[Richard Williams]

When I asked AI about myself, it came up with what looked like a greatest hits all-star list of every academic named Richard Williams. I was tempted to include it on my CV but ultimately didn’t.

[Richard Williams]

I do appreciate Solon’s work and am impressed that he pulled this off. I was thinking just the other day that AI for Stata could be good. AI does some things very well and is good enough in other cases, but you shouldn’t ever trust that it has given you the best answer.

i was joking with Chuck Huber that Stata should come up with a “Hey Chuck” command that will find documents and videos for you, run regressions, advise you on the best procedures, etc. This looks like a first step towards making “Hey Chuck” a reality. ;-)

[FernandoRios]

I have actually used Ai as a stata programmer companion, just to check how good it was.
it did a very descent job programming rifhdreg ( without fixed effects)
Still had quite few bugs but it was still a good example.
now, as much as I like stata, it’s adoption rate is relatively low, thus not surprising it will produce errors and hallucinations.
i can see, however, that it could very easily create stata programs with a python back end.

in any case, I would like to hear more of your experience Solon.
fernando

[George Ford]

Cool. I'll give it a try. I find Claude fairly effective at some things, not all.

[Simon Pfaff]

I find this very interesting, thank you very much for your work. I have already tried it out briefly. First, I asked about the new features of Stata 19, especially with regard to the table command and collect, which I need frequently. I found the overview quite clear. Second, I uploaded syntax from an Ado I'm working on. The summary was quite accurate. There were several suggestions for improvement that did not seem implausible at first glance.

I am not really a programmer. But I use chat bots when programming Ados, and especially when I lack ideas for implementing specific problems, or when I get stuck. There have been situations where chatgpt has shown me an approach that I didn't come up with myself or that I couldn't find otherwise. The approaches were not completely flawless, but they helped me move forward. I find chatgpt (and other) very helpful for such purposes.

Thanks again.

[Sebastian Kripfganz]

Apparently, it no longer accepts questions about Stata contributors.

When I asked about one of my own Stata packages, the answers where underwhelming. It even got the names of several options wrong.

In my econometrics class, I ask my students to present a specific econometric problem to ChatGPT and then to critically evaluate the answer. The questions are relatively straightforward, but ChatGPT most of the times provides incorrect answers. The trouble with that is that these answers might appear correct unless one knows that they are not. But when I already know the correct answer, then I don't need to ask ChatGPT. And if I cannot trust ChatGPT, then I should probably look elsewhere in the first place.

[Richard Williams]

Chuck Huber wrote this blog entry about Stata and Chatgpt in case that helps.

https://blog.stata.com/2023/07/25/a-...o-run-chatgpt/

[Richard Williams]

Sebastian Kripfganz -- Chatgpt has only been around a few years. If you can get it to only give correct answers -- and not hallucinate and just admit when it doesn't know the answer -- it could get really good.

Lots of profs worry about students using AI as a substitute for learning rather than as an aid. I try to tell students why I think AI can be bad pedagogically. But, I also try to put the fear of God in them by noting how badly AI can screw up. Maybe I will link to this thread.

I'm kind of glad I am retiring in a year and won't have to worry about AI much longer. Students have to learn how to use AI but they don't have to learn it from me.

[Nick Cox]

Every generation of teachers worries about the weaknesses and bad habits of their students. For me it's more how easy it is to copy and paste chunks from the literature without understanding it fully and without developing your own argument in a coherent style.

I first learned Stata programming by a messy combination of looking at the manuals and help; looking at existing code to see how it was done in official commands (and also community-contributed commands); and working out step by step what each error meant so that it could be fixed. And I have not stopped learning; one never does.

Now there are books on Stata programming, videos, and AI. For learners, I can say just "do whatever works for you", but I underline a point already made, and what may seem to be a paradox but should be a platitude, that you need to know a fair amount of Stata to work out easily what is correct in what you are given by AI.

A final simple point is the enormous benefit of people at the same workplace who know more Stata than you do and can say reassuringly "Yes, that's just such and such which everyone gets wrong at first".

[Solon Moreira]

As an academic, I see very interesting debates around the use of AI in the classroom and how it can either help or harm learning. While I think those debates are important, I’m strongly inclined to reject the idea that we should avoid AI just because it's not perfect (and probably never will be) or because it makes students' lives "too easy."

I work in a business school, and it’s clear to me that—regardless of how enthusiastic academics are about AI—companies are already demanding that new hires come with AI skills. In most of my classes, I explicitly tell students: You are not only allowed to use AI in your assignments, you are expected to do so.

How do I ensure students don’t just turn in something entirely generated by ChatGPT without any intellectual effort? I’ve redesigned my assignments so that it’s simply not possible to do that. They require interpretation, reflection, and integration—things AI can assist with, but not replace.

While the Stata ChatBOT is far from perfect, I’ve received great feedback on how it has made information more accessible and helped facilitate learning. Sure, books are great and always will be, but trying to force down the throats of younger generations of researchers the idea that “we did it this way in the past, so they should too” is flawed. I wouldn’t want to be the one faculty member in the 1990s claiming the internet was just a hype.