On 05/06/23 05/06/23, 08:50, luigi scarso wrote:


On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 at 15:18, Alan Braslau via ntg-context <ntg-context@ntg.nl <mailto:ntg-context@ntg.nl>> wrote:


    On 04/06/23 04/06/23, 15:57, Berend de Boer via ntg-context wrote:
     >> Probably some on this list already checked how well chatgpt answers
     >> questions about domains one knows well and then probably noted
    that in
     >> spite of impressive wording, one can run into quite incorrect
    answers.
     >
     > I've been using it for ConTeXt, and to be honest, it works amazingly
     > well. It hallucinates sometimes, but it's such a time saver.

    Maybe someone should try asking it to write documentation/manuals?

    As a teacher, we are accustomed to seeing Google/Wikipedia/etc.
    cut-and-paste nonsense; now, this nonsense appears more polished, and
    our students are none the wiser. Saves them time, too! ;-)

    Who said: "the best way to economize thought is not to think at all"?



not all is bad: sometimes a textual description can replace a formalized notation, e.g. https://fosstodon.org/@t...@mathstodon.xyz/110250604086213386 <https://fosstodon.org/@t...@mathstodon.xyz/110250604086213386>
I can imagine similar examples with tables.
Of course a very high level text is often ambiguous (as some kind of formalized grammars, after all) but  the example shows that in these cases  it is better to fix something already almost ok than  to typeset it from scratch.

As an Artificial Intelligence machine, I cannot speculate why it is so hard to write correct LaTeX that does not need to be tweaked in order to give an aesthetic result. However, from monitoring the ConTeXt mailing list, I have observed that most problems seem to have an answer that work correctly when used correctly. In the rare case that ConTeXt users report something not working correctly, this usually is revealed to be a small typographic error in the macros appearing following a major internal code rewrite. I have recorded in all of these rare cases a pattern that reoccurs repeatedly with the phrase "fixed in next upload". I cannot speculate as to how such fixes appear so rapidly and so consistently. My analytical artificial intelligence is thrown off by seemingly irrelevant statements about listening to this or that CD. What could this possibly mean?

In supplement, I have not yet deciphered what is meant by the acronym MWE that also repeatedly occurs. This does not appear to fit with something that is reported as being broken.

(Written with the assistance of ChatGPT.)

Alan
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the 
Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

Reply via email to