I am using it to learn programming. I have no technical background but know enough about technology to be able to talk about the problems abstractly. Because my knowledge of the space is not via formal education and training, I have gaps in my knowledge and do not know deeper details about how ideas connect with each other on a deeper level.
GPT allows me to ask questions and provide the right kind of "connecting" bridges between two concepts I was not earlier aware of. It has made recursive forms of learning very easy for me, when I can articulate the "what" but lack a clear understanding of "how".
This absolutely isn’t how humans learn. Humans learn by doing. Once you grasp the basics, you can read some documentation. Otherwise there’s not enough ground for the docs to make sense.
Once you’re comfortable with the basics by all means read the table of contents to know what you don’t know. I recommend this especially when dealing with databases, it’s amazing how many people never advance past the apprenticeship part of learning software engineering.
> This absolutely isn’t how humans learn. Humans learn by doing.
That depends on both the subject and the person. Some learn better by understanding the fundamentals first. Some subjects (in CS/SE as well) might not even be approachable without it.
The way dosco189 is using GPT is perfectly fine. They aren't letting GPT do all the work for them, they're letting it explain how concepts relate to each other, something you often will not find in the documentation.
Also documentation is, how to say, heavily styled in a sense.
If you disliked a certain teaching style before you were basically screwed. I've learned some languages purely because the documentation was fun for me personally.
100% agree. Back circa 2010-2011, Apple’s obj-c documentation held back my iOS coding career. Coming from javadocs, I just couldn’t wrap my head around apple’s style.
From a theory pov, inflation can be cost push (raw materials cost more for producers) or demand pull (demand more than available supply).
In the real world - both can happen simultaneously.
When interest rates rise, not only does higher cost of borrowing discourage investments and spending (an attempt to kill demand to bring down prices) it also reduces the money supply of the economy.
The money supply refers to all the liquid assets and cash that are in circulation in a country's economy. It is important because it is closely related to the credit market.
But money supply works in conjunction with market risk - which often branches out to two functions - liquidity preference and risk premium. The former is a theory that suggests that an investor might prefer 6% over 10 years than 3% over 5 years. The latter suggests that one investor might pick the 3% (lower yield) option because it has better risk premium - say the 6% is a bond in a DVD store, and the 3% is a government bond (example).
What we're witnessing now is the spiralling, second order effects of rising rates - which on the one hand attempt to kill demand and curb prices for consumer goods, but on the other, affect the money supply and force investors to rebalance their portfolio and start evaluating different risk premiums.
The Fed has dug itself into a hole because monetary policy changes have massive spillover effects into other areas of the economy, not just inflation and cost of borrowing, but also things like how participants in the economy view liquidity and risk premiums.
Can't A/B test monetary policy, or life. Institutions, like people, will learn to face the consequences of their actions and learn to live with their choices.
Because "Pro-Environment" messaging is neither about being preserving the environment, or about the environment. It's about co-opting the relevant ideal within the overton window to signal some form of ethically accepted form of compliance.
