7 ms·

Big difference between gaining knowledge and building/maintaining cognitive skills.

by CaptWillard 5mo ago

monarchwadia 5mo ago
I assure you, working with LLMs is intellectually challenging, and becomes more so as the technology matures.
- tempest_ 5mo ago
  It really really really depends on how you are using it and what you are using it for. I can get LLMs to write most CSS I need by treating it like a slot machine and pulling the handle till it spits out what I need, this doesnt cause me to learn CSS at all.
  - baq 5mo ago
    This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I know a little css and have zero desire or motivation to know more; the things I’d like done that need css just wouldn’t have been done without LLMs.
  - nightski 5mo ago
    I find it a lot more useful to dive into bugs involving multiple layers and versions of 3rd party dependencies. Deep issues where when I see the answer I completely understand what it did to find it and what the problem was (so in essence I wouldn't of learned anything diving deep into the issue), but it was able to do so in a much more efficient fashion than me referencing code across multiple commits on github, docs, etc... This allows me to focus my attention on important learning endeavors, things I actually want to learn and are not forced to simply because a vendor was sloppy and introduced a bug in v3.4.1.3. LLMS excel when you can give them a lot of relevant context and they behave like an intelligent search function.
    - lo_zamoyski 5mo ago
      Indeed, many if not most bugs are intellectually dull. They're just lodged within a layered morass of cruft and require a lot of effort to unearth. It is rarely intellectually stimulating, and when it is as a matter of methodology, it is often uninteresting as a matter of acquired knowledge. The real fun of programming is when it becomes a vector for modeling something, communicating that model to others, and talking about that model with others. That is what programming is, modeling. There's a domain you're operating within. Programming is a language you use to talk about part of it. It's annoying when a distracting and unessential detail derails this conversation. Pure vibe coding is lazy, but I see no problem with AI assistants. They're not a difference in kind, but of degree. No one argues that we should throw away type checking, because it reduces the cognitive load needed to infer the types of expressions in dynamic languages in your head. The reduction in wasteful cognitive load is precisely the point. Quoting Aristotle's Politics, "all paid employments [..] absorb and degrade the mind". There's a scale, arguably. There are intellectual activities that are more worthy and better elevate the mind, and there are those that absorb its attention, mold it according to base concerns, drag it into triviality, and take time away away from higher pursuits.
      - skydhash 5mo ago
        I agree with your definition of programming (and I’ve been saying the same thing here), but > It's annoying when a distracting and unessential detail derails this conversation there is no such details. The model (the program) and the simulation (the process) are intrinsically linked as the latter is what gives the former its semantic. The simulation apparatus may be noisy (when it’s own model blends into our own), but corrective and transformative models exists (abstraction). > No one argues that we should throw away type checking,… That’s not a good comparison. Type checking helps with cognitive load in verifying correctness, but it does increase it, when you’re not sure of the final shape of the solution. It’s a bit like Pen vs Pencil in drawing. Pen is more durable and cleaner, while Pencil feels more adventurous. As long as you can pattern match to get a solution, LLM can help you, but that does requires having encountered the pattern before to describe it. It can remove tediousness, but any creative usage is problematic as it has no restraints.
  - rTX5CMRXIfFG 5mo ago
    Yes but that’s why you ask it to teach you what it just did. And then you fact-check with external resources on the side. That’s how learning works.
    - xienze 5mo ago
      > Yes but that’s why you ask it to teach you what it just did. Are you really going to do that though? The whole point of using AI for coding is to crank shit out as fast as possible. If you’re gonna stop and try to “learn” everything, why not take that approach to begin with? You’re fooling yourself if you think “ok, give me the answer first then teach me” is the same as learning and being able to figure out the answer yourself.
  - tevli 5mo ago
    This exactly. My css designs have noticeably gotten better without me,the writer getting any better at all.
  - sanex 5mo ago
    I would consider this a benefit. I've been a professional for 10 years and have successfully avoided CSS for all of it. Now I can do even more things and still successfully avoid it.
  - unsignedchar 5mo ago
    But were you trying to learn CSS in the first place?
- DaiPlusPlus 5mo ago
  /s/intellectually/emotionally
- leptons 5mo ago
  I find it intellectually exhausting to describe to a machine what I want, when I could build something better in the same amount of time, and it isn't for lack of understanding how the LLM works. It takes a lot of cajoling to get an LLM to produce a result I want to use. It takes no cajoling for me to do it myself. The only time "AI" helps is in domains that I am unfamiliar with, and even then it's more miss than hit.
  - skydhash 5mo ago
    > I find it intellectually exhausting to describe to a machine what I want, when I could build something better in the same amount of time, and it isn't for lack of understanding how the LLM works. I don’t even bother. Most of my use cases have been when I’m sure I’ve done the same type of work before (tests, crud query,…). I describe the structure of the code and let it replicate the pattern. For any fundamental alteration, I bring out my vim/emacs-fu. But after a while, you start to have good abstractions, and you spend your time more on thinking than on coding (most solutions are a few lines of codes).
  - vehemenz 5mo ago
    My experience is mostly the opposite. Provided the right context and prompt, CC will generally produce code, even in domains I know, 10-20x faster. Quality is a different issue, sure.
system2 5mo ago
It is better than doomscrolling on Instagram for hours like the new generations. At least the brain is active, creating ideas or reading some text nonstop to keep itself active.

Big difference between gaining knowledge and building/maintaining cognitive skills.

monarchwadia 5mo ago

I assure you, working with LLMs is intellectually challenging, and becomes more so as the technology matures.

tempest_ 5mo ago
It really really really depends on how you are using it and what you are using it for. I can get LLMs to write most CSS I need by treating it like a slot machine and pulling the handle till it spits out what I need, this doesnt cause me to learn CSS at all.
- baq 5mo ago
  This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I know a little css and have zero desire or motivation to know more; the things I’d like done that need css just wouldn’t have been done without LLMs.
- nightski 5mo ago
  I find it a lot more useful to dive into bugs involving multiple layers and versions of 3rd party dependencies. Deep issues where when I see the answer I completely understand what it did to find it and what the problem was (so in essence I wouldn't of learned anything diving deep into the issue), but it was able to do so in a much more efficient fashion than me referencing code across multiple commits on github, docs, etc... This allows me to focus my attention on important learning endeavors, things I actually want to learn and are not forced to simply because a vendor was sloppy and introduced a bug in v3.4.1.3. LLMS excel when you can give them a lot of relevant context and they behave like an intelligent search function.
  - lo_zamoyski 5mo ago
    Indeed, many if not most bugs are intellectually dull. They're just lodged within a layered morass of cruft and require a lot of effort to unearth. It is rarely intellectually stimulating, and when it is as a matter of methodology, it is often uninteresting as a matter of acquired knowledge. The real fun of programming is when it becomes a vector for modeling something, communicating that model to others, and talking about that model with others. That is what programming is, modeling. There's a domain you're operating within. Programming is a language you use to talk about part of it. It's annoying when a distracting and unessential detail derails this conversation. Pure vibe coding is lazy, but I see no problem with AI assistants. They're not a difference in kind, but of degree. No one argues that we should throw away type checking, because it reduces the cognitive load needed to infer the types of expressions in dynamic languages in your head. The reduction in wasteful cognitive load is precisely the point. Quoting Aristotle's Politics, "all paid employments [..] absorb and degrade the mind". There's a scale, arguably. There are intellectual activities that are more worthy and better elevate the mind, and there are those that absorb its attention, mold it according to base concerns, drag it into triviality, and take time away away from higher pursuits.
    - skydhash 5mo ago
      I agree with your definition of programming (and I’ve been saying the same thing here), but > It's annoying when a distracting and unessential detail derails this conversation there is no such details. The model (the program) and the simulation (the process) are intrinsically linked as the latter is what gives the former its semantic. The simulation apparatus may be noisy (when it’s own model blends into our own), but corrective and transformative models exists (abstraction). > No one argues that we should throw away type checking,… That’s not a good comparison. Type checking helps with cognitive load in verifying correctness, but it does increase it, when you’re not sure of the final shape of the solution. It’s a bit like Pen vs Pencil in drawing. Pen is more durable and cleaner, while Pencil feels more adventurous. As long as you can pattern match to get a solution, LLM can help you, but that does requires having encountered the pattern before to describe it. It can remove tediousness, but any creative usage is problematic as it has no restraints.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 5mo ago
  Yes but that’s why you ask it to teach you what it just did. And then you fact-check with external resources on the side. That’s how learning works.
  - xienze 5mo ago
    > Yes but that’s why you ask it to teach you what it just did. Are you really going to do that though? The whole point of using AI for coding is to crank shit out as fast as possible. If you’re gonna stop and try to “learn” everything, why not take that approach to begin with? You’re fooling yourself if you think “ok, give me the answer first then teach me” is the same as learning and being able to figure out the answer yourself.
- tevli 5mo ago
  This exactly. My css designs have noticeably gotten better without me,the writer getting any better at all.
- sanex 5mo ago
  I would consider this a benefit. I've been a professional for 10 years and have successfully avoided CSS for all of it. Now I can do even more things and still successfully avoid it.
- unsignedchar 5mo ago
  But were you trying to learn CSS in the first place?
DaiPlusPlus 5mo ago
/s/intellectually/emotionally
leptons 5mo ago
I find it intellectually exhausting to describe to a machine what I want, when I could build something better in the same amount of time, and it isn't for lack of understanding how the LLM works. It takes a lot of cajoling to get an LLM to produce a result I want to use. It takes no cajoling for me to do it myself. The only time "AI" helps is in domains that I am unfamiliar with, and even then it's more miss than hit.
- skydhash 5mo ago
  > I find it intellectually exhausting to describe to a machine what I want, when I could build something better in the same amount of time, and it isn't for lack of understanding how the LLM works. I don’t even bother. Most of my use cases have been when I’m sure I’ve done the same type of work before (tests, crud query,…). I describe the structure of the code and let it replicate the pattern. For any fundamental alteration, I bring out my vim/emacs-fu. But after a while, you start to have good abstractions, and you spend your time more on thinking than on coding (most solutions are a few lines of codes).
- vehemenz 5mo ago
  My experience is mostly the opposite. Provided the right context and prompt, CC will generally produce code, even in domains I know, 10-20x faster. Quality is a different issue, sure.

system2 5mo ago

It is better than doomscrolling on Instagram for hours like the new generations. At least the brain is active, creating ideas or reading some text nonstop to keep itself active.