Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

laurentiugabriel.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 567 posts

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#531

Post by piloto_ciego »

intrasight wrote: post #449
piloto_ciego wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have used LLMs for safety sensitive tech writing and so have people I know. It’s pretty good at it, and you usually have a 95% ready to go product at the end of it. The last 5% can pretty easily be filled in by technical experts with way less time spent battling the type writer. Is it perfect? No. But it suffices most of the time in a pinch. Can’t speak to the nuke industry, but it’s pretty good at aviation related…

A good compromise would be to have the LLM write the outline. That also helps get over the activation energy of starting. Then elaborate in small chunks so the human domain expert can remain focused during review.

You don’t even really need to do that…

You tell it what you need, and it pretty much does all the work: > please give me a 135 compliant maintenance manual, use the attached document as a primer, reference every part 135, 91, 43, and 65 reg as appropriate as well as the other included manuals. Make sure to reference every requirement in the attached list of requirements. Aircraft mx manuals are in the folder “mx-manuals” and our current forms are pdfs in the “forms” folder. Remember our operation is , not a major airline. Have fun!

This does surprisingly well and meets requirements at about 95% or better accuracy. Typically the only problem I routinely is trying to make the manual like a Delta Air Lines manual instead of one for a small air taxi.

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#532

Post by abustamam »

ImHereToVote wrote: post #354
abustamam wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These days online courses like Brilliant and such are likely largely LLM generated. Are they actually vetted by experts before publication? Who knows. My money is on no, or at least, not until someone complains. Its easy enough to prompt ChatGPT for primary sources when doing research to validate any claims its making.

You should actually do this. Ask ChatGPT to check what it said against sources. It does correct itself. The corrections are usually not major. Just mental shortcuts.

I personally do, but something tells me the commenter i was responding to wouldn't trust the llm correcting itself.

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#533

Post by [deleted] »

manfromchina1 wrote: post #406
matherial wrote: post #306

This is, without exaggeration, probably the fiftieth blog post or long-form comment about how someone is using an LLM for "complex learning", and I'd just really like to see at least one of these to be accompanied by a statement saying what are the kinds of problems the author can now confidently solve that they couldn't before. In my experience, LLMs are really good for taking up your time and making you feel like y…

I personally don't get this attitude. For one thing, nobody on earth can give you a 500-word summary of quantum physics in a way that lets you internalize even a tiny bit of it. That's not how you learn anything. Here's how I do it: I open Baby Rudin (3rd ed.), second chapter, and read the main text - absolute brutality. I unpack almost every sentence with Claude/GPT until I finally get what's going on. No ELI5 nonse…

[deleted]

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#534

Post by engineer_22 »

runarberg wrote: post #527
engineer_22 wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLM have only been useful for ~12 months (arguably <6 months). Too early to throw the baby out with the bathwater...

LLM‘s have been useful for ~12 months for the past 3 years. I’m not buying this any more: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1753056000&dateRange=custom&...

They released air tools but you’d rather use a hammer to drive nails. It reflects more on /you/ than on the technology.

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#535

Post by engineer_22 »

ethbr1 wrote: post #477
engineer_22 wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument sound remarkably familiar. Humor me: "For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory.“ -Socrates, on writing. From Phaedrus Secondary source: https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=3439

ChatGPT also offered this: "For the correct analogy for the mind is not a vessel that needs filling, but wood that needs igniting - no more - and then it motivates one towards originality and instils the desire for truth. Suppose someone were to go and ask his neighbours for fire and find a substantial blaze there, and just stay there continually warming himself: that is no different from someone who goes to someone…

You didn’t read it but I should?

Hey @turzmo I found your 21 year old and I agree with you!

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#536

Post by fluoridation »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #419
fluoridation wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you do that with topics not directly experimenceable, like quantum mechanics or, as in this case, silicon manufacture?

The very first thing I mention: self-consistency . It's the only thing you have if you don't have any empirical data. It's the only thing anyone has, really. QM scientists reading QM papers and experiment reports of other people, and talking with each other, are still relying on self-consistency to sniff their own (or other people's) mistakes.

>The very first thing I mention: self-consistency.

So if I consistently tell you that that lithium atoms are heavier than carbon atoms, that would make it more likely to be true?

>QM scientists reading QM papers and experiment reports of other people, and talking with each other, are still relying on self-consistency to sniff their own (or other people's) mistakes.

Physicists don't need self-consistency. They can test consistency against reality itself. That's not self-consistency, that's just plain old empiricism.

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#537

Post by fl4regun »

batshit_beaver wrote: post #513
refactor_master wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AIME and HMMT are high school math olympiad competitions now used to benchmark AI. Frontier models score 95-99% https://benchlm.ai/blog/posts/aime-hmmt-competition-math

They score 99% but then can’t explain _why_ their solution works with any accuracy. Not as useful for learning as one might think.

are you referring to this section? > Verification is different from generation: Models scoring 98 can solve problems but can't always explain why their approach works at the level a human mathematician would. It doesn't say it can't explain why with any accuracy, it just says it can't *always* explain at the level of a mathematician, but most of us don't have such a mathematician at our beck and call to answer our questions anyways (thinking of the perspective of a self-learner outside of formal education)

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#538

Post by NuclearPM »

matherial wrote: post #306

This is, without exaggeration, probably the fiftieth blog post or long-form comment about how someone is using an LLM for "complex learning", and I'd just really like to see at least one of these to be accompanied by a statement saying what are the kinds of problems the author can now confidently solve that they couldn't before. In my experience, LLMs are really good for taking up your time and making you feel like y…

I have one. I can navigate the complex regulations regarding construction related permits much better than I could 6 months ago.

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#539

Post by BeetleB »

turzmo wrote: post #529
BeetleB wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would argue that if you’re going to use an LLM to make Rudin easier to understand, you are not learning how to absorb difficult material, nor are you learning analysis efficiently. I would argue that if he can solve the problems on his own, without LLM assistance, than he has mastered it.

That may be, but my point stands. It is neither learning to absorb difficult material nor efficient.

The same could be said for someone taking a university course where Rudin is the textbook, and they rely on the professor/TA to help them understand the book.

This is needlessly nitpicky. The stark reality is that the majority of undergrad math majors do not achieve what this person has merely be reading Rudin (assuming he is actually solving most/all the problems).

Re: How I use LLMs to learn complex topics

#540

Post by the_gastropod »

manfromchina1 wrote: post #406
matherial wrote: post #306

This is, without exaggeration, probably the fiftieth blog post or long-form comment about how someone is using an LLM for "complex learning", and I'd just really like to see at least one of these to be accompanied by a statement saying what are the kinds of problems the author can now confidently solve that they couldn't before. In my experience, LLMs are really good for taking up your time and making you feel like y…

I personally don't get this attitude. For one thing, nobody on earth can give you a 500-word summary of quantum physics in a way that lets you internalize even a tiny bit of it. That's not how you learn anything. Here's how I do it: I open Baby Rudin (3rd ed.), second chapter, and read the main text - absolute brutality. I unpack almost every sentence with Claude/GPT until I finally get what's going on. No ELI5 nonse…

Your obvious use of an LLM to write this comment isn’t exactly confidence-inspiring that it’s helpful for learning to do things on your own. Seems like it’s evidence that LLM’s quickly become a crutch for even trivial efforts like posting internet comments.
Post reply on HN