diff --git a/unil_2024/Main.tex b/unil_2024/Main.tex
index 4337a6e6c1e991f560ad7fa878c25c6aa88ad430..ece77be55429ed12b56b377daa4620206b607f93 100644
--- a/unil_2024/Main.tex
+++ b/unil_2024/Main.tex
@@ -1,4 +1,7 @@
-\documentclass{hepia}
+\documentclass[notes]{hepia}
+%\setbeameroption{hide notes} % Only slides
+%\setbeameroption{show only notes} % Only notes
+\setbeameroption{show notes on second screen=right} % Both
% To change the slides size go to EESD.cls file and edit the preamble as explained.
% ---- Add your Meta-data to the PDF (Copyrights Kinda!) ----
diff --git a/unil_2024/Sections/4-Tentations.tex b/unil_2024/Sections/4-Tentations.tex
index 018b6f53ddc70a801ed95423b474bdde2522582c..ac1c170722ab93867a9899164596ecf30ce2375c 100644
--- a/unil_2024/Sections/4-Tentations.tex
+++ b/unil_2024/Sections/4-Tentations.tex
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
\subsection{A real use case}
\begin{frame}[fragile]
- \frametitle{Let's write a paper with a bing.com}
+ \frametitle{Let's write a paper with Copilot}
\begin{block}{What bing can help us with (if we ask it)}
\begin{itemize}
\item<1,7> Choose a research topic
@@ -16,8 +16,10 @@
\end{block}
\end{frame}
+\note{Here we will write a papier with the AI of Copilot because that's what we have access at Hepia. There are 6 places where it could be helpful to use an AI when writing a paper and we want to see how good/bad it could be in each section. Choose a topic is really about a hot topic of research. Give ideas is about ideas on your research topic and how to progress towards novel methods. Implement ideas is from idea to actual code or experiments. Analyze the results is again about how to interpret results, and/or write code to do it. Last two are quite self explanatory.}
+
\begin{frame}[fragile]
- \frametitle{Where would it be useful to use an AI?}
+ \frametitle{Where would it be useful to use an AI actually?}
\begin{block}{Maybe useful vs maybe useless vs completely useless}
\begin{itemize}
\item<2> Choose a research topic
@@ -30,6 +32,15 @@
\end{block}
\end{frame}
+
+\note{The most promising are:
+\begin{itemize}
+ \item Implement ideas, wrtie the paper, and answer to reviewers/cover letter
+ \item Analyze results (for intermediary steps maybe and code), chose a reserach topic (hype related)
+ \item Give ideas (idea generation is somthing it cannot learn if not already existing)
+\end{itemize}
+}
+
\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{Choose a research topic}
\only<1-> {
@@ -53,6 +64,8 @@
}
\end{frame}
+\note{I asked the question "Give me a good research topic". Quite disappointing. Not really hype topics for 3 of them, and one simply absurd but just a combination of buzz words.}
+
\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{Help with novel ideas and novel methods}
\begin{block}{Question: Can you give me an idea on how to solve quantum fluid flows?}
@@ -67,7 +80,7 @@
\end{itemize}
\end{block}
\only<8>{
- \begin{block}{Potential problem?}
+ \begin{block}{Potential problems?}
\begin{itemize}
\item Security and privacy of the prompts?
\item Potentially giving away your ideas
@@ -76,6 +89,10 @@
}
\end{frame}
+\note{
+ Then I tried to get ideas with nodel ideas and method. I got these answers after insisting a bit. When references exist they can be WRONG (not existing or existing but on the wrong topic.)
+}
+
\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{Summarize old ideas for reuse}
\begin{block}{Problems}
@@ -87,24 +104,29 @@
\item<5> Prerequisite: must be experts already to check correctness or live with risk of major errors
\end{itemize}
\end{block}
- \only<2>{
- \begin{block}{Yes but Wikipedia is the same!}
+ \only<6>{
+ \begin{block}{The famous ``Yes but Wikipedia is the same!'' quote}
\begin{itemize}
- \item<1> Well... Sorry but no
- \item<2> Wikipedia has thousands of reviewers
- \item<3> References can be found for most information on Wikipedia pages
+ \item<6> Well... Sorry but no
+ \item<6> Wikipedia has thousands of reviewers
+ \item<6> References can be found for most information on Wikipedia pages
\end{itemize}
\end{block}
}
\end{frame}
+\note{
+ We could use AI for summarizing but there a re a few caveats. They often make mistakes, forget parts, etc. It is mandatory to check every part very cautiously otherwise there may be mistakes. It is even harder because everything is well written!
+}
+
\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{Data analysis}
\begin{block}{Maybe an interest?}
\begin{itemize}
\item<1> Codes are relatively simple
- \item<2> There are many examples all over the internet (hence the good results)
- \item<3> Easy to iterate quickly and see if the results make sense
+ \item<2> Rapid prototyping
+ \item<3> There are many examples all over the internet (hence the good results)
+ \item<4> Easy to iterate quickly and see if the results make sense
\end{itemize}
\end{block}
\only<4>{
@@ -119,6 +141,10 @@
}
\end{frame}
+\note{
+ For data analysis it seems usable because it's mainly write a simple script that is not critical (from the accuracy and security point of view). It can therefore be quickly checked. Nevertheless for quick prototyping it is easy to see if the result make sense. The code is usually shoirt and there are a lot of examples all over the internet to learn from.
+}
+
\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{Plot the data contained in a CSV file}
\scriptsize
@@ -145,6 +171,8 @@ plt.show()
\end{frame}
+\note{An example of parsing a CSV file. It works but.... there are fundamentally problems with the understanding you get from actually making an implementation. Discuss briefly the code and what it does: parses a CSV and makes a plot. How would you "simply" change that? Well ifyou don't know what it doews, it's hard.}
+
\subsection{Actually writing a paper}
\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{Content of a paper}
@@ -164,8 +192,11 @@ plt.show()
\end{frame}
+\note{This is the structure of a paper. And as a supplementary information we add Cover letter and answer to referees, etc. Basically the whole process of writing a paper is summarized here.}
+
\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{Actual order of writing}
+ In practice the order you write is not the structure of the paper
\begin{enumerate}
\item<1> Results: validation and results
\item<1> Methods: Novel idea, techniques description
@@ -178,6 +209,7 @@ plt.show()
Cover letter, answer to referees, etc.
\end{frame}
+\note{The actual order is not the one of the structure. For *Results" and "Methods" it cannot by desing write them for you. It can only help you reformulate or phrase better. But you have to provide pretty much all the information. And again it is primordial to check very carefully the output. Otherwise there may be very wrong informations that are introduced, and it is especially true for cutting edge work.}
\subsection{Introduction / Conclusion}
\begin{frame}[fragile]
@@ -195,6 +227,8 @@ plt.show()
}
\end{frame}
+\note{For introduction and conclusion can be useful, but again it is almost impossible to input all your work in a signle pass except for very expensive tools. It is also hhard for an AI to determine what are the most relevant parts of your work and you have to guide it is great detail.}
+
\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{Write a bibliography on quantum fluid flows with LBM}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{Figures/biblio.png}
@@ -208,6 +242,8 @@ plt.show()
\end{block}
\end{frame}
+\note{AI is bad for bibliography becauise it has no way to know for sure what are valid or not for bilbiography. It is NOT a search engine...}
+
\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{Practical concerns}
\begin{itemize}
@@ -245,6 +281,8 @@ plt.show()
}
\end{frame}
+\note{Très mauvais pour la traduction. Ajoute plein de bullshit pas relevant.}
+
\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{For points (1,1), (2,2), ..., (10, 10) draw a scatter plot}
\only<1>{
@@ -261,6 +299,8 @@ plt.show()
}
\end{frame}
+\note{J'ai demandé de m'afficher les points (1,1), (2,2), ... et j'ai obtenu la liste des points. Ensuite j'ai demandé un peu plus fort, alors j'ai obtenu le script qui permet de faire l'affichage. Finalement j'ai demandé une image. J'ai eu... ces oeuvres.}
+
\subsection{Closing remarks}
\begin{frame}[fragile]
\frametitle{When to use a generative AI}
@@ -295,7 +335,7 @@ plt.show()
\begin{itemize}
\item Ethics? Generative AIs are "averaging" other people's work (impossible to find the source)\\
Reproduction of a sentence from another author without even knowing it without proper credit.
- \item Bing: "Unlike solving the Navier–Stokes equations directly, LBM operates on a lattice, simulating fluid density through streaming and collision processes."
+ \item Copilot: "Unlike solving the Navier–Stokes equations directly, LBM operates on a lattice, simulating fluid density through streaming and collision processes."
\item Wikipedia: "Instead of solving the Navier–Stokes equations directly, a fluid density on a lattice is simulated with streaming and collision (relaxation) processes."
\end{itemize}
\end{block}
@@ -328,6 +368,7 @@ plt.show()
\begin{itemize}
\item Energy concerns? AI powered search consumes 10-20x a google search and increasing (70-140g of CO2).\\
This presentation cost about 10kg of CO2 (0.5\% of my "ideal" consumption or two days of emissions)
+ \item What about the hidden \textgf{slaves} that annotated the internet to use as a source?
\end{itemize}
\end{block}
\end{frame}
@@ -344,3 +385,5 @@ plt.show()
\end{block}
\end{frame}
+\note{Yes I am biased against because I think these tools are bad. Not just bad as in effective to do our job, but also bad in any other terms. They will not help for the freedom of people, not help to make our jobs easier, etc. They will help large compaies and billionaires to exert control over hjumanity.}
+