with that sinceAI is great

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2025, 06:52:16 pm
content: Quote from: osmax_br on March 31, 2025, 01:47:05 pmThey don't need to. Just make a system where you can't get an appointment to a doctor. So doctor never sees you. Then you can reduce number of doctors, withoutdirectlyreplacing them. AI is great in this chatbot system, it's a perfect time waster, and it already works well enough.In Finland we have v1 in place where doctors are already obsoleted, but you can chat online with a real, physical nurse, because they have stronger trade union. Next step obviously is to remove the nurses, too, but it doesn't matter, you don't get any help now either, so it will be massive cost savings.QuoteOf course, but here's the deal: just don't make diagnoses. That's the whole idea. Stop trying to treat people. It's easiest to stop people from entering the door. Don't give them times. Then no one can also complain about the quality of service.I'm surprised it took so long to realize this. No doctor -> no diagnosis -> no treatment -> no cost. Money can be directed to somewhere else. Even the problem of false diagnosis goes away. AI is needed to chat with the patient, and decide that no diagnosis is needed, which is clearly not a problem, whereas diagnosing by AI is causing backlash.AI is the smoke screen which allows all of this. It'sexactlywhat is needed during this time when people started to get sick hearing about "digitalization" and stopped believing it would ever work. Butnowwe have this new digitalization 2.0, namely AI, which is much greater.

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2025, 09:25:29 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on March 31, 2025, 06:52:16 pmGood for Finland. I hope you like it. Maybe the alterior motive is to eliminate older, less productive people.As for companies that use AI, check out RUFUS and ask a question about pricing. Amazon knows how unreliable AI is and won't allow RUFUS to discuss that. What's more important, saving $22 on a Samsung monitor or your life? (Samsung pricing was the specific question I asked to today. The same monitor is available from Samsung for about $22 less w/ free shipping.) Just follow the money. Even our most "advanced" AI entities won't use AI when money is involved. If your are willing to put your life on the line for that, it's sad.BTW, my opinion is that probably 90% of medical issues could be solved by much less qualified individuals. The problem is, how do you identify that 10% in a timely manner without exposing the person to even greater risk?

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2025, 10:17:57 pm
content: One person's experiences while creating a Vetinari clock.https://github.com/iracigt/ventinari-clockHe is refreshingly honest about what he did, and why, e.g. "Is this a lot for an interrupt handler? Yes. Do I care? No."One of his experiments was to try using GitHub Copilot and LLMs to program embedded systems, and "debugging with vibes" (whatever that is). I'll leave you to read about how well it worked. edit. Foundhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibe_codingA key part of the definition of vibe coding is thatthe user accepts code without full understanding. AI researcher Simon Willison said: "If an LLM wrote every line of your code, but you've reviewed, tested, and understood it all, that's not vibe coding in my book—that's using an LLM as a typing assistant."Sounds like the programming equivalent of alt-facts, and not at all surprising coming from LLM fanbois.And you thought Agile/XP/TDD was bad; you ain't seen nothing yet.EDIT: AnalogKid made a very valid point about a video that I previously had here, so I've replaced that with something closer to what I wanted in the first place. I'd have preferred a video with Pvt Frazer's famous very dour catch phrase, but the only ones I could find were too long, i.e. 8s.Dad's Army is still repeated on TV occasionally, 65 years later.https://blog.westminstercollection.com/tag/dads-army/

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2025, 02:11:42 am
content: @tggzzz, just a li'l meta-comment about your post:That YouToob video you posted: the after-screen, which shows suggested related videos. is interesting. I checked a few of the videos, and they're all the same type, even though from different channels: they are all celebrity-related (nothing remarkable there), but they're also all total click-bait. Not only that, but they're all the same ridiculous format: there's no video at all in them, just one fixed image with narration throughout the video, not even live audio, and stupidly, captions of the narration. It seems that this genre of nearly content-less video is some kind of burgeoning cottage industry ...

author: abeyer
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2025, 03:46:57 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on April 02, 2025, 02:11:42 amI'm pretty sure what shows up on that screen has as much to do with the watch history on your account/browser/computer/ip as it does the video it shows up on.... they show you what they think you are likely to click. (given that you know what's in them all, it sounds like they succeeded)

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2025, 04:04:07 am
content: Quote from: abeyer on April 02, 2025, 03:46:57 amNot likely in my case, I don't think, because I browse in private mode, am not signed up with YouTube, so they know little or nothing of my watch history. (And I rarely watch anything having to do with celebrities!)I just thought the similarity of all those vapid videos, from different producers, was kind of weird.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2025, 07:58:46 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on April 02, 2025, 02:11:42 amOh, I've repeatedly stated my dislike of yoootooob videos, didn't notice there were any linked videos, and rarely look atanysuggested videos!I did search for a video of Private Frazer in Dad's Army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Frazer) with his famous catch phrase "We're doomed, doomed", but the only one I could (reliably?!) find was 8s long with some extraneous guff on the end. The one I linked to was an acceptable 2sHowever, I've now spotted that the catch phrase is sufficiently well known that it is on a UK stamp, so I'll replace the video with a picture of that.

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2025, 01:11:41 pm
content: it increasingly appears that humanity is a biological bootloader for digital superintelligence

author: Langdon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2025, 01:33:44 pm
content: AI is sometimes wrong.When it isn't, it often misses the point and "big picture".Either way, it will probably mislead you and likely mess up your brain by making neuronal connections that don't make sense.AI replies in a very convincing tone, even when it is totally wrong/stupid.This tricks your brain into hinking it is right, with potentially disastrous results.The confident tone causes everything it says to stick in your brain, even when it shouldn't.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 02, 2025, 11:09:12 pm
content: Quote from: photon on April 02, 2025, 01:11:41 pmOmigod, this proves it: you're a total fanboi!

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 07:16:56 am
content: Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Here is a thread about AI created schematics, which are just as realistic and accurate as vibe coded detritus and pictures of pretty young ladies holding soldering irons by the wrong end.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/ai-generated-schematics/msg5867467/#msg5867467

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 09:35:43 am
content: It’s the kind of ballast that makes your CFL sink faster in the ocean.But you must admit one thing. Do you know, how good actor needs to be to play comically badly? Imagine what level of mental capability is required to make sure literally everything in those drawings is wrong!

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 09:47:29 am
content: Quote from: golden_labels on April 03, 2025, 09:35:43 amEither very high or very lowWhat about the level of mental capability required to realise the schematic is bullshit?More or less than the average person who typically believes conspiracy theories and similar?More or less than the average person who doesn't realise that LLMs are designed to produce well written bullshit?

author: Langdon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 12:46:08 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on April 03, 2025, 07:16:56 amGood drawing skills, zero knowledge whatsoever.I went to a high school electronics competition and this one dude made a beautiful-looking breadboard circuit.The only issue is it was totally non-funtional, made absolutely no sense of any kind, did not follow the schematic in any real sense, and was just totally moronic.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 02:12:50 pm
content: Quote from: Langdon on April 03, 2025, 12:46:08 pmYup. LLM's writing and grammar are similarly pretty, pretty enough to seduce the inexperienced/unwary/ignorant masses.That's how human bullshitters succeed, so I suppose that is some form of demonstration that they are as good as people.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 02:49:05 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on April 03, 2025, 02:12:50 pmThat's doesn't demonstrate that. What it shows is that people in general tend to fall for the same sugar-coated BS wherever it comes from, which is interesting but says things about many people being suckers and almost nothing about who or what can deceive them, other than the technique of sugar-coating anything that is unfortunately way too effective.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 03:02:38 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on April 03, 2025, 09:47:29 amI expect we’ll have a chance to evaluate that firsthand!In one support channel of a $linux_distro people are already coming, asking for help, revealing that they followed what LLMs told them or are running an LLM-generated script. If the image-generating smortnets become more widespread and as heavily marketed as text randomizers, I doubt EEVblog forum is going to be spared having to comment such schematics.Quote from: tggzzz on April 03, 2025, 09:47:29 amFrom my experience,(1)neither of those categories is a good predictor for mental capabilities.(1)But that is limited primarily to north-west countries.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 04:22:26 pm
content: Quote from: golden_labels on April 03, 2025, 03:02:38 pmLLM researchers worry about what will happen when LLMs are trained on the earlier droppings for LLM.GIGO, of course!LLM droppings have already been found here, both as first posts and responses.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 05:10:29 pm
content: Not sure if they’re worried, but there is indeed an open question like that. Boiling down to which of the available answers, each known for deacades if not 2–3 centuries, is right. Rather than discussing anything new. But how is that concerning our earlier exchange? My natural wet neural network can’t process that.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 05:15:51 pm
content: Quote from: golden_labels on April 03, 2025, 05:10:29 pmResearchers know it is already an issue. Developer and salesmen, not so muchQuoteText is text is text. LLMs neither know nor care whether the characters are written on papyrus, vellum, paper, or phosphor. Even if they did, they couldn't understand enough to distinguish. The more often they see (crap) words together, the more often they emit (crap) words similar to those. That's how they work.

author: JoeS
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 06:14:26 pm
content: Been fixing different electronics for years, Now.All this time had a wicked stumbling block about theory.I couldn't understand how electrons traveled all down wires and components so fast.Have a chemistry background, inorganic and Organic.I was thinking it's all these clumps of electrons running thru wire.Asked Chatgpt ,how could so many of the electrons travel so fast.It explained that the electrons pass an electric field.It said, it's like a big line of people passing a ball down the line.And it said the people, are the electrons. They move, but slowly towards thedirection they are passing the ball. This was easier for me to visualize.My brother in law told me just think of it as water going through a hose.His example still confused me. Then I was thinking how could all this water/electrons be going so fast.Maybe this will sound silly to some of the gurus on here. But it helped me alot.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 03, 2025, 07:52:53 pm
content: Quote from: Langdon on April 02, 2025, 01:33:44 pmSounds just like most of the people I know.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 12:40:48 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on April 03, 2025, 05:15:51 pmIt’s an open question, which has not been answered. Plase, don’t confuse journalits reporting on single papers with the actual, bread topic.This is the same problem it has been for between decades to centuries: degradation of models built upon other models. We know some models fail almost instantly (e.g. macroeconomical models), some models are pretty robust (e.g. electronics, Fermi problems), and in mid 20th century resampling opened the possibility for chaining models actually showing improvement. Those aren’t even all options possible.Smortnets may follow either path. Nobody knows, which one applies. Some are conditional: they depend on choices designers make in the future. The future remains obviously unknown, preventing finding the answer now. What sense is there in drawing general conclusions from the most simplistic, early version of a mechanism? Yes, if one repetitively applies the same, most naïve, data-degrading approach, it can’t produce anything better. But this is equivalent of comparing Babbage’s machine to computers. Equally, some papers actively seeking the first option will very likely find it. It’s an unavoidable shortcoming of research about the real world.Also, don’t forget: GIGO is an explanatory statement about an observation, or a normative design rule. Not a predictive law.None of the above contradicts the basic issue: language models are language models. They never were and never will be anything else. Above I’m replying to the specific statement about training models on product from other models. Which in my view is a separate concern, because the nature of LLMs is already in itself sufficient to show they can’t do what some people attribute to them.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 12:51:32 pm
content: Quote from: golden_labels on April 04, 2025, 12:40:48 pmI'm not that naive. My starting point is comp.risks and decent sources that collate and reference primary resources, e.g. MIT Technology Review.QuoteGIGO is not a "law" any more than "Moore's Law" or "Ohm's Law" are laws. But GIGOis usefullypredictive.QuoteThat is a narrow interpretation of a generic technology. As you correctly note, people believe LLMs too much, and that extends to all NN systems - I first came across that in the early 1980s!

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 05:49:36 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on April 04, 2025, 12:51:32 pmOhm’s law is a law. Not sure, what it does on this list.Moore’s law is a weak law. Weak in the sense of being very limited in time period to which it may apply, which is a consequence of the exponential growth being its foundation, meaning it must break at some point. And weak in the sense of having relatively very little tests, compared to Ohm’s law. But it is also a law.Compared to them GIGO is nothing more than an succint expression, explaining an already observed, past situation (even if hypothetically). If that situation indeed can be explained that way. It may also be applied as a policy on how to design something. That is: deciding that the future systemshouldoutput whatever, if the input is wrong. But it has no predictive power: the input being garbage isn’t an indicator of output also being garbage.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 05:56:57 pm
content: Quote from: golden_labels on April 04, 2025, 05:49:36 pmAu contraire, mon ami: that much is assured. They exacttypeof garbage emitted is uncertain, but garbage it will be (even if it's somehow correct, like a stopped clock).So in that sense, yes, it is a law.

author: golden_labels
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 06:20:30 pm
content: Maybe I’m too dumb, so I must ask for an advice. Please tell me: which ‘G’ in “GIGO” is the independent variable and which one is the dependent variable?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 06:23:33 pm
content: Quote from: golden_labels on April 04, 2025, 06:20:30 pmWellll, I would say the first and second, respectively.But perhaps I'm too dumb as well.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 07:09:45 pm
content: Quote from: golden_labels on April 04, 2025, 05:49:36 pmIt is "doing the same" as Moores' Law.Ohm's Law is not a law. It applies tosomematerials in limited circumstances.Mostmaterials are non-ohmic, and even ohmic materials show non-ohmic behaviour. simple very obvious example is any type of diode, and tunnel diodes are used for theirnegativeresistance properties I have some "Welwyn resistance transfer standards" that have been measured in a commercial calibration lab to determine their resistance as a function of applied voltage. That clearly doesn't correspond to V=IR.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 07:19:00 pm
content: ohms law is maintained at all times, the debate is over what the resistance will be at any particular time. Ohms law does not predict that the resistance will be constant, it simply says what will happen.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 08:06:53 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on April 04, 2025, 07:19:00 pmAnd it says that as the voltage across this two terminal componentincreasesthe current through it willdecrease? For example, in this component there is 3mA flowing trough it. What is the voltage across it? What is its resistance?I vs. V curve of 10 mA germanium tunnel diode, taken on a Tektronix model 571 curve tracer.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 08:21:25 pm
content: resistance is merely the relationship of a voltage and a current, it's a simple division, it does not promise that the resistance will not change, it simply says that for this voltage and this current the resistance is. If the resistance is variable that is the subject of a different law/property of the material.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 08:32:31 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on April 04, 2025, 08:21:25 pmSo what, numerically, is the resistance of that component when 3mA is flowing through it?If you tell us the voltage, I'll even do the division for you.

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 09:36:33 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on April 04, 2025, 08:32:31 pmHere is Grok's reply to your question:Since you've asked, "What if I also give you the voltage," I can provide you with a clear way to calculate the resistance of the component once you specify the voltage. The resistance of a component can be determined using Ohm's Law, which states:R = V / IHere, R is the resistance in ohms (Ω), V is the voltage across the component in volts (V), and I is the current through the component in amperes (A).You’ve already told me that the current flowing through the component is 3 mA (milliamperes). To use this in Ohm's Law, I’ll convert it to amperes, since the standard unit for current in this formula is amperes:1 mA = 0.001 ASo, 3 mA = 3 × 0.001 A = 0.003 ANow, if you provide the voltage across the component—let’s call it V volts—the resistance can be calculated as:R = V / 0.003 ohmsHow It WorksIf you give me a specific voltage, I can compute the exact resistance for you.For example:If V = 3 V, then R = 3 / 0.003 = 1000 Ω (or 1 kΩ, since 1000 Ω = 1 kiloohm).If V = 1.5 V, then R = 1.5 / 0.003 = 500 Ω.Alternative ExpressionSince you mentioned the current in milliamperes (3 mA), I can also express the formula in a way that might be convenient for you:R = (V × 1000) / 3 ohmsOr, even simpler, R = V / 3 kiloohms (kΩ), because dividing by 0.003 is the same as multiplying by 1000 and then dividing by 3.So:If V = 6 V, then R = 6 / 3 = 2 kΩ (or 2000 Ω).What I Need From YouTo give you a numerical value for the resistance, please tell me the voltage across the component when 3 mA is flowing through it. Once you provide that, I can calculate the exact resistance using the formula R = V / 0.003 ohms.Without the voltage, I can’t provide a specific number, but I’m ready to compute it as soon as you give me that piece of information! Let me know the voltage, and I’ll get you the answer right away.Even more interesting is Grok's reasoning, which is as follows. Note how it is thinking about your gotcha's.So, the user wants to know the resistance of a component when there's a current of 3mA flowing through it. But they've mentioned that they'll also provide the voltage. That makes sense because resistance is calculated using Ohm's Law, which is R = V / I, where V is voltage and I is current.First, I need to recall what Ohm's Law states. It says that the current through a conductor between two points is directly proportional to the voltage across the two points. So, if I have the voltage and the current, I can find the resistance.The user has given the current as 3mA. I should convert that to amperes because the standard unit for current in Ohm's Law is amperes. There are 1000 milliamperes in an ampere, so 3mA is 0.003A.Now, if the user provides the voltage, say V volts, then the resistance R would be V divided by 0.003 ohms.Wait, actually, let's be precise. The formula is R = V / I, where I is in amperes. So, if I is 0.003A, then R = V / 0.003.But maybe I can leave it in terms of milliamperes. Since 1mA is 0.001A, and if I use I in milliamperes, I need to adjust the formula accordingly. But it's probably simpler to stick with amperes.Alternatively, I can think of it in terms of units. If V is in volts and I is in milliamperes, then R would be in kiloohms or something, but that might be confusing. Better to convert everything to base units.So, let's wait for the user to provide the voltage.Assuming they give a voltage, say V volts, then R = V / 0.003 ohms.But perhaps I can express it in a general form. The resistance R is equal to the voltage V divided by the current I, where I is 0.003A.Alternatively, since the current is given in milliamperes, maybe the user expects the answer in a certain unit.Wait, actually, in electronics, it's common to work with milliamperes and volts, and resistance in ohms or kiloohms.For example, if the voltage is, say, 3V, then R = 3V / 0.003A = 1000 ohms, which is 1kΩ.Or if the voltage is 1.5V, then R = 1.5 / 0.003 = 500 ohms.So, depending on the voltage, the resistance will vary.But since the user hasn't specified the voltage yet, I can't give a numerical answer.Wait, in the initial message, they said "What if I also give you the voltage", so probably they will provide it.Alternatively, maybe in the context of the conversation, there is a implied voltage.Wait, looking back at the conversation, earlier the user mentioned "that component", but there was no specific component mentioned in the visible conversation. Maybe there was a previous message that I can't see.Alternatively, perhaps it's a standard component like a resistor in a circuit, but without more information, it's hard to say.Wait, another thought: sometimes in problems, especially in textbooks, they might assume a certain voltage, like the voltage across the component is known from the circuit.But in this case, since it's a direct question, probably the user will provide the voltage.Alternatively, maybe the component is a standard one with a known voltage drop, like a diode, which typically has a voltage drop of around 0.7V for silicon diodes.But the user said "that component", which might refer to a specific one, but without context, it's speculative.Wait, perhaps in the initial query, there was more information that I don't have access to.Alternatively, maybe the user expects a general formula.But the question was "what, numerically, is the resistance", so they probably expect a number, which requires knowing the voltage.Wait, unless the component is something like a current source or something, but typically for resistance, we need V and I.Alternatively, maybe it's a trick question, and the resistance is zero or infinite, but that doesn't make sense with a current flowing through it.Wait, if there's a current flowing, the resistance can't be infinite, and if it's a real component, it's not zero either.So, I think the safe answer is to say that the resistance is V / 0.003 ohms, where V is the voltage across the component.But since the user said "what if I also give you the voltage", probably they will provide it, and then I can calculate.Alternatively, maybe I can ask for the voltage.But in the context of this platform, I think I'm supposed to provide an answer based on the information given.Wait, perhaps I can say that without the voltage, I can't determine the resistance numerically, but if they provide the voltage, then I can calculate it using R = V / I.But that seems too obvious.Alternatively, maybe there's a standard assumption in such problems.Wait, another idea: perhaps the component is in a circuit with a known supply voltage, and I need to infer the voltage across the component.But again, without more information, it's impossible.Wait, or maybe it's a resistor in series with other elements, but still, I need more data.I think the best approach is to state that the resistance can be calculated using Ohm's Law once the voltage is known.So, for example, if the voltage across the component is V volts, then the resistance R is V / 0.003 ohms.Alternatively, to make it cleaner, since 0.003A is 3mA, I can write R = V / (3 \times 10^{-3}) ohms.Or, R = (V \times 10^3) / 3 ohms.But perhaps it's better to keep it simple.Wait, actually, in electronics, it's common to express current in milliamperes and resistance in kiloohms sometimes.For instance, if I = 3mA, and V is in volts, then R = V / 0.003 = (V \times 1000) / 3 ohms.So, for example, if V = 3V, R = 3000 / 3 = 1000 ohms = 1kΩ.Or if V = 6V, R = 6000 / 3 = 2000 ohms = 2kΩ.But again, without V, I can't say.Alternatively, maybe the user expects me to recall a typical voltage for such a current.For example, in some circuits, a current of 3mA might be associated with a certain voltage drop, but that's not standard.Wait, or perhaps in the context of the problem, there's a battery or something.But I think I'm overcomplicating it.Probably, the user will provide the voltage, and then I can calculate.Alternatively, since this is a text-based interface, maybe they expect me to ask for the voltage.But in the format of this conversation, I think I need to provide an answer.Wait, looking back at the initial query, it says "So what, numerically, is the resistance of that component when 3mA is flowing through it?"And then "What if I also give you the voltage"So, perhaps in the initial context, there was no voltage given, and now they're saying what if they provide it.But in any case, without the voltage, I can't give a numerical answer.Alternatively, maybe the component is such that the voltage is implied.For example, if it's a LED, there might be a typical forward voltage, but again, that varies.Or if it's a resistor in a specific circuit, but I don't know.I think the most straightforward answer is that the resistance R is V / I, where I = 3mA = 0.003A, so R = V / 0.003 ohms, and once V is known, I can compute it.But since the question asks for a numerical value, and it's not provided, perhaps I should say that it's impossible to determine without the voltage.Alternatively, maybe in the context, the voltage is 1V or something, but that's arbitrary.Wait, another thought: sometimes in problems, they might say "when 3mA is flowing through it", implying that it's at a certain operating point, but still, for resistance, I need V.Wait, unless it's a linear component, but even then, I need V and I.I think I'm stuck without more information.So, I'll conclude that to find the numerical value of the resistance, I need the voltage across the component when 3mA is flowing through it, and then I can use R = V / I.Therefore, the final answer is that the resistance is \boxed{\dfrac{V}{0.003} , \Omega}, where V is the voltage across the component in volts.But perhaps I can express it in terms of milliamperes.Since I = 3mA, and if V is in volts, then R = V / (3 \times 10^{-3}) = \dfrac{V}{3} \times 10^3 , \Omega = \dfrac{V}{3} , \text{k}\Omega.So, for example, if V = 3V, R = 3 / 3 = 1kΩ.But again, without V, I can't give a number.Alternatively, maybe the user expects me to assume a voltage.But I think it's better to leave it as a formula.Wait, or perhaps in the context of the problem, the voltage is known.But since I don't have that context, I'll provide the general formula.So, the resistance is \boxed{\dfrac{V}{0.003} , \Omega}, where V is the voltage across the component.

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 09:53:50 pm
content: Here is Groks reasoning the same question without giving the voltage.So I have this problem here: I need to find the resistance of a component when 3 milliamps (mA) is flowing through it. But wait, there's no mention of voltage or any other values. Hmm, usually, to find resistance, I use Ohm's law, which is R = V / I, where R is resistance, V is voltage, and I is current. But here, I only have the current, 3 mA, and nothing about the voltage.Let me think. Maybe there's more to the problem. Perhaps it's part of a circuit, and I need to consider other components or the overall circuit configuration. But the question seems to be standalone: "what, numerically, is the resistance of that component when 3mA is flowing through it?"Wait a minute, maybe it's a trick question or something. Or perhaps it's about a specific type of component whose resistance changes with current, like a diode or something. But the problem just says "component," so it could be anything, but typically, for resistors, the resistance is constant regardless of the current, as long as it's within the power rating.But if it's a resistor, then without knowing the voltage, I can't find the resistance. Wait, actually, for a resistor, the resistance is fixed, so it doesn't depend on the current; it's a property of the resistor itself. But the question says "when 3mA is flowing through it," which might imply that the resistance could be different at different currents, suggesting it's not a standard resistor.Alternatively, maybe it's a component where the resistance is defined at a specific current. For example, in some contexts, like with thermistors or varistors, the resistance changes with temperature or voltage, but here it's specified with current.Wait, another thought: perhaps it's a component that follows a specific I-V characteristic, and I need to recall what that is. But the problem doesn't specify what the component is.Let me read the question again carefully: "So what, numerically, is the resistance of that component when 3mA is flowing through it?"Hmm, it says "that component," which suggests that there might be some context or previous information that I'm missing. Maybe there was a diagram or a description earlier that I need to refer to. But since this is a standalone question, perhaps I need to assume something.Alternatively, maybe the component is such that when 3mA flows through it, it has a certain voltage drop, and I need to recall what that is. For instance, if it's a diode, there's a typical voltage drop of around 0.7V for silicon diodes, but that’s at a certain current, usually higher than 3mA.Wait, actually, for diodes, the voltage drop is relatively constant over a range of currents, but it's not exactly constant; it increases slightly with current. But perhaps for the purpose of this problem, I can assume a certain voltage drop.But the problem doesn't specify that it's a diode or any particular component. It just says "component."Another idea: maybe it's a resistor, and I need to express the resistance in terms of the current and some other parameter. But again, without more information, that seems impossible.Wait, perhaps the component is part of a larger circuit, and I need to use Kirchhoff's laws or something to find the resistance. But there's no circuit described.Alternatively, maybe the resistance is to be found using the definition of resistance as dV/dI, the dynamic resistance, but for that, I need the I-V curve, which isn't provided.This is puzzling. Let me think differently. Maybe the question is incomplete, and there's supposed to be additional information, like the voltage across the component or something.Wait a second, perhaps in the context where this question is asked, there's a standard assumption or a previous part of the problem that provides more details. For example, maybe earlier in the text, there's a description of the component or its characteristics.Since I don't have that context, perhaps I need to consider the most straightforward possibility. Let's assume that the component is a resistor, and that the resistance is constant. But even then, without knowing the voltage, I can't find the numerical value of the resistance.Alternatively, maybe the question is expecting me to express the resistance in terms of the voltage, like R = V / 0.003, since I = 3mA = 0.003A. But that doesn't give a numerical value; it gives an expression.But the question says "numerically," which suggests that there should be a specific number.Wait, perhaps in the context, the voltage is known. For example, maybe it's connected to a battery or something. But again, without that information, I can't proceed.Another thought: maybe the component is such that it has a known resistance at a certain current. For instance, some components are specified with their resistance at a particular operating point.But that's not standard for most components. Alternatively, perhaps it's a fuse or something that blows at a certain current, but that doesn't make sense for finding resistance.Wait, let's consider if it's a short circuit or an open circuit. If it's a short circuit, the resistance is zero, but then no current would flow if there's no voltage, but actually, in a short circuit, the current is determined by the rest of the circuit. But again, without more info, that doesn't help.Alternatively, if it's an open circuit, the resistance is infinite, but then no current would flow, so 3mA couldn't be flowing through it.So that doesn't make sense either.Let me try to think outside the box. Maybe the component is a current source or something, but current sources have high resistance, ideally infinite, but again, that doesn't fit.Wait, another idea: perhaps the component is a battery or a voltage source itself. For a voltage source, the internal resistance could be considered, but typically, for an ideal voltage source, the internal resistance is zero, and for a real one, it's small, but again, without knowing the voltage or other parameters, I can't find a numerical value.This is really confusing. Maybe I need to look back at the previous parts of the conversation or the problem statement to see if there's additional context.Wait, since this is a text-based interface, and the question is presented as is, perhaps there's a mistake in the way the question is phrased, or maybe it's a trick question to see if I recognize that there's insufficient information.But that seems unlikely, as typically, problems are designed to have enough information to be solved.Alternatively, perhaps the component is such that the resistance is defined in a certain way. For example, in some contexts, like in semiconductor devices, there might be a specific resistance associated with a certain current.Wait, let's consider if it's a diode. For a diode, the dynamic resistance r_d = dV/dI at a particular operating point. But to find that, I need the I-V characteristic, which isn't provided.Moreover, for diodes, at low currents like 3mA, the voltage drop might be around 0.6V or so, but it varies, and without a specific value, I can't give a numerical answer.Furthermore, the problem asks for the resistance "when 3mA is flowing through it," which for a diode would be the dynamic resistance at that current, but again, without knowing the diode's parameters, I can't calculate it.This seems like a dead end.Let me try to see if there's another interpretation. Maybe the component is a resistor, and the current is 3mA, but perhaps the voltage is implied to be a standard value, like 1V or something, but that would be arbitrary.Alternatively, maybe in the context of the problem, the component is connected to a known voltage source. For example, if it's in a circuit with a 9V battery or something, but there's no such information.Wait, perhaps it's assumed that the component is under test with a certain voltage. For instance, in some measurements, components are tested at specific voltages or currents.But still, without that specification, I can't proceed.Another possibility: maybe the resistance is to be found using power considerations. For example, if I knew the power dissipated, I could find R = P / I^2, but I don't know the power either.Similarly, if I knew the voltage, I could use R = V^2 / P, but again, I don't have that.So, I'm stuck.Wait, let's consider if the component is ideal. For an ideal resistor, resistance is constant, but I need a value. For an ideal wire, R=0, but then any current could flow depending on the circuit. For an ideal insulator, R=infinity, but no current flows.None of these fit the scenario where 3mA is flowing through it.Alternatively, perhaps the component is a current-dependent resistor, but that's not standard.Wait, maybe it's a component with a known I-V relationship. For example, if it's a component that follows V = k I^n or something, but again, without knowing k or n, I can't find R.This is frustrating. Maybe I need to admit that with the given information, I can't find a numerical value for the resistance.But that seems unsatisfactory, as the question is phrased to expect a numerical answer.Wait, perhaps there's a typo or something in the problem statement. Maybe it was supposed to provide the voltage as well.Alternatively, maybe in the context where this question is asked, there's a standard voltage assumed, like in a lab setting or something.For example, perhaps the component is connected to a 1V source, and then with 3mA flowing, I can find R = V / I = 1 / 0.003 = 333.33 ohms.But that's just a guess, and it could be any voltage.Wait, another thought: in some problems, especially with diodes or transistors, there's a typical operating point. For instance, for a silicon diode, at 3mA, the voltage drop might be approximately 0.7V, so R = V / I = 0.7 / 0.003 = 233.33 ohms. But that's for the static resistance, not the dynamic resistance.But again, without specifying that it's a diode, this is speculative.Moreover, the problem says "component," which could be anything.Let me try to see if there's a way to interpret the question differently. Perhaps "when 3mA is flowing through it" is meant to indicate that the component is designed to have 3mA flow through it under certain conditions, but that doesn't help.Alternatively, maybe it's a component with a rated current of 3mA, but that still doesn't give me the resistance.Wait, perhaps in the context of the problem, the resistance is such that it allows 3mA to flow when connected to a certain voltage, but again, without knowing that voltage, I can't find R.This seems like a circular problem.Let me consider if there's a mathematical way to approach this. For any component, the resistance at a particular operating point can be defined as R = V / I, where V is the voltage across it when current I is flowing through it. So, for I = 3mA, R = V / 0.003, but since V is unknown, R is unknown.Alternatively, if it's a linear component like a resistor, then R is constant, but still, I need to know either V or R.Wait, maybe the question is to express R in terms of V, but it asks for a numerical value.Another idea: perhaps the component is part of a series or parallel circuit, and I need to use the total resistance or something, but there's no such information.I think I have to conclude that there is insufficient information to determine a numerical value for the resistance.Maybe the question was intended to have more details, like the voltage across the component or additional characteristics.Alternatively, perhaps in the context of the conversation, there was a previous problem or statement that provides the necessary information, but since it's not included here, I can't use that.Given that, I'll have to say that without additional information, such as the voltage across the component, I cannot determine the numerical value of the resistance.But since the question is posed as if there is a specific answer, perhaps I need to make an assumption. For example, assume that the component is a resistor connected to a standard voltage source, but that's not standard practice.Wait, let's check if there's a common assumption in such problems. In some textbooks, when they say "when a certain current is flowing," they might imply that it's under typical operating conditions, but that's vague.Alternatively, maybe in the problem, the component is specified elsewhere, but since it's not here, I can't use that.I think the best I can do is to state that the resistance R = V / I, where V is the voltage across the component when 3mA is flowing through it, but since V is not given, I cannot provide a numerical value.However, since the question asks for a numerical answer, perhaps there's a mistake, and I need to assume a value.But that doesn't seem right. Alternatively, maybe the component is such that the resistance is known, like a standard resistor, but then the current wouldn't matter.Wait, another possibility: perhaps the component is a variable resistor or a potentiometer set to a certain value, but again, without more info, I can't say.I think I'm going in circles. Maybe I should just say that the resistance cannot be determined with the given information.But let's see if there's another angle. Suppose the component is ohmic, meaning it follows Ohm's law, so R is constant. Then, R = V / I, but still, without V, I can't find R.Alternatively, if it's non-ohmic, then R varies with I, but I need the specific relationship.This is not helping.Wait, perhaps the question is about the definition of resistance. In physics, resistance is defined as R = V / I, so when 3mA is flowing, R = V / 0.003, but that's not numerical.Unless, maybe, the voltage is implied to be 1V or something, but that's arbitrary.Another thought: in some contexts, especially with AC circuits, resistance might be defined differently, but here, it's likely DC, given the current is specified as 3mA without mention of frequency.Moreover, the problem says "numerically," which suggests a specific number, not an expression.I think I have to accept that I cannot provide a numerical answer with the information given.Alternatively, maybe the question is misphrased, and it was supposed to provide the voltage as well.For example, perhaps it was meant to say "when 3mA is flowing through it and the voltage across it is 6V," then R = 6 / 0.003 = 2000 ohms.But since it's not, I can't do that.Wait, or maybe it's from a diagram where the voltage is shown, but since there's no diagram, I can't use that.In conclusion, I believe that there is insufficient information to determine the numerical value of the resistance of the component when 3mA is flowing through it.So, my final answer is that it cannot be determined from the given information.But since the question seems to expect a numerical answer, perhaps I need to box something like "insufficient information."Wait, that might not be satisfactory. Alternatively, maybe in the context, the voltage is known, but since it's not, I'll have to leave it.I think I'll go with that.insufficient informationinsufficient information​But wait, maybe there's a clever way to interpret it. For example, if the component is such that it's designed to have a certain resistance at 3mA, but that's not standard.Alternatively, perhaps it's a component where the resistance is equal to the current or something, but that doesn't make sense.I think I have to stick with my conclusion.So, the resistance cannot be determined numerically with the given information.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 10:10:45 pm
content: Quote from: photon on April 04, 2025, 09:53:50 pmNow condense that stream of consciousness into something readable, and preferably comprehensible. Even an LLM is more concise and readable, and probably equally correct.Simon's statements indicate he thinks you can define the resistance.So can you have clearly missed it, the type of component is clearly stated after the question. No need to hallucinatory about fuses or whatever.

author: osmax_br
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 10:22:10 pm
content: I really want to copy those 100+ replies, 6 pages long into in AI and tell it to summarize itToo bad the AI I usually use has a 5000 character limitBut at this point I'd get bored debating whether an AI is good or not , maybe spend time learning something newIt is just like politics, endless debates and in the end , no one changes their original view

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 10:24:58 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on April 04, 2025, 10:10:45 pmGrok is an LLM.However, it can reason if you put it into think mode.What you quoted is Grok's reasoning, not its answer.

author: osmax_br
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 10:26:37 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on April 04, 2025, 08:06:53 pmI really like your crt color , it is more towards dark cyan than the normal green , or is it the camera that is giving this illusionI sometimes get depressed knowing that these displays wont be produced ever again

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 10:49:24 pm
content: Quote from: photon on April 04, 2025, 10:24:58 pmAnd youstillhave a high opinion of LLMs? Stochastic parrot word salad bullshit.What point were you trying to make by posting that?

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 10:53:49 pm
content: Quote from: osmax_br on April 04, 2025, 10:26:37 pmI don't know, but I imagine the colour would normally be more green and less blue.I'm not too hung up on old CRT displays, but I do like Panaplex, and have a small collection of other display technologies.

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 11:32:43 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on April 04, 2025, 10:49:24 pmMy point is any question on this forum can be answered by Grok.You get both its answer and the reasoning Grok uses to come up with its answer.My point is not that Grok is always right.My point is that Grok makes less mistakes than forum posters.Plus it's quite a bit more civil.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 11:37:36 pm
content: Quote from: photon on April 04, 2025, 11:32:43 pmSo, 5 objectives, three of which are useful - and it failed in each case.It didn't answer (response!=answer).It didn't give any comprehensible reasoning.It didn't make fewer mistakes.About what I would expect.

author: photon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2025, 11:45:37 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on April 04, 2025, 11:37:36 pmYou are right, it can make mistakes. Here I asked it your original question "Is Ohm's law a physical law?" and it makes the same mistakes you do. Here I give only it's answer:To determine whether Ohm's law is a physical law, let’s start by clarifying what Ohm's law states and what constitutes a physical law.Ohm's law is a principle in physics and electrical engineering that describes the relationship between voltage (V), current (I), and resistance (R) in an electrical conductor. Mathematically, it is expressed as:𝑉=𝐼⋅𝑅V=I⋅RThis equation indicates that the voltage across a conductor is directly proportional to the current flowing through it, with the resistance as the constant of proportionality.Next, we need to define what a physical law is. In physics, a physical law is a well-established, experimentally verified statement that describes a consistent pattern or relationship observed in nature. Physical laws are typically expressed mathematically and apply under specific conditions, summarizing fundamental behaviors of the physical world.Is Ohm's Law a Physical Law?Ohm's law was formulated by Georg Simon Ohm in the 1820s based on his experiments with metal conductors. He observed that, for many materials, the current through a conductor is directly proportional to the voltage applied across it, provided the temperature and other conditions remain constant. Materials that follow this linear relationship are called ohmic conductors, and Ohm's law holds true for them.In this sense, Ohm's law fits the profile of a physical law: it is a concise, mathematical description of a phenomenon that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. It is widely taught in physics and engineering as a foundational principle for understanding electrical circuits, and it is even honored in the International System of Units (SI) with the unit of resistance, the ohm, named after Ohm.Limitations of Ohm's LawHowever, Ohm's law is not universally applicable. It holds reliably for ohmic conductors, such as many metals under typical conditions, but there are exceptions:Non-ohmic materials: Devices like diodes, transistors, and semiconductors exhibit a nonlinear relationship between voltage and current, meaning they do not obey Ohm's law.Extreme conditions: At very high frequencies, high current densities, or in the presence of strong magnetic fields, even metals can deviate from Ohm's law due to effects like Joule heating or the Hall effect.Superconductors: Below a critical temperature, superconductors have zero resistance, altering the voltage-current relationship in a way that Ohm's law does not describe.Electrolytes and plasmas: These systems often show complex conduction behaviors that do not follow the simple linear rule of Ohm's law.These exceptions suggest that Ohm's law is not a universal truth applicable to all materials or situations, unlike fundamental laws such as the conservation of energy or Newton's laws of motion (within their classical domain).Empirical vs. Fundamental LawsPhysical laws can be categorized as either fundamental or empirical. Fundamental laws, like Maxwell's equations or the laws of thermodynamics, are derived from basic principles and apply broadly across physical systems. Empirical laws, on the other hand, are based on experimental observations and describe specific phenomena under defined conditions.Ohm's law falls into the empirical category. It was discovered through experimentation rather than derived from first principles. In modern physics, Ohm's law can be understood as an approximation that emerges from more fundamental theories, such as the Drude model of electron conduction in metals. This model explains how electrons move under an electric field, leading to the linear V-I relationship in certain materials. At a deeper level, quantum mechanics provides further insight into why some materials are ohmic while others are not.Comparison to Other Physical LawsMany physical laws have specific domains of applicability, yet they retain their status as laws. For example:Boyle's law (P · V = constant) applies to ideal gases at constant temperature but not to real gases under all conditions.Hooke's law (F = -k · x) describes the elastic behavior of springs within their linear range but fails for large deformations.Newton's law of universal gravitation works well for everyday scales but requires general relativity in strong gravitational fields.Like these examples, Ohm's law applies to a specific class of phenomena—ohmic conductors under standard conditions—and is considered a law within that domain.ConclusionOhm's law is indeed a physical law. It is a well-established principle that summarizes a widely observed relationship in nature, supported by extensive experimental evidence, and expressed mathematically. While it is not a fundamental law of nature and has limitations outside its domain (ohmic materials under typical conditions), its status as a physical law is consistent with how the term is used in physics. In scientific literature, textbooks, and education, Ohm's law is consistently referred to as a law, alongside other empirical laws like Kirchhoff's laws or Faraday's law.Thus, the answer to the query "Is Ohm's law a physical law?" is:Yes, Ohm's law is a physical law.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 05, 2025, 12:38:30 am
content: Quote from: photon on April 04, 2025, 11:45:37 pmPlease show us where I asked or implied that specific question.Remember the context: Simon writing "ohms law is maintained at all times, the debate is over what the resistance will be at any particular time".https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chatgptai/your-experience-on-ai-helping-to-learn-a-new-and-specific-programming-topic/msg5871269/#msg5871269You should also point out what mistake I made, and where I made it. Please look carefully, which implies more than speed reading reams of word salad.

author: Langdon
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 08, 2025, 12:46:55 am
content: Humans are generally better than AI at pretty much anything (except chess, go, or other games).Ask a human; or a human-made algorithm (Intellij IDEA offers great suggestions, but has no AI; those suggestions were programmed by a human).