Live data from Hacker News

I'd rather read the prompt

claytonwramsey.com

601–610 of 880 posts

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#601
post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This attitude is part of a more general cultural shift. Back in the 1960s, the majority of students said the primary motivation for going to college was to develop a philosophy of life, and a minority said the main goal was to be very financially successful. Somewhere around the 1980s this started to shift and the proportions are now inverted. * according to the UCLA CIRP freshman survey

I would also say some of the attitude shift is also contradictory. The amount of people I interact with who have a lot of bad things to say about the education who tell me universities should focus on education in a general meanwhile also say that schools to should focus on student getting jobs. Probably one that has been heard before, something along the lines of, "why don't high schools teach plumbers courses." I m…

It's not inherently contradictory to hold both positions, if your overarching position is that the schools are in a weird in-between state that serves neither well. My time in school was marked with both forms of frustration.

I wanted to learn a new language and I wanted to take some history courses that covered regions and eras not well covered in my high school courses. But despite my university having a significant "elective" component to my degree path, none of those courses were on the list of allowed electives for my degree. So in this case, the university was failing at a focus on education by hindering my ability to branch out away from my core studies and requiring that I take "electives" that were more closely associated with the imagined career path my degree would provide.

On the flip side, the "core" courses for my degree were bogged down in academic minutia and exercises that bore only the most surface level resemblance to the things I've done in my actual career. Often the taught material was out of date relative to the state of the industry. Other times the material was presented with philosophical reasons for learning the material, but with no practical application backing it to help make that philosophy complete. And very little material (if any) covered the usage of tools of the industry. In this case, we're failing the goal of setting people up for their careers by not teaching the practical applications of the knowledge. And to be clear this isn't just a "learning examples are by necessity simplified examples" problem. I later went back to school at a local community college for different material and from day one those courses were more relevant and more up to date. They provided material that was immediately useful in real world applications of the underlying knowledge. And I think some of that was because many of the courses for that community college were taught by industry veterans, either part time or as a "retirement" gig.

In short, my experience at a large university was indeed a series of boxes that were to be checked, ostensively to provide me a "well rounded" education, but practically all narrowly focused on getting me a job in the field. Yet the boxes also failed at being relevant enough to the state of the industry to actually give me a foundation to work from when starting my career.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#602
post #326
post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using llm’s for papers does not mean your brain is atrophying though. It means that you are losing your time. If you are a university student and use LLMs for your classes while "challenging your mind" for stuff outside of class, maybe you should just not be studying there in the first place.

Yes, I too enjoy that universities never send students to pointless filler courses. I really enjoyed writing long essays about ethics in software engineering for people who'd barely even read them. I especially benefited from being told that "tell your boss, tell HR, then make a police report and quit if that didn't fix it" is not an appropriate response to being asked to break the law at work. While we're talking ab…

> I am so glad that we've structured the education and employment systems such that not having a degree puts you at significant risk of unemployment

It's not like this in every country, though.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#603
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would’ve at least had someone(thing) explain me how to write better. I actually don't think that it is good at that. I have heard of language teachers trying to use it to teach the language (it's a model language, it should be good at it, right?) and realised that it isn't good at that. Of course I understand the point of your message, which is that you feel your teachers were not helpful and I have empathy for t…

It is excellent at that, have you tried using it as a learning tool to improve your writing before? It’s exactly what it’s good at…

I didn't say it is not excellent at writing text. But if you want to read well-written text, just open a book.

The point is: how good is it at teaching you how the language works? Like the grammar concepts, etc. I don't think it excels at that.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> creating bloat until it becomes so unproductive it kills the host Maybe we should let/encourage this to happen. Maybe letting bloated zombie-like organisations bloat themselves to death would thin the herd somewhat, to make space for organisations that are less “broken”.

"But at what price?" is probably the right question here, and that'd be a case by case basis thing. ;)

All FAANG/MAGMA dying is a bonus. The cherry on top. Net positive for humanity. A best case scenario.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#605
post #318
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We use calculators and computers for a reason. No one hires people to respond to API requests by hand; we run the code on servers We were talking about writing, not about vibe coding. We don't use calculators for writing. We don't use API requests for writing (except when we make an LLM write for us). > Using the right tool for the job is just doing my job well. I don't know what your job is. But if your job is to…

We were talking about writing, not about vibe coding. No one said anything about vibe coding. Using tools appropriately to accomplish tasks more quickly is just common sense. Deliberately choosing to pay 10x the cost for the same or equivalent output isn't a rational business decision, regardless of whether the task happens to be writing, long division, or anything else. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against doin…

Don't get me wrong: I don't deny that LLMs can help tricking other humans into believing that the text is more professional than it actually is. LLMs are engineered exactly for that.

I'd be curious to know whether your legal documents are as good as without LLMs. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were worse, but cheaper. Talking about security audits, that's actually a problem I've seen: LLMs makes it harder to detect bad audits, and in my experience I have been more often confronted to bad security audits than to good ones.

For both examples, you say "LLMs are useful to make more money". I say "I believe that LLMs lower the quality of the work". It's not incompatible.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#606
> I’ll now cover the opposite case: my peers who see generative models as superior to their own output. I see this most often in professional communication, typically to produce fluff or fix the tone of their original prompts. Every single time, the model obscures the original meaning and adds layers of superfluous nonsense to even the simplest of ideas.

I'm going to call out what I see as the elephant in the room.

This is brand new technology and 99% of people are still pretty clueless at properly using it. This is completely normal and expected. It's like the early days of the personal computer. Or Geocities and tags and under construction images.

Even in those days, incredible things were already possible by those who knew how to achieve them. The end result didn't have to be blinking text and auto-playing music. But for 99% it was.

Similarly, with current LLMs, it's already more than possible to use them in effective ways, without obscuring meaning or adding superfluous nonsense. In ways whose results have none of the author's criticisms apply. People just don't know how to do it yet. Many never will, just like many never learnt how to actually use a PC past Word and Excel. But many others will learn.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That’s a disingenuous argument. You don’t know what you don’t know. Literally. A completely self guided high school graduate following random online materials will not learn nearly as much on their own. Or they will go down rabbit holes and waste countless hours, and not having an expert unblock you or guide you down the right path would waste a lot of time. Citation needed. There's great books out there that provid…

I don’t have the time to provide a citation, my apologies. I’ll leave you with this thought though. Of all the professions, tech is probably the one where this is the easiest to do. There are many companies that don’t require a bachelors. For most of the last 15-20 years tech was in a “boom” cycle, and yet the vast majority of software engineers I met DID have a bachelors degree. Why? If it’s as easy as “pick up a bo…

I would argue that while tech is the easiest to get into without a degree:

1) The cultural zeitgeist around higher education (at least in the US) is and has been "you must go to college and get a degree". It's been over 20 years since I dropped out of my first university. I'm doing just fine, and yet to this day, I will be asked by older members of my extended family if or when I'm going back to "finish" my degree, or whether my company will offer tuition assistance to help me go back. If you graduate high school these days (and for at least the past few decades), the expectation is that you go to college and get a degree. And if you're going to have to do that anyway, you might as well get the degree in the field you want to go into.

2) As a corollary to that, while new / younger companies might have set aside the degree requirements, the big tech houses definitely still preferred them and having the paper was still a leg up in the hiring and recruitment process. And even in companies without an explicit preference for a degree, it's often listed as a requirement on the job posting. "BS or Equivalent Experience" is easier to match both as a candidate and as an employer if the candidate has the BS as that is an objectively verifiable fact.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further, if a student can get a diploma without work, then the diploma does not have value anymore. If diplomas are no longer valuable, the signal they provide in the labor market will turn into noise. If employers no longer look for the diploma-signal in an employee, what will be the reason an employer will hire an employee? I think this story will become true, and society will radically shift into one where critica…

Honestly, a future where diplomas are just noise and employers stop caring about them and thus young people stop wasting years of their lives "learning" something they don't care about sounds like a huge improvement. LLM cheaters might incidentally be doing society a service.

They will only learn what's needed to "get the job done" for whatever it means at that moment, and we could potentially see more erosion in technical abilities and work quality. You don't know what you don't know, and without learning things that you don't care about, you loose the chance to expand your knowledge outside of your comfort zone.

Re: I'd rather read the prompt

#610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could save $60,000 and do that online for free, probably more efficiently. Not to burst yours or anyone else's bubble, but no, probably not. The hard part of learning isn't access to content, it's discipline and dedication. School provides structure, goals, timelines, and deliverables. The value of this cannot be understated. I've heard from many people how they're going to learn programming online and then get a…

I'm teaching faculty at a university and, at least where it comes to lecture courses, I don't find this a bubble. There are definitely plenty of students who would do just fine, if not even better, without the external discipline and structure. And even more those who could do it with something like a MOOC or just a posted curriculum. And to be able to work without an external discipline is IMHO one of the main learn…

> There are definitely plenty of students who would do just fine, if not even better, without the external discipline and structure.

How do you know? It's easy enough to assert, but what kind of proof can there be for this assertion? Obviously the students are enrolled in university, and their accomplishments without it are only hypothetical.

Post reply on HN