3 ms·

> by solving hard problems you get an insight into the problem-solving process itself, at least in your area of expertise, in a way that you simply don’t if all

by bambax 5mo ago

> by solving hard problems you get an insight into the problem-solving process itself, at least in your area of expertise, in a way that you simply don’t if all you do is read other people’s solutions. One consequence of this is that people who have themselves solved difficult problems are likely to be significantly better at using solving problems with the help of AI, just as very good coders are better at vibe coding than not such good coders Yes but it's not just that if you solved a problem yourself, you're better at solving other problems; it's also that you actually understand the problem that you solved, much better than if you simply read a proof made by somebody (or something) else. I see this happening in the enterprise. People delegate work to some LLM; work isn't always bad, sometimes it's even acceptable. But it's not their work, and as a result, the author doesn't know or understand it better than anyone else! They don't own it, they can't explain it. They literally have no value whatsoever; they're a passthrough; they're invisible.

tempaccount5050 5mo ago
Are you a cutting edge research scientist or something? Everyone I know works in the same domain every day. The problems are the same. People aren't solving brand new problems to humanity every day. We make budgets and look at ticket counts. Roll out patches. Replace hardware. Upgrade software packages. Make a new dashboard to track a project. I guess if every day is a completely novel thing for you, ok. I feel like the goalposts have moved to an absolutely ridiculous place. Oh no, I won't have a bunch of random error log numbers memorized anymore? Who gives a shit. I just want to afford a place to live so I can play my guitar and make something good for dinner. Maybe I'm just old, but I don't see why the average person needs to be a fuckin genius problem solver.
- doginasuit 5mo ago
  I don't think it matters much what kind of problem it is. If it is challenging enough to benefit from assistance and you end up playing a minor role in the solution, it seems like you are putting yourself in the worst position possible. You lose your edge for functioning within the problem space and it raises the question why you are even in the loop at all. If its job security you want, transforming your role into LLM babysitter seems like the worst way to ensure it.
  - tempaccount5050 5mo ago
    Ok let's make math illegal and burn down the data centers I guess. Idk what to tell you, but we will adapt and new roles will be created. Just like every single tool and piece of tech that came before. LLM manager? Fine.
    - Peaches4Rent 5mo ago
      The difference so far is that these LLMs are owned by corporations, and very aggressive American corporations at that. So now you are essentially reliant on them. Not saying that this is something new, but times they are a changin
      - pear01 5mo ago
        Don't use your laptop. Or your phone. It's owned by a corporation. Do you hear yourself? If you don't want to rely on corporations go live in the woods.
        anyonecancode 5mo ago
        In the US, much of the woods are owned by corporations too. Those that aren't are, in theory, owned by the public, but the oligarchs work hard to hollow that out so that practically public lands are owned by them too.
        Thanemate 5mo ago
        I think it's intellectually dishonest to dismiss the absolute accumulation of human's knowledge under very specific brands for profitability using false equivalencies. When I build something using chatGPT, especially if I was unable to build it before, I arrive at a result that I could have previously arrived with "hard work" by skipping the "hard work" part. Now, many will argue that you wouldn't have poured in time and energy in that endeavour anyways, so it's fine. But the crucial part missing here is the effort. We're about to witness the side effects of societal-wide reliance on LLM's, the same way we're still paying the price for the social media boom, misinformation, propaganda, echo-chambers and algorithmic bubbles. Notice that none of the above actually invented misinformation, etc. they just magnified an existing problem. LLM's magnify the need to "get it done, fast" but I don't see the engineering excellence everyone promised me that I'll see at any level.
- _vertigo 5mo ago
  I think that’s fine, but 1) that mentality leaves you extremely vulnerable to being disrupted by LLMs and 2) IMO, if you are solving the same problems every day it means you are not making progress on solving the root causes of those problems. What you are describing is toil, not knowledge work
- kobe_bryant 5mo ago
  so how would an LLM being able to do your job help you afford a place to live
- ziofill 5mo ago
  I’m sorry, but who cares if this doesn’t apply to you?
- jplusequalt 5mo ago
  >Who gives a shit. I just want to afford a place to live so I can play my guitar and make something good for dinner. Maybe I'm just old, but I don't see why the average person needs to be a fuckin genius problem solver. I enjoy programming and want to be engaged for the 40 hours a week where I sell my labor. I also care about my profession and technology, and I don't want the world to become an idiocracy where nobody understands any of the technology we're overly depedent upon.
- bambax 5mo ago
  It doesn't seem like you're responding to my post, more to the quote? But my point isn't that everybody should be a genius problem solver, although that would help, while being stuck in the same routine doesn't. My point is, if you delegate your job to AI, and it works, then 1/ you don't know the result of the work in more detail than any other person, and 2/ the people you're reporting to can probably write a prompt as good as yours, if not better. Which means: you've made yourself dispensable. Nothing very good for dinner; no nice place to live. But lots of time to practice guitar I guess.
joe_mamba 5mo ago
> They literally have no value whatsoever; they're a passthrough; they're invisible. Then middle management also have no value, since they're also a passthrough between upper management and ICs, yet they never went extinct.
- genxy 5mo ago
  Working on it!
slibhb 5mo ago
> I see this happening in the enterprise. People delegate work to some LLM; work isn't always bad, sometimes it's even acceptable. But it's not their work, and as a result, the author doesn't know or understand it better than anyone else! They don't own it, they can't explain it. They literally have no value whatsoever; they're a passthrough; they're invisible. According to the blog post linked in the OP, the LLM-generated results were read, understood, and confirmed by the mathematician whose work they built on. I notice a dichotomy here between people who care about results and people who care about process. The former group wants to use LLMs insofar as they can contribute to getting results. The latter group is wary of LLMs because they're more interested in the process and less interested in the results themselves. Needless to say, I think the former group is right, and I'm happy to see that mathematicians (or some of them) agree.
- sillyfluke 5mo ago
  I think you are misunderstanding the parent's comment. >the LLM-generated results were read, understood, and confirmed by the mathematician whose work they built on. The mathematician and the blog author are not the same person (as you seem to understand). Nathanson (the mathematician) is the one who is the expert verifier. He is the person who has the higher value and won't be fired in some hypothetical. >>They don't own it, they can't explain it. They literally have no value whatsoever; they're a passthrough; they're invisible. This is the blog author in the parent's description. If their boss asks them what they need to prove that the AI is more than capable in this domain and the author tells their boss they need Nathanson (the mathematician) to verify the results, his boss will thank him for demonstrating the AI's capability in this domain, fire him, pass his prompt history to Nathanson, and keep Nathanson on the job (the expert verifier). Which is the parent's point after all, because he's referring to the hypothetical job security of the blog author not the mathematician.
  - jmillikin 5mo ago
    > The mathematician and the blog author are not the same person > (as you seem to understand). Nathanson (the mathematician) is > the one who is the expert verifier. He is the person who has > the higher value and won't be fired in some hypothetical. The article's author is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Gowers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Gowers
panarky 5mo ago
I delegate writing a binary executable to the compiler and the linker. I don't know or understand the binary executable. I don't own the binary executable, I don't understand it, I can't explain it, it's not my work. I'm a passthrough; I'm invisible. I have literally no value whatsoever.

by bambax 5mo ago

tempaccount5050 5mo ago

Are you a cutting edge research scientist or something? Everyone I know works in the same domain every day. The problems are the same. People aren't solving brand new problems to humanity every day. We make budgets and look at ticket counts. Roll out patches. Replace hardware. Upgrade software packages. Make a new dashboard to track a project. I guess if every day is a completely novel thing for you, ok. I feel like the goalposts have moved to an absolutely ridiculous place. Oh no, I won't have a bunch of random error log numbers memorized anymore? Who gives a shit. I just want to afford a place to live so I can play my guitar and make something good for dinner. Maybe I'm just old, but I don't see why the average person needs to be a fuckin genius problem solver.

doginasuit 5mo ago
I don't think it matters much what kind of problem it is. If it is challenging enough to benefit from assistance and you end up playing a minor role in the solution, it seems like you are putting yourself in the worst position possible. You lose your edge for functioning within the problem space and it raises the question why you are even in the loop at all. If its job security you want, transforming your role into LLM babysitter seems like the worst way to ensure it.
- tempaccount5050 5mo ago
  Ok let's make math illegal and burn down the data centers I guess. Idk what to tell you, but we will adapt and new roles will be created. Just like every single tool and piece of tech that came before. LLM manager? Fine.
  - Peaches4Rent 5mo ago
    The difference so far is that these LLMs are owned by corporations, and very aggressive American corporations at that. So now you are essentially reliant on them. Not saying that this is something new, but times they are a changin
    - pear01 5mo ago
      Don't use your laptop. Or your phone. It's owned by a corporation. Do you hear yourself? If you don't want to rely on corporations go live in the woods.
      - anyonecancode 5mo ago
        In the US, much of the woods are owned by corporations too. Those that aren't are, in theory, owned by the public, but the oligarchs work hard to hollow that out so that practically public lands are owned by them too.
      - Thanemate 5mo ago
        I think it's intellectually dishonest to dismiss the absolute accumulation of human's knowledge under very specific brands for profitability using false equivalencies. When I build something using chatGPT, especially if I was unable to build it before, I arrive at a result that I could have previously arrived with "hard work" by skipping the "hard work" part. Now, many will argue that you wouldn't have poured in time and energy in that endeavour anyways, so it's fine. But the crucial part missing here is the effort. We're about to witness the side effects of societal-wide reliance on LLM's, the same way we're still paying the price for the social media boom, misinformation, propaganda, echo-chambers and algorithmic bubbles. Notice that none of the above actually invented misinformation, etc. they just magnified an existing problem. LLM's magnify the need to "get it done, fast" but I don't see the engineering excellence everyone promised me that I'll see at any level.
_vertigo 5mo ago
I think that’s fine, but 1) that mentality leaves you extremely vulnerable to being disrupted by LLMs and 2) IMO, if you are solving the same problems every day it means you are not making progress on solving the root causes of those problems. What you are describing is toil, not knowledge work
kobe_bryant 5mo ago
so how would an LLM being able to do your job help you afford a place to live
ziofill 5mo ago
I’m sorry, but who cares if this doesn’t apply to you?
jplusequalt 5mo ago
>Who gives a shit. I just want to afford a place to live so I can play my guitar and make something good for dinner. Maybe I'm just old, but I don't see why the average person needs to be a fuckin genius problem solver. I enjoy programming and want to be engaged for the 40 hours a week where I sell my labor. I also care about my profession and technology, and I don't want the world to become an idiocracy where nobody understands any of the technology we're overly depedent upon.
bambax 5mo ago
It doesn't seem like you're responding to my post, more to the quote? But my point isn't that everybody should be a genius problem solver, although that would help, while being stuck in the same routine doesn't. My point is, if you delegate your job to AI, and it works, then 1/ you don't know the result of the work in more detail than any other person, and 2/ the people you're reporting to can probably write a prompt as good as yours, if not better. Which means: you've made yourself dispensable. Nothing very good for dinner; no nice place to live. But lots of time to practice guitar I guess.

joe_mamba 5mo ago

> They literally have no value whatsoever; they're a passthrough; they're invisible. Then middle management also have no value, since they're also a passthrough between upper management and ICs, yet they never went extinct.

genxy 5mo ago
Working on it!

slibhb 5mo ago

> I see this happening in the enterprise. People delegate work to some LLM; work isn't always bad, sometimes it's even acceptable. But it's not their work, and as a result, the author doesn't know or understand it better than anyone else! They don't own it, they can't explain it. They literally have no value whatsoever; they're a passthrough; they're invisible. According to the blog post linked in the OP, the LLM-generated results were read, understood, and confirmed by the mathematician whose work they built on. I notice a dichotomy here between people who care about results and people who care about process. The former group wants to use LLMs insofar as they can contribute to getting results. The latter group is wary of LLMs because they're more interested in the process and less interested in the results themselves. Needless to say, I think the former group is right, and I'm happy to see that mathematicians (or some of them) agree.

sillyfluke 5mo ago
I think you are misunderstanding the parent's comment. >the LLM-generated results were read, understood, and confirmed by the mathematician whose work they built on. The mathematician and the blog author are not the same person (as you seem to understand). Nathanson (the mathematician) is the one who is the expert verifier. He is the person who has the higher value and won't be fired in some hypothetical. >>They don't own it, they can't explain it. They literally have no value whatsoever; they're a passthrough; they're invisible. This is the blog author in the parent's description. If their boss asks them what they need to prove that the AI is more than capable in this domain and the author tells their boss they need Nathanson (the mathematician) to verify the results, his boss will thank him for demonstrating the AI's capability in this domain, fire him, pass his prompt history to Nathanson, and keep Nathanson on the job (the expert verifier). Which is the parent's point after all, because he's referring to the hypothetical job security of the blog author not the mathematician.
- jmillikin 5mo ago
  > The mathematician and the blog author are not the same person > (as you seem to understand). Nathanson (the mathematician) is > the one who is the expert verifier. He is the person who has > the higher value and won't be fired in some hypothetical. The article's author is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Gowers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Gowers

panarky 5mo ago

I delegate writing a binary executable to the compiler and the linker. I don't know or understand the binary executable. I don't own the binary executable, I don't understand it, I can't explain it, it's not my work. I'm a passthrough; I'm invisible. I have literally no value whatsoever.