5 ms·

My experience has been * If I don't know how to do something, llms can get me started really fast. Basically it distills the time taken to research something t

My experience has been * If I don't know how to do something, llms can get me started really fast. Basically it distills the time taken to research something to a small amount. * if I know something well, I find myself trying to guide the llm to make the best decisions. I haven't reached the state of completely letting go and trusting the llm yet, because the llm doesn't make good long term decisions * when working alone, I see the biggest productivity boost in ai and where I can get things done. * when working in a team, llms are not useful at all and can sometimes be a bottleneck. Not everyone uses llms the same, sharing context as a team is way harder than it should be. People don't want to collaborate. People can't communicate properly. * so for me, solo engineers or really small teams benefit the most from llms. Larger teams and organizations will struggle because there's simply too much human overheads to overcome. This is currently matching what I'm seeing in posts these days

aurareturn 8mo ago
The future of work is fewer human team members and way more AI assistants. I think companies will need fewer engineers but there will be more companies. Now: 100 companies who employ 1,000 engineers each What we are transitioning to: 1000 companies who employ 10 engineers each What will happen in the future: 10,000 companies who employ 1 engineer each Same number of engineers. We are about to enter an era of explosive software production, not from big tech but from small companies. I don't think this will only apply to the software industry. I expect this to apply to every industry.
- itake 8mo ago
  yeah, I agree. When Engineering Budget Managers see their AI bills rising, they will fire the bottom 5-10% every 6-12 months and increase the AI assistant budget for the high performers, giving them even more leverage.
  - aurareturn 8mo ago
    In my case, over the last 3 years, every dev who left was not replaced. We are doing more than ever. Our team shrunk by 50% but we are serving 200% more customers. Every time a dev left, we thought we're screwed. We just leveraged AI more and more. We are also serving our customers better too with higher retention rates. When we onboard a customer with custom demands, we used to have meetings about the ROI. Now we just build the custom demands in the time we took to meet to discuss whether we should even do it. Today, I maintain a few repos critical to the business without even knowing the programming language they are written in. The original developers left the company. All I know is what is suppose to go into the service and what is suppose to come out. When there is a bug, I ask the AI why. The AI almost always finds it. When I need to change something, I double and triple check the logic and I know how to test the changes. No, a normal person without a background in software engineering can't do this. That's why I still have a job. But how I spend my time as a software engineer has changed drastically and so has my productivity. When a software dev say AI doesn't increase their productivity, it truly does feel like they're using it wrong or don't know how to use it.
    - lelanthran 8mo ago
      > Today, I maintain a few repos critical to the business without even knowing the programming language they are written in. [...] No, a normal person without a background in software engineering can't do this. Of course they can - if you don't know any of the tech-stack details (i.e. a "normal" user), why can't someone else who also doesn't know the tech-stackc details replace you? What magic sauce do you possess other than tech-stack chops?
      - aurareturn 8mo ago
        In the future, they might be able to. Not yet though. I still have a job. When a non software engineer can build a production app as well as I can, I know I won’t be working as a software engineer anymore. In that world, having great ideas, data, compute, and energy will be king. I don’t think we will get there within the next 3-4 years. Beyond that, who knows.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
  - alternatex 8mo ago
    Now if only companies knew how to correctly assess actual impact and not perceived impact.
    - itake 8mo ago
      I don't think this is an AI problem. Even before AI, FANGA companies famously optimize promotions on perceived impact. During the promo review, people will look how many projects were done and the impact of those projects.
    - aurareturn 8mo ago
      Acquisition rate, retention rate, revenue, profit margin?
      - alternatex 8mo ago
        By those metrics, Microsoft lost 20% of it's value due to hopping on the AI coding assistance train. I'm not saying it is the case, just making it apparent how unreliable it is to measure productivity by comparing what's happening at the lowest level in a company to its financials.
        aurareturn 8mo ago
        Microsoft is mostly a SaaS company. Many SaaS businesses have lost much more in market cap since due to AI disruption. Imagine if Microsoft didn't invest in AI? Maybe they'd be down 50% now.
- lnsru 8mo ago
  That means the system will collapse in the future. Now from bunch of people some good programmers are made. Rest go into marketing, sales, agile or other not really technical roles. When the initial crowd will be gone there will be no experienced users of AI. Crappy inexperienced developer will make more crap without prior experience and ability to judge the design decisions. Basically no seniors without juniors.
  - aurareturn 8mo ago
    This implies that writing code by hand will remain the best way to create software. The seniors today who have got to senior status by writing code manually will be different than seniors of tomorrow, who got to senior status using AI tools. Maybe people will become more of generalists rather than specialists.
    - xienze 8mo ago
      > The seniors today who have got to senior status by writing code manually will be different than seniors of tomorrow, who got to senior status using AI tools. That’s putting it mildly. I think it’s going to be interesting to see what happens when an entire generation of software developers who’ve only ever known “just ask the LLM to do it” are unleashed on the world. I think these people will have close to no understanding of how computing works on a fundamental level. Sort of like the difference between Gen-X/millenial (and earlier) developers who grew up having to interact with computers primarily through CLIs (e.g., DOS), having to at least have some understanding of memory management, low-level programming, etc. versus the Gen-Z developers who’ve only ever known computers through extremely high level interfaces like iPads.
      - aurareturn 8mo ago
        I barely know how assembly, CPUs, GPUs, compilers, networking work. Yet, software that I've designed and written have been used by hundreds of millions of people. Sure, maybe you would have caught the bug if you wrote assembly instead of C. But the C programmer still released much better software than you faster. By the time you shipped v1 in assembly, the C program has already iterated 100 times and found product market fit.
- matwood 8mo ago
  > smaller companies And large companies. The first half of my career was spent writing internal software for large companies. I believe it's still the case that the majority of software written is for internal software. AI will be a boon for these use cases as it will make it easier for every company big and small to have custom software for its exact use case(s).
  - ch4s3 8mo ago
    > AI will be a boon for these use cases as it will make it easier for every company big and small to have custom software Big cos often have the problem of defining the internal problems they’re trying to solve. Once identified they have to create organizational permission structures to allow the solutions. Then they need to stay on tasks long enough to build and use the software to solve the problem. Only one of these steps is easily improved with AI.
  - dgoldstein0 8mo ago
    And thenb potentially suffer from integration hell. The benefit of using off the shelf software is that many of the integration problems get solved by other people. Heck you may not even know you have a problem and they may already have a solution. Custom software on the other hand could just breed more demand for custom software. We gotta be careful how much custom stuff we do lest it get completely out of hand
  - bloomca 8mo ago
    I think a lot of companies are going to get burnt on these things. Sure it is easy to one-shot something which looks close, but then you are responsible for releasing/maintaining/improving. Not to mention that you'd need to integrate it with lots of other vibe-coded products. It can be great for some use cases for sure, though, but identifying them can be tricky, as big orgs are pretty terrible at formulating what they need clearly.
- vjk800 8mo ago
  > I think companies will need fewer engineers but there will be more companies. This would be strange, because all other technology development in history has taken things the exact opposite direction; larger companies that can do things on scale and outcompete smaller ones.
  - aurareturn 8mo ago
    This would be strange, because all other technology development in history has taken things the exact opposite direction; larger companies that can do things on scale and outcompete smaller ones. I don't think this has always been true. Youtube allowed many more small media production companies - sometimes just one person in their garage. Shopify allowed many more small retailers. Steam & cheap game engines allowed many more indie game developers instead of just a few big studios. It likely depends on the stage of the tech development. I can see Youtube channels consolidating into a few very large channels. But today, there are far more media production companies than 30 years ago.
    - trollbridge 8mo ago
      That’s an argument for giant companies at scale like Google/YouTube.
      - aurareturn 8mo ago
        I don't think so. Are there more media production entities now or in the 2000s?
- mirsadm 8mo ago
  This seems like a bot comment.
  - aurareturn 8mo ago
    So is yours.
- storus 8mo ago
  It will lead to hollowing out of the substance everywhere. The constant march to more abstraction and simplicity will inevitably end up with AI doing all the work and nobody understanding what is going on underneath, turning technology into magic again. We have seen people losing touch with how things work with every single move towards abstraction, machine code -> C -> Java -> JavaScript -> async/await -> ... -> LLM code generation, producing generations of devs that are more and more detached from the metal and living in a vastly simplified landscape not understanding trade-offs of the abstractions they are using, which leads to some unsolvable problems in production that inevitably arise due to the choices made for them by the abstractions.
  - csa 8mo ago
    > nobody understanding what is going on underneath I think many developers, especially ones who come from EE backgrounds, grossly overestimate the number of people needed who understand what is going on underneath. “Going on underneath” is a lot of interesting and hard problems, ones that true hackers are attracted to, but I personally don’t think that it’s a good use of talented people to have 10s or 100s of thousands of people working on those problems. Let the tech geniuses do genius work. Meanwhile, there is a massive need for many millions of people who can solve business problems with tech abstractions. As an economy (national or global), supply is nowhere close to meeting demand in this category.
    - storus 8mo ago
      The point is that LLMs can only replicate what existed somewhere, they aren't able to invent new things. Once humans lose their edge, there won't be any AI-driven progress, just a remix of existing stuff. That was the hollowing out I mentioned. Obviously, even these days there is tech that looks like magic (EUV lito etc.) but there are at least some people that understand how it all works.
- kilroy123 8mo ago
  I think we were headed that way before LLMs came on to hunt scene. LLMs just accelerated this trend.
- roncesvalles 8mo ago
  By and large "AI assistant" is not a real thing. Everyone talks about it but no one can point you to one, because it doesn't exist (at least not in a form that any fair non-disingenuous reading of that term would imply). It's one big collective hallucination.
- Wilder7977 8mo ago
  And those companies will do what? Produce products in uber-saturated markets? Or magically 9900 more products or markets will be created, all of them successful?
  - rkomorn 8mo ago
    I don't understand the people who think more companies with fewer employees is a good thing. I already feel spammed to death by desperate requests for my consumption as is.
    - graybeardhacker 8mo ago
      Because: 1. One person companies are better at giving the wealth to the worker. 2. With thousands of companies the products can be more targeted and each product can serve fewer people and still be profitable Then companies won't need to spam you to convince you that you need something you don't. Or that their product will help you in ways it can't. Once person companies will not have a 100 person marketing team trying to inject ads into ever corner of your life.
      - rkomorn 8mo ago
        > Once person companies will not have a 100 person marketing team trying to inject ads into ever corner of your life. Because these one person companies will scale up everything with AI except marketing/advertising? Consider me skeptical.
      - toldnotmywrath 8mo ago
        > One person companies will not have a 100 person marketing team to inject ads into every corner of your life. But they could have a thousand-agent swarm connected via MCP to everything within our field of vision to bury us with ads. It's been a long time since I read "The Third Wave" and up until 2026, not much has reminded me about its "Small is beautiful", and "rise of the prosumer" themes besides the content creator economy which is arguably the worst thing to ever happen to humanity's information environment, and LLM agent discussions.
TimByte 8mo ago
I suspect the real breakthrough for teams won't be better raw models, but better ways to make the "AI-assisted thinking" legible and shareable across the group, instead of trapped in personal prompt histories
- datsci_est_2015 8mo ago
  This seems like a problem simply stated but not simply solved. I think Grokipedia or whatever it was called was a real exercise in “no one cares about cached LLM output”. The ephemeral nature of LLM output is somehow a core property of its utility. Kind of like I never share a Google search with a coworker, I share the link I found.
- giancarlostoro 8mo ago
  I sort of have this indirectly solved with a project I'm working on inspired by Beads. One thing I added is as you have the LLM work on tasks, you can sync them directly to GitHub, I would love to add other ticketing / task backends to it, but I mostly just use GitHub. You can also create them on GitHub and sync them down and claim a task (the tool will post a comment on GitHub that you've claimed the work). I can see people using it to collaborate easier, but for the time being it's just me using it for myself. ;) These tasks become your prompt once refined. I basically braindump to Claude, have it make tasks from my brain dump. Then I tell Claude to ask me clarifying questions, it updates the tasks and then I have Claude do market research for some or all tasks to see what the most common path is to solve a given problem and then update the tasks. https://github.com/Giancarlos/guardrails https://github.com/Giancarlos/guardrails
stephenr 8mo ago
> llms can get me started really fast. Basically it distills the time taken to research something > the llm doesn't make good long term decisions What could possibly go wrong, using something you know makes bad decisions, as the basis of your learning something new. It's like if a dietician instructed a client to go watch McDonald's staff, when they ask how to cook the type of meals that have been recommended.
- datsci_est_2015 8mo ago
  I’m bearish on AI, but I still think this is disingenuous. My grade school math teachers were probably not well-versed in Calculus and Real Analysis, but they helped me learn my time tables just as well. AI is great at exposing you to what you don’t even know you don’t know: your personal unknown unknowns, the complexity you’re completely unaware of.
  - stephenr 8mo ago
    > My grade school math teachers were probably not well-versed in Calculus and Real Analysis, but they helped me learn my time tables just as well. Are you somehow equating basic multiplication to a "bad long term decision"?
    - datsci_est_2015 8mo ago
      No, I was focusing on this quote: > llms can get me started really fast. Basically it distills the time taken to research I was saying that it speeds up research by exposing you to the things you don’t know that you don’t know.
      - stephenr 8mo ago
        > exposing you to the things you don’t know that you don’t know Or the things that it has hallucinated, or just referenced incorrectly. That's my point. You're talking about learning basic maths from a school teacher who isn't a Calculus expert, but the thread is talking about learning maths from a kid with ADHD who completes the homework before the teacher has finished describing what needs to be done, but sometimes returns homework in an invented language with references to Cthulhu throughout it.
nutjob2 8mo ago
To me the biggest benefit of LLMs has always been as a learning tol, be it for general queries or "build this so I can get an idea of how it works and get started quickly". There are so many little things that you need to know when trying anything new.

aurareturn 8mo ago

The future of work is fewer human team members and way more AI assistants. I think companies will need fewer engineers but there will be more companies. Now: 100 companies who employ 1,000 engineers each What we are transitioning to: 1000 companies who employ 10 engineers each What will happen in the future: 10,000 companies who employ 1 engineer each Same number of engineers. We are about to enter an era of explosive software production, not from big tech but from small companies. I don't think this will only apply to the software industry. I expect this to apply to every industry.

itake 8mo ago
yeah, I agree. When Engineering Budget Managers see their AI bills rising, they will fire the bottom 5-10% every 6-12 months and increase the AI assistant budget for the high performers, giving them even more leverage.
- aurareturn 8mo ago
  In my case, over the last 3 years, every dev who left was not replaced. We are doing more than ever. Our team shrunk by 50% but we are serving 200% more customers. Every time a dev left, we thought we're screwed. We just leveraged AI more and more. We are also serving our customers better too with higher retention rates. When we onboard a customer with custom demands, we used to have meetings about the ROI. Now we just build the custom demands in the time we took to meet to discuss whether we should even do it. Today, I maintain a few repos critical to the business without even knowing the programming language they are written in. The original developers left the company. All I know is what is suppose to go into the service and what is suppose to come out. When there is a bug, I ask the AI why. The AI almost always finds it. When I need to change something, I double and triple check the logic and I know how to test the changes. No, a normal person without a background in software engineering can't do this. That's why I still have a job. But how I spend my time as a software engineer has changed drastically and so has my productivity. When a software dev say AI doesn't increase their productivity, it truly does feel like they're using it wrong or don't know how to use it.
  - lelanthran 8mo ago
    > Today, I maintain a few repos critical to the business without even knowing the programming language they are written in. [...] No, a normal person without a background in software engineering can't do this. Of course they can - if you don't know any of the tech-stack details (i.e. a "normal" user), why can't someone else who also doesn't know the tech-stackc details replace you? What magic sauce do you possess other than tech-stack chops?
    - aurareturn 8mo ago
      In the future, they might be able to. Not yet though. I still have a job. When a non software engineer can build a production app as well as I can, I know I won’t be working as a software engineer anymore. In that world, having great ideas, data, compute, and energy will be king. I don’t think we will get there within the next 3-4 years. Beyond that, who knows.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
- alternatex 8mo ago
  Now if only companies knew how to correctly assess actual impact and not perceived impact.
  - itake 8mo ago
    I don't think this is an AI problem. Even before AI, FANGA companies famously optimize promotions on perceived impact. During the promo review, people will look how many projects were done and the impact of those projects.
  - aurareturn 8mo ago
    Acquisition rate, retention rate, revenue, profit margin?
    - alternatex 8mo ago
      By those metrics, Microsoft lost 20% of it's value due to hopping on the AI coding assistance train. I'm not saying it is the case, just making it apparent how unreliable it is to measure productivity by comparing what's happening at the lowest level in a company to its financials.
      - aurareturn 8mo ago
        Microsoft is mostly a SaaS company. Many SaaS businesses have lost much more in market cap since due to AI disruption. Imagine if Microsoft didn't invest in AI? Maybe they'd be down 50% now.
lnsru 8mo ago
That means the system will collapse in the future. Now from bunch of people some good programmers are made. Rest go into marketing, sales, agile or other not really technical roles. When the initial crowd will be gone there will be no experienced users of AI. Crappy inexperienced developer will make more crap without prior experience and ability to judge the design decisions. Basically no seniors without juniors.
- aurareturn 8mo ago
  This implies that writing code by hand will remain the best way to create software. The seniors today who have got to senior status by writing code manually will be different than seniors of tomorrow, who got to senior status using AI tools. Maybe people will become more of generalists rather than specialists.
  - xienze 8mo ago
    > The seniors today who have got to senior status by writing code manually will be different than seniors of tomorrow, who got to senior status using AI tools. That’s putting it mildly. I think it’s going to be interesting to see what happens when an entire generation of software developers who’ve only ever known “just ask the LLM to do it” are unleashed on the world. I think these people will have close to no understanding of how computing works on a fundamental level. Sort of like the difference between Gen-X/millenial (and earlier) developers who grew up having to interact with computers primarily through CLIs (e.g., DOS), having to at least have some understanding of memory management, low-level programming, etc. versus the Gen-Z developers who’ve only ever known computers through extremely high level interfaces like iPads.
    - aurareturn 8mo ago
      I barely know how assembly, CPUs, GPUs, compilers, networking work. Yet, software that I've designed and written have been used by hundreds of millions of people. Sure, maybe you would have caught the bug if you wrote assembly instead of C. But the C programmer still released much better software than you faster. By the time you shipped v1 in assembly, the C program has already iterated 100 times and found product market fit.
matwood 8mo ago
> smaller companies And large companies. The first half of my career was spent writing internal software for large companies. I believe it's still the case that the majority of software written is for internal software. AI will be a boon for these use cases as it will make it easier for every company big and small to have custom software for its exact use case(s).
- ch4s3 8mo ago
  > AI will be a boon for these use cases as it will make it easier for every company big and small to have custom software Big cos often have the problem of defining the internal problems they’re trying to solve. Once identified they have to create organizational permission structures to allow the solutions. Then they need to stay on tasks long enough to build and use the software to solve the problem. Only one of these steps is easily improved with AI.
- dgoldstein0 8mo ago
  And thenb potentially suffer from integration hell. The benefit of using off the shelf software is that many of the integration problems get solved by other people. Heck you may not even know you have a problem and they may already have a solution. Custom software on the other hand could just breed more demand for custom software. We gotta be careful how much custom stuff we do lest it get completely out of hand
- bloomca 8mo ago
  I think a lot of companies are going to get burnt on these things. Sure it is easy to one-shot something which looks close, but then you are responsible for releasing/maintaining/improving. Not to mention that you'd need to integrate it with lots of other vibe-coded products. It can be great for some use cases for sure, though, but identifying them can be tricky, as big orgs are pretty terrible at formulating what they need clearly.
vjk800 8mo ago
> I think companies will need fewer engineers but there will be more companies. This would be strange, because all other technology development in history has taken things the exact opposite direction; larger companies that can do things on scale and outcompete smaller ones.
- aurareturn 8mo ago
  This would be strange, because all other technology development in history has taken things the exact opposite direction; larger companies that can do things on scale and outcompete smaller ones. I don't think this has always been true. Youtube allowed many more small media production companies - sometimes just one person in their garage. Shopify allowed many more small retailers. Steam & cheap game engines allowed many more indie game developers instead of just a few big studios. It likely depends on the stage of the tech development. I can see Youtube channels consolidating into a few very large channels. But today, there are far more media production companies than 30 years ago.
  - trollbridge 8mo ago
    That’s an argument for giant companies at scale like Google/YouTube.
    - aurareturn 8mo ago
      I don't think so. Are there more media production entities now or in the 2000s?
mirsadm 8mo ago
This seems like a bot comment.
- aurareturn 8mo ago
  So is yours.
storus 8mo ago
It will lead to hollowing out of the substance everywhere. The constant march to more abstraction and simplicity will inevitably end up with AI doing all the work and nobody understanding what is going on underneath, turning technology into magic again. We have seen people losing touch with how things work with every single move towards abstraction, machine code -> C -> Java -> JavaScript -> async/await -> ... -> LLM code generation, producing generations of devs that are more and more detached from the metal and living in a vastly simplified landscape not understanding trade-offs of the abstractions they are using, which leads to some unsolvable problems in production that inevitably arise due to the choices made for them by the abstractions.
- csa 8mo ago
  > nobody understanding what is going on underneath I think many developers, especially ones who come from EE backgrounds, grossly overestimate the number of people needed who understand what is going on underneath. “Going on underneath” is a lot of interesting and hard problems, ones that true hackers are attracted to, but I personally don’t think that it’s a good use of talented people to have 10s or 100s of thousands of people working on those problems. Let the tech geniuses do genius work. Meanwhile, there is a massive need for many millions of people who can solve business problems with tech abstractions. As an economy (national or global), supply is nowhere close to meeting demand in this category.
  - storus 8mo ago
    The point is that LLMs can only replicate what existed somewhere, they aren't able to invent new things. Once humans lose their edge, there won't be any AI-driven progress, just a remix of existing stuff. That was the hollowing out I mentioned. Obviously, even these days there is tech that looks like magic (EUV lito etc.) but there are at least some people that understand how it all works.
kilroy123 8mo ago
I think we were headed that way before LLMs came on to hunt scene. LLMs just accelerated this trend.
roncesvalles 8mo ago
By and large "AI assistant" is not a real thing. Everyone talks about it but no one can point you to one, because it doesn't exist (at least not in a form that any fair non-disingenuous reading of that term would imply). It's one big collective hallucination.
Wilder7977 8mo ago
And those companies will do what? Produce products in uber-saturated markets? Or magically 9900 more products or markets will be created, all of them successful?
- rkomorn 8mo ago
  I don't understand the people who think more companies with fewer employees is a good thing. I already feel spammed to death by desperate requests for my consumption as is.
  - graybeardhacker 8mo ago
    Because: 1. One person companies are better at giving the wealth to the worker. 2. With thousands of companies the products can be more targeted and each product can serve fewer people and still be profitable Then companies won't need to spam you to convince you that you need something you don't. Or that their product will help you in ways it can't. Once person companies will not have a 100 person marketing team trying to inject ads into ever corner of your life.
    - rkomorn 8mo ago
      > Once person companies will not have a 100 person marketing team trying to inject ads into ever corner of your life. Because these one person companies will scale up everything with AI except marketing/advertising? Consider me skeptical.
    - toldnotmywrath 8mo ago
      > One person companies will not have a 100 person marketing team to inject ads into every corner of your life. But they could have a thousand-agent swarm connected via MCP to everything within our field of vision to bury us with ads. It's been a long time since I read "The Third Wave" and up until 2026, not much has reminded me about its "Small is beautiful", and "rise of the prosumer" themes besides the content creator economy which is arguably the worst thing to ever happen to humanity's information environment, and LLM agent discussions.

TimByte 8mo ago

I suspect the real breakthrough for teams won't be better raw models, but better ways to make the "AI-assisted thinking" legible and shareable across the group, instead of trapped in personal prompt histories

datsci_est_2015 8mo ago
This seems like a problem simply stated but not simply solved. I think Grokipedia or whatever it was called was a real exercise in “no one cares about cached LLM output”. The ephemeral nature of LLM output is somehow a core property of its utility. Kind of like I never share a Google search with a coworker, I share the link I found.
giancarlostoro 8mo ago
I sort of have this indirectly solved with a project I'm working on inspired by Beads. One thing I added is as you have the LLM work on tasks, you can sync them directly to GitHub, I would love to add other ticketing / task backends to it, but I mostly just use GitHub. You can also create them on GitHub and sync them down and claim a task (the tool will post a comment on GitHub that you've claimed the work). I can see people using it to collaborate easier, but for the time being it's just me using it for myself. ;) These tasks become your prompt once refined. I basically braindump to Claude, have it make tasks from my brain dump. Then I tell Claude to ask me clarifying questions, it updates the tasks and then I have Claude do market research for some or all tasks to see what the most common path is to solve a given problem and then update the tasks. https://github.com/Giancarlos/guardrails https://github.com/Giancarlos/guardrails

stephenr 8mo ago

> llms can get me started really fast. Basically it distills the time taken to research something > the llm doesn't make good long term decisions What could possibly go wrong, using something you know makes bad decisions, as the basis of your learning something new. It's like if a dietician instructed a client to go watch McDonald's staff, when they ask how to cook the type of meals that have been recommended.

datsci_est_2015 8mo ago
I’m bearish on AI, but I still think this is disingenuous. My grade school math teachers were probably not well-versed in Calculus and Real Analysis, but they helped me learn my time tables just as well. AI is great at exposing you to what you don’t even know you don’t know: your personal unknown unknowns, the complexity you’re completely unaware of.
- stephenr 8mo ago
  > My grade school math teachers were probably not well-versed in Calculus and Real Analysis, but they helped me learn my time tables just as well. Are you somehow equating basic multiplication to a "bad long term decision"?
  - datsci_est_2015 8mo ago
    No, I was focusing on this quote: > llms can get me started really fast. Basically it distills the time taken to research I was saying that it speeds up research by exposing you to the things you don’t know that you don’t know.
    - stephenr 8mo ago
      > exposing you to the things you don’t know that you don’t know Or the things that it has hallucinated, or just referenced incorrectly. That's my point. You're talking about learning basic maths from a school teacher who isn't a Calculus expert, but the thread is talking about learning maths from a kid with ADHD who completes the homework before the teacher has finished describing what needs to be done, but sometimes returns homework in an invented language with references to Cthulhu throughout it.

nutjob2 8mo ago

To me the biggest benefit of LLMs has always been as a learning tol, be it for general queries or "build this so I can get an idea of how it works and get started quickly". There are so many little things that you need to know when trying anything new.