3 ms·
It used to (pre-'08 or so) be possible to be "good at Google". Most people were not. Most tech people were not, even. Using LLMs feels a ton like working with
by alabastervlog 1y ago
It used to (pre-'08 or so) be possible to be "good at Google".
Most people were not. Most tech people were not, even.
Using LLMs feels a ton like working with Google back then, to me. I would therefore expect most people to be pretty bad at it.
(it didn't stop being possible to be "good at Google" because Google Search improved and made everyone good at Google, incidentally—it's because they tuned it to make being "bad at Google" somewhat better, but eliminated much of the behavior that made it possible to be "good at Google" in the process)
- consumer451 1y agoThis is an excellent analogy. I will be borrowing it. Thank you.
- sanderjd 1y agoFun fact, I recently started reading Designing LLM Applications[0] (which I'm very much enjoying by the way) and it draws this exact analogy in the intro! 0: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/designing-large-language/9781098150495/ https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/designing-large-languag...
- alabastervlog 1y agoI swear I didn't steal mine from there, LOL. Maybe I'm on the right track if others are noticing similar things about the experience of using LLMs, though.
- sanderjd 1y agoYes exactly, I meant it as evidence that there is something to this insight. Also that it stuck with me in the book enough to make the connection when I saw your comment; it's that it struck me as a good point.
- consumer451 1y agoThank you, you just sold me on an O'Reilly free trial. Let's see what damaged I can do to that book in 10 days.