Fun fact......I am still using the same calculator that I used in sixth form college in the mid 1980s.

1 minute ago, Christopher Low said:

Fun fact......I am still using the same calculator that I used in sixth form college in the mid 1980s.

Indeed. It still serves your purpose, @Christopher Low. 

However, I’m thinking @jon b might need a bit more powerful calculator on the flight deck for his purpose..🙂…

AI concepts originated in 1956.

On 3/3/2026 at 8:30 AM, UrgentSiesta said:

Why does one use a calculator for math?

Mostly, because I can't do trigonometric functions in my head.  But is that really a fair comparison anyway?  We know the calculator knows how to do math, it doesn't need to be constantly monitored to see if it's accurate. 

We know AI does NOT know anything about, well, anything.  It's good at stringing words together, but meaning and factual accuracy aren't part of the equation.

Just general remarks (and mine last here on the aspect of AI):

Almost everyone here has taught a 5th grader how to use a simple calculator, which is an example of human-system interface. Depending on the actors of the interface, either the human or the system, may need to be constantly monitored for correct output from the system.

Anyway, while we argue about Calculator and AI here, the 35Ks and the 777-Xs of the world will continue to incorporate more and more advanced AI Technology in their design, quality control (look up e.g., OCR), avionics, flight control, and maintenance.

Naysayers will be left behind. Human stubbornness is (and has been) one of the major obstacles to the advancement of science and technology.

6 hours ago, P_7878 said:

However, I’m thinking @jon b might need a bit more powerful calculator on the flight deck for his purpose..🙂…

No not really I just use the calculator app on my iPhone 🙂

The built in EFB has calculator and conversion functions but it’s so slow I’ve never seen anyone use it.

There’s a multitude of apps on the portable EFB (or iPad as it’s more commonly known 😉) which I have to tap away at before I can get the thing off the gate.

I did recently buy an electronic flight computer for some exams I was doing recently, it’s in my flight bag now but I’ll never use it again, so off to eBay with it I think.

@jon b

I didn’t mean your carry-on calculator.

I meant the smart and advanced calculator that you have on the pedestal…🙂…

Oh I see , nah, I preferred the 747 FMC,  it’s a bit like Chris’ calculator , old and monochrome, but rock solid and reliable 🙂

2 hours ago, jon b said:

Oh I see , nah, I preferred the 747 FMC,  it’s a bit like Chris’ calculator , old and monochrome, but rock solid and reliable 🙂

I’m fully aware of your undying love and affection for the 747…🙂…

It would have been an honor to have taken a BA 747 on my first ever 747 flight, and to have you as the Captain…🙂…

It happened to be a LH 744, and standing up against the glass partition of the boarding gate area, with that bulbous nose of the Jumbo nearly touching mine, I was wondering, if it’s safe for me to get on board this thing…🙂…

It was a moment, I’ll always remember, even after I hopefully get to fly on LH’s 777-9 next year.

I’ve never travelled on a BA 747, but have done so a couple of times on the BA 777. One of the occasions was when London Heathrow had just opened the new Terminal 5…very impressive and spacious glass structure. Great to be sitting in a lounge during the layover, and watching the heavies sauntering around…with an English brew on hand…🙂…

You might recall that O’Hare’s main Intl. Terminal is also no. 5. The LHR glass Terminal 5 reminds me a bit of ORD Terminal 5.

Edited March 5Mar 5 by P_7878

11 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Mostly, because I can't do trigonometric functions in my head.  But is that really a fair comparison anyway?  We know the calculator knows how to do math, it doesn't need to be constantly monitored to see if it's accurate. 

We know AI does NOT know anything about, well, anything.  It's good at stringing words together, but meaning and factual accuracy aren't part of the equation.

Well, yes, it’s an entirely fair comparison. 

Many of us seem to implicitly believe AI has reached the stage of General Intelligence. 

It has not. 

Right now, It’s a super-fast personal assistant. And a super-young, inexperienced one at that.

We seem to consider it an Oracle, and it’s anything but.

Its a tool - garbage in, garbage out. 

 

Edited March 5Mar 5 by UrgentSiesta

4 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Its a tool - garbage in, garbage out. 

"On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." Charles Babbage, 1864

Quote

It was a moment, I’ll always remember, even after I hopefully get to fly on LH’s 777-9 next year.

Now that's funny 

Edited March 5Mar 5 by Christopher Low

7 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Well, yes, it’s an entirely fair comparison. 

Many of us seem to implicitly believe AI has reached the stage of General Intelligence. 

It has not. 

Right now, It’s a super-fast personal assistant. And a super-young, inexperienced one at that.

We seem to consider it an Oracle, and it’s anything but.

Its a tool - garbage in, garbage out. 

 

Trust me @UrgentSiesta, I wished to use that time-honored phrase, stated last in your comment above, in this context, more than once, but refrained because a few folks here might be a bit more adherent to the Queen’s English than us folks around here…🙂…on the other side of the Atlantic…

As an engineer, GIGO is as common in my parlance, as FIFO or LIFO etc.

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

Now that's funny 

@Christopher Low

Either that or the Qantas Project Sunrise 20+ hours A35K flight, to/from the Land Down Under. I wish to break my 19 hours record (KORD -> VIDP) 777 trip…🙂…though I’m still occasionally reliving the tense final hours of that flight.

All such aspirations might be subject to the approval of my PCP…🙂…

Of course, I will not take an ultra-long-haul, unless there is no other option. So, in case of visiting Sydney, which I’ve never done, I do seem to have a decent excuse…

Let’s see.

Edited March 5Mar 5 by P_7878

22 hours ago, P_7878 said:

Just general remarks (and mine last here on the aspect of AI):

Almost everyone here has taught a 5th grader how to use a simple calculator, which is an example of human-system interface. Depending on the actors of the interface, either the human or the system, may need to be constantly monitored for correct output from the system.

Anyway, while we argue about Calculator and AI here, the 35Ks and the 777-Xs of the world will continue to incorporate more and more advanced AI Technology in their design, quality control (look up e.g., OCR), avionics, flight control, and maintenance.

Naysayers will be left behind. Human stubbornness is (and has been) one of the major obstacles to the advancement of science and technology.

AI is great, but most of what you are talking about here, and the implementations that are most useful in the real world, aren't related to LLMs, and certainly not the LLMs that you use everyday via these fairly unintelligent AI chatbots that are available to the public.

Edited March 5Mar 5 by RNAVV19R

17 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Well, yes, it’s an entirely fair comparison. 

Many of us seem to implicitly believe AI has reached the stage of General Intelligence. 

It has not. 

Right now, It’s a super-fast personal assistant. And a super-young, inexperienced one at that.

We seem to consider it an Oracle, and it’s anything but.

Its a tool - garbage in, garbage out. 

So this is what confuses me - if that's how you look at AI (and I agree with the assessment), how can you compare it to a device that you KNOW will give you a correct answer every time?  I've not met a calculator that will usually say 2+2=4, but sometimes randomly say it's 58,376.  That's the kind of thing these current AI bots will do, hence why everyone acknowledges that their answers must be monitored for accuracy.

That being the case, how can a person use this software as an educational tool?  What started this discussion was someone with no knowledge of an industry pretending they DID have knowledge of it because of something a chat bot told them.  If you don't have knowledge of the "right answers", you can't effectively evaluate whether the AI is giving you the right answers.  And if you DO know the right answers... You don't need the AI, right?