We weren’t verifying things with our own eyes before AI came along either, we were reading Wikipedia, text books, journals, attending lectures, etc, and accepting what we were told as facts (through the lens of critical thinking and applying what we’re told as best we can against other hopefully true facts, etc etc).
I’m a Relaxed Empiricist, I suppose :P Bill Bailey knew what he was talking about.
I mean if that’s true then that’s incredibly sad in itself as that would mean that not a single teacher in your past demonstrated a single thing you learned. You don’t need to be in a science field to do some basic chemistry or physics lab, I’m talking like even a baking soda volcano or a bowling ball vs feather drop test. You never participated in science fair? Or did the egg drop challenge? You never went on a field trip to look at some fossils or your local geology or wildlife? Did you ever watch an episode of Bill Nye?? I find your answer disingenuous and hard to believe frankly. If you truly have NEVER had any class at school that did anything to prove to you what you’re learning and only just told you, then you’re an example of perhaps the ultimate failure in education.
In my experience, “writing a proof in math” was an exercise in rote memorization. They didn’t try to teach us how any of it worked, just “Write this down. You will have to write it down just like this on the test.” Might as well have been a recipe for custard.
One of my course exams in first year Physics involved mathematically deriving a well known theorem (forgot which, it was decades ago) from other theorems and they definitelly hadn’t taught us that derivation - the only real help you got was that they told you where you could start from.
Mind you, in different courses I’ve had that experience of one being expected to do rote memorization of mathematical proofs in order to be able to regurgitate them on the exam.
Anyways, the point I’m making is that your experience was just being unlucky with the quality of the professors you got and the style of teaching they favored.
Calculus was literally invented to describe physics. If you learn physics without learning basic derivative calculus along side it you’re only getting a part of the picture, so I’m guessing you derived something like y position in a 2 dimensional projectile motion problem cause that’s a fuckin classic. Sounds like you had a good physics teacher 👍
If I remember it correctly it was something about electromagnetism and you started from the rules for Black Body radiation.
It was University level Physics, so projectile motion in 2D without taking in account attrition would have made for an exceedingly simple exam question 🙃
All of those have (more or less) strict rules imposed on them to ensure the end recipient is getting reliable information, including being able to follow information back to the actual methodology and the data that came out of it in the case of journals.
Generative AI has the express intention of jumbling its training data to create something “new” that only has to sound right. A better comparison to AI would be typing a set of words into a search engine and picking the first few links that you see, not scientific journals.
We weren’t verifying things with our own eyes before AI came along either, we were reading Wikipedia, text books, journals, attending lectures, etc, and accepting what we were told as facts (through the lens of critical thinking and applying what we’re told as best we can against other hopefully true facts, etc etc).
I’m a Relaxed Empiricist, I suppose :P Bill Bailey knew what he was talking about.
You never took a lab science course? Or wrote a proof in math?
Nope, I’m not in those fields, sadly. I don’t even know what a maths proof is xD Though I’m sure some very smart people would know.
I mean if that’s true then that’s incredibly sad in itself as that would mean that not a single teacher in your past demonstrated a single thing you learned. You don’t need to be in a science field to do some basic chemistry or physics lab, I’m talking like even a baking soda volcano or a bowling ball vs feather drop test. You never participated in science fair? Or did the egg drop challenge? You never went on a field trip to look at some fossils or your local geology or wildlife? Did you ever watch an episode of Bill Nye?? I find your answer disingenuous and hard to believe frankly. If you truly have NEVER had any class at school that did anything to prove to you what you’re learning and only just told you, then you’re an example of perhaps the ultimate failure in education.
In my experience, “writing a proof in math” was an exercise in rote memorization. They didn’t try to teach us how any of it worked, just “Write this down. You will have to write it down just like this on the test.” Might as well have been a recipe for custard.
That sounds like a problem in the actual course.
One of my course exams in first year Physics involved mathematically deriving a well known theorem (forgot which, it was decades ago) from other theorems and they definitelly hadn’t taught us that derivation - the only real help you got was that they told you where you could start from.
Mind you, in different courses I’ve had that experience of one being expected to do rote memorization of mathematical proofs in order to be able to regurgitate them on the exam.
Anyways, the point I’m making is that your experience was just being unlucky with the quality of the professors you got and the style of teaching they favored.
Calculus was literally invented to describe physics. If you learn physics without learning basic derivative calculus along side it you’re only getting a part of the picture, so I’m guessing you derived something like y position in a 2 dimensional projectile motion problem cause that’s a fuckin classic. Sounds like you had a good physics teacher 👍
If I remember it correctly it was something about electromagnetism and you started from the rules for Black Body radiation.
It was University level Physics, so projectile motion in 2D without taking in account attrition would have made for an exceedingly simple exam question 🙃
Haha fair enough I guess I took first year to mean high school level physics but I took calculus in high school so that made sense to me.
All of those have (more or less) strict rules imposed on them to ensure the end recipient is getting reliable information, including being able to follow information back to the actual methodology and the data that came out of it in the case of journals.
Generative AI has the express intention of jumbling its training data to create something “new” that only has to sound right. A better comparison to AI would be typing a set of words into a search engine and picking the first few links that you see, not scientific journals.