AI does have a lot of slop. But I think it's fair to say the following rule is useful for guiding how we use it: when it comes to known knowledge, skillsets, and toolsets, AI is extremely good—it can even correct us if we're saying nonsense.
But for unknown knowledge—the kinds of things no one really has answers to—it acts more like transparent glass. It just polishes whatever it's been given, often by being agreeable. So if a human feeds it slop, it produces polished slop. But if someone provides something genuinely insightful, it returns polished insight.
Here's a three guiding rules I think are useful:
Use ChatGPT only for the following three purposes:
Here's a three guiding rules I think are useful:
Use ChatGPT only for the following three purposes:
- Updating knowledge and skills – For example, conducting literature reviews of papers you genuinely need, or refreshing concepts you’ve already learned but may need to revisit. But you must be able to cross check every step of it's reasoning.
- Encyclopedic and manual labor help while creating – Use it for routine calculations after you've already learned how to do them and can do them, or to get unstuck on specific calculations or concepts you've struggled with for a reasonable amount of time. Again, you must be able to cross check it's reasoning (there should be no black boxes in your understanding).
- Editing language and flow – Use ChatGPT for improving clarity and tone, but only after you’ve completed writing the entire document to the best of your ability.
AI should not be used for brainstorming, or as a collaborator; AI tools are by design meant to inflate the user's ego, and not to be a true critic of the user's work. It should not be used for moral advise either—as noted in one of my previous essays (it's like using crutches and not relying on your own moral axis).