Re: Deyan's list of concept names

I really should get in the habit of using AI more often!

The lists you have are impressive, but as is (currently) the case, not to
be trusted. E.g, you asked for a list of 100 items and you got 78 back.
More importantly, the list is clearly not "the most common mathematical
symbols and notations that are universally taught in K-12 STEM education".
For example, it contains permittivity-of-vacuum and permille but doesn't
mention mean or median. Nonetheless, the lists can be used as lists from
which to grab notations.

Thanks,

    Neil


On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 9:42 PM Deyan Ginev <deyan.ginev@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Neil, everyone,
>
> Thanks for fixing the spreadsheet.
>
> That 2020 list feels outdated in multiple ways nowadays (even though the
> content should still be useful with some curation).
> It's a whole new world out there. I recently jumped into the GPT-4 chat
> interface, and - well - you can just ask the large language model to
> bootstrap a list of this nature. That list will need secondary curation and
> trimming down (e.g. what belongs in Core? what should be a property instead
> of intent?), but so did my original spreadsheet.
>
> Here's a list of names with LaTeX notations (generated near instantly) in
> a 10 minute chat session. It's nice that OpenAI now gives shareable links
> to the sessions.
>
> It was much faster, and a lot less painful, to generate a few hundred
> concept names by prompting the model, than it was to spend a few weeks
> pouring over encyclopedia pages:
> https://chat.openai.com/share/aa8d65c6-ac72-405d-a789-e1d2b784292e
>
> And it can easily provide more concepts, and be guided to the domains it
> missed... probably thousands more.
>
> Greetings,
> Deyan
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 2:13 PM Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> On the call, I tried to show the list of intent names that Deyan came up
>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EsWou1K5nxBdLPvQapdoA9h-s8lg_qjn8fJH64g9izQ/edit#gid=1358098730>
>> with but it was clearly not correct. I think I must have sorted the first
>> column by mistake and it was messed up. I have reverted to the previous
>> version so the list is back to correct.
>>
>>