4 ms·
You're not learning them. You're being told about them and given a hammer to leverage them with mediocre to low skill level. Learning requires a huge time inve
by cryo32 4mo ago
You're not learning them. You're being told about them and given a hammer to leverage them with mediocre to low skill level.
Learning requires a huge time investment. Using an LLM doesn't shorten that.
- beardedwizard 4mo ago[dead]
- ClarityJones 4mo agoTime helps to some degree, but I've worked with professionals who've earned a living for 30+ years, enjoy strong reputations among their peers, and who absolutely do not know what they're doing.
- wvenable 4mo agoYou've described school. You get told about things and given a hammer to leverage what you've been told. An LLM absolutely shortens the research part of learning. If I had a human of who had a moderate level of skill who would endlessly answer all my questions, the result would be the same. You might have a point when it comes to software development because the AI can tell you things but it also just do them for you, at which point, you've learned a lot less. But for non-software things I have to learn things so I can then go and do them. But even for software development, I've learned a lot of esoteric crap to get interop working on projects that I will probably quickly forget just the same as when I had to spend hours skimming through stackoverflow.
- fzeroracer 4mo ago> An LLM absolutely shortens the research part of learning No, it doesn't. Because in any scenario where you are using AI in a potentially appropriate manner, you are verifying every single source it spits out and cross referencing everything it says. If you do not do this you are failing the process entirely.
- wvenable 4mo agoIf I ask my buddy for help, I don't cross reference everything he says either even though he could just as easily be wrong. A lot of what I'm talking about is every day stuff not nuclear physics. LLMs are not even close to that unreliable.
- fzeroracer 4mo agoIf I ask my buddy for help I'm not considering that part of research or learning I consider that leaning on their potential expertise. You're not learning shit on how to build a house just because you ask your friend to build one for you. If we're talking about research as in actually attempting to learn and get to the heart of a matter then yes. You should be cross referencing everything.
- wvenable 4mo agoMy point is if you ask your friend/LLM how to build a house and then build a house then you've learned how to build a house. I've build a lot of "houses" recently that I wouldn't have attempted if I didn't have a friend/LLM to ask.
- hodder 4mo agoSpot on analogy.
- fzeroracer 4mo agoAnd I see people say this, that they've built a house but what they've built is something that structurally collapses immediately and fails due to problems that even an average person would've avoided had they learned how to build a house. So did you build a house, or did you build a house?
- wvenable 4mo agoHow can I argue about such a hypothetical?!? If I ask an LLM or my mother-in-law about how to get wine out of the carpet, and I get wine out of the carpet, maybe I have done it wrong and my house will burn down! Who knows?! Your argument is meaningless; there's nothing anyone can say to that.