Live data from Hacker News

LLMs reward expertise

seangoedecke.com

441–450 of 606 posts

Re: LLMs reward expertise

#441
post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the idea was to test if she gets along without any help

I'm pretty sure the idea of the question "what harness did she use" was to ask the expert recounting this anecdote to include more detail, not suggest that he relay the question to his example friend.

The whole point of the anecdote was to showcase that it shouldn’t matter what harness she used.

That’s why the question only makes sense if it was relayed to the laywoman, in this case.

Re: LLMs reward expertise

#442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way I can maintain my pace of branched trial-and-error is by using claude.ai/chat and manually extricating code fragments to and from my codebase. The human is still the best harness for production-level code. That’s been the way I do it. I suppose that it will be considered “quaint,” soon enough, but I have found it to be effective.

And the best part is, I don't spend more than $20 a month on LLMs. Going manual and constantly branching keeps the contexts super lean.

I’m likely to switch to the $100/month sub, but I want to finish this project on the $20 one first, as a “proof of concept.”

I think it’s valuable enough to justify the price, and I want it to use the better model, as much as possible.

Re: LLMs reward expertise

#443

Every thing passes through the following stages: 1. AI cannot do something. 2. AI starts being able to do something, but one needs to prompt it carefully, so one needs to be an expert, see, we will always need human experts 3. AI just one-shots it. Why do people still need to say this for each and every task? It's just reliving the bitter lesson over and over again.

You need to define what "one-shotting" is. Some examples would help too.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a60b2eb-0b64-83ee-9c76-7931ca1de0...

Re: LLMs reward expertise

#444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They didn’t even get to that point. Because my friend didn’t have the vocabulary to ask the AI to write code. What harness did you use? In e.g. claude, there are two modes: 1. Spit out code 2. Draft a plan, ask questions, GOTO 1 You literally have to go out of your way to get it NOT to write code. I keep mine on a tight-ish leash because it modify code way too happily even when there's no intention or instruction t…

Harness? I am an avid HN reader but even I don't yet fully understand how this word is used in the AI context. Which is exactly the point of the OP. It all boils down to naming things and cache invalidation, /s

That's the terminology they have chosen because they believe they are "in control". It's a purely psychological thing, not different from calling different DB servers "master" and "slave". When I explain things to people, I say: the LLM is a big mouth, and it is a big mouth without hands. It can only talk. The agent is what gives some hands to the LLM, and then it can do some work.

Re: LLMs reward expertise

#445
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could read some general reference/guide/tutorial documentation on CSS, and then probably solve your problem Hours + Hours of reading and a lot of trial-and-error. The loop was so long and sooo slow. Now it's instant. As if your very first Google search just solved the problem for you immediately.

>Hours + Hours of reading and a lot of trial-and-error. The loop was so long and sooo slow. But that's how you learn...

It's inefficient though. With LLMs you can get a correct answer instantly for asking the right question, and if it's not perfect you can iterate on it. With your typical googling loop you wasted a ton of time on things you didn't need.

Re: LLMs reward expertise

#446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They didn’t even get to that point. Because my friend didn’t have the vocabulary to ask the AI to write code. What harness did you use? In e.g. claude, there are two modes: 1. Spit out code 2. Draft a plan, ask questions, GOTO 1 You literally have to go out of your way to get it NOT to write code. I keep mine on a tight-ish leash because it modify code way too happily even when there's no intention or instruction t…

Harness? I am an avid HN reader but even I don't yet fully understand how this word is used in the AI context. Which is exactly the point of the OP. It all boils down to naming things and cache invalidation, /s

You forgot off by one errors ;)

Re: LLMs reward expertise

#447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to define what "one-shotting" is. Some examples would help too.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a60b2eb-0b64-83ee-9c76-7931ca1de0...

Now explain how someone with no expertise would even know about the Dinitz conjecture, or even a conjecture at all for that matter, and how that would be useful to them.

Re: LLMs reward expertise

#448

Both the article and some of the discussions here share a lot of commonalities with doctors taking a medical history. There is a certain skill in guiding the conversation towards useful outputs, while not dictating the exact outputs to a patient who is eager to please with their responses. E.g., medical history taking protocol always says to start with open ended (albeit structured) questions, and converge towards mo…

Counterpoint, some doctors will zoom in on the most likely problem and misdiagnose. This is in part due to pressure on the health care system (where I live anyway); you can only get a GP appointment for 10 minute blocks, which really isn't a lot. But when a 30-some year old shows up at a rheumatologist with joint pain they will likely go to unusual (at that age) but not unheard of rheumatism/arthritis, not hypermobil…

Indeed, I didn't mean to imply that all doctors possess that skill in great amounts (or that, in any case, circumstances allow for full utilisation of the skill even if they do) or that medical history taking is therefore always of the highest standard. Obviously some doctors will be better at it than others, or more at liberty to use this skill than others (as you say, I could imagine a GP who only has 10 minutes per patient won't be as keen to start with fully open questions as a junior doctor in a ward who can clerk patients somewhat more freely).

Note that this isn't too different from, say, how software engineers are expected to be good at, and make good use of unit tests. But most probably don't (either because they never really cared to fully develop that skill, or their organisations applied contrary pressures leading to tech debt). But it is a recognised skill.

My main point was that, it is, in theory, a skill that doctors are expected to train (or at least pick up on during their practice), and therefore the same prompting principles that seem to apply here in the context of LLMs also interestingly seem to apply to medicine and history taking when "prompting" and interacting with humans.

Re: LLMs reward expertise

#449

I did a test a few months ago. A friend of mine wanted to develop what i understood to be a simple single page web app. But since she didn’t have any software engineering experience she asked me to help. Around that time everyone was talking about how literally anyone can develop software with LLMs i asked her if she could give it a try first, and if I could watch the attempt. I was fully expecting that writing the c…

I ran a similar test and got completely different results. My girlfriend (hair stylist/artist) with zero coding background mentioned a Telegram bot idea. I asked "Why not build it yourself?" I gave her a Windows laptop, but she said she wanted what I have instead. So I handed her a USB stick and told her she was on her own now. Fast forward: she now runs Arch Linux with Hyprland (I use Xorg/i3 though), fully riced wi…

There are big differences in what people call "tinkerers". Some are INTERESTED in building things, give it a little shot and find it to be daunting, and push it no further.

True tinkerers have no problem with this, because they enjoy learning how things work. Installing Linux, Steam, Portal are all relatively straightforward tasks for someone who uses computers on the regular - but to some people this is just something they've never done, are scared to do, or just don't want to learn. (Which is fine, but they'll never pick these agents up and run free.)

Barrier to entry used to be blog posts, documentation, watching poor quality Youtube videos of a thing that SEEMS related to what you're trying to do. Now we're getting that spoon fed to our particular case, so the friction is essentially just "follow the AI directives". (However, the depth of understanding probably struggles.)

Re: LLMs reward expertise

#450

Both the article and some of the discussions here share a lot of commonalities with doctors taking a medical history. There is a certain skill in guiding the conversation towards useful outputs, while not dictating the exact outputs to a patient who is eager to please with their responses. E.g., medical history taking protocol always says to start with open ended (albeit structured) questions, and converge towards mo…

Counterpoint, some doctors will zoom in on the most likely problem and misdiagnose. This is in part due to pressure on the health care system (where I live anyway); you can only get a GP appointment for 10 minute blocks, which really isn't a lot. But when a 30-some year old shows up at a rheumatologist with joint pain they will likely go to unusual (at that age) but not unheard of rheumatism/arthritis, not hypermobil…

You can’t run expensive, time consuming, and potentially harmful tests on every patient. Someone comes in with a headache, you tell them to go home and take an aspirin. You don’t send them for a a CT scan.

If it doesn’t go away and they come back, you start considering more serious issues.

It’s expected that uncommon non-emergent diseases will be diagnosed over multiple visits.

Post reply on HN