Live data from Hacker News

How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

laurentiugabriel.github.io

51–60 of 570 posts

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#51
I guess we all learn in different ways. I prefer reading, and can fairly fast find the articles that make sense to me.

Colleagues often suggest podcasts and videos - I very, very rarely listen to them or see them.

The bandwidth is too low. It's not efficient and ultimately I'm bored.

This is a nice project, it looks cute. I watched some of the pages But I want more than that, more information, and faster - still a Wiki fan.

Also, step number 2 in the flow: have the LLM check itself... Naah, I don't believe that.

But you're not the only using gen ai like that. Take care.

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#53

I thought LLMs were a great tool for learning new topics - perhaps even complex ones. But overtime, I have had several frustrations with this. First, I get exhausted reading LLM prose. I really don't want to read anything generated by something like Opus 5 at this point. Second, as I dive deeper, I need a way to organize the information in a useful way as I begin to branch out in many different directions. I have tri…

It's much better to feed the book to the LLM and ask questions as you read along, instead of asking the LLM to basically write a custom book for you from scratch.

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#56
post #31

> What you get is a beautiful animation that is 100% accurate and free of hallucinations. I'm not sure I follow how this is actually guaranteed? The fact-checking process mentioned just seems to involve asking AI to review its own work.

I could certainly envision a scenario whereby review would increase reliability but not how it would every guarantee 100%, there is a pretty big logical gap there.

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#58
post #24

The biggest thing I've learned from doing stuff like this is that there are no shortcuts. At some point or another, to truly learn something deeply, you've got to dig in to the boring details and do things the hard way. LLMs can help with this...but I find it's usually tempting to try and just offload the boring stuff to them, which doesn't work.

I’ve found that if I’m not struggling I’m not learning. If stuff is coming fast and easy that’s a sign that what I’m doing is not stretching existing skills enough.

It’s true of most things. Running, dieting, weightlifting being uncomfortable is a sign of progress.

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#59
post #24

The biggest thing I've learned from doing stuff like this is that there are no shortcuts. At some point or another, to truly learn something deeply, you've got to dig in to the boring details and do things the hard way. LLMs can help with this...but I find it's usually tempting to try and just offload the boring stuff to them, which doesn't work.

yes i've found that there are a few topics that i've really been able probably 10x my understanding of using LLMs, in particular in getting me over hoops that are hard to navigate when solo, BUT I have to be really careful for it to not just show me the answer all the time.

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#60
post #21

What’s everyone’s opinion on learning new tech things in this day and age? My opinion swings between positive and depressing vision of the future. I still learn new stuff, but I’m afraid it won’t have any value in a year or so. For example, I’m pretty good at optimizing low level stuff, but right now you can just ask LLMs to do so and they are pretty good at it. They will profile the code and suggest reasonable optio…

Generally speaking, the pattern is that people are overestimating how much "work replacement" will happen, and underestimating how much "work shifting" will happen.

What is fascinating is how you can witness it at so many levels of organization. One example: Employer executive get enamored with moving from labor to capital. They believe that by using LLMs, they can replace a lot of workers. At my place of employment, we have people that are surprised they can't file a Jira ticket describing a product ask, and have it kick off an implementation. You can build the skill to attempt that, but invariably you'll get back questions like "what do you mean by " and "what do you want to do in this case, a, b, or c?"; questions that a product person or an exec are not well suited to answer.

In the past, programmers did that kind of interpretation and judgment call. So then you're in a quandary; who should do that work? Work that previously, you never imagined was an inherent part of what the replaceable code monkeys do at your beck and call?

And then, how do you hire for that? How do you find the training for the people that are experienced enough with... something... to know what a cohesive error response is, or what kind of telemetry strategy is best for that particular product and organization, what collection of product asks are incredibly complicated for what they're asking and can deliver 95% of the benefits at 5% of the work if we just do this instead, and whether you want to aim more towards thick or thin clients?

Who are those people? Wait, those are programmers? Wait, there's this whole collection of inherently human skills that we devalued, by not appreciating they were always quietly doing that for us in the past?

That's just one example. There's a repeating pattern of discovering where the work truly is, work that was embedded in manual patterns we might not have to involve ourselves with anymore, but is yet still essential. So the nature of our jobs changes massively, but the overall level of employment does not.

At least, not in the medium to long term. There is a lot of painful churn we have to suffer through first.

Post reply on HN