LLMs reward expertise

You could read some general reference/guide/tutorial documentation on CSS, and then probably solve your problem (without searching for "how to center a div", or whatever your exact problem was, and copy&pasting the answer and moving on), also becoming more knowledgeable in the process.

The rest of the short blog post has some good points, but the first sentence sounds like it's targeted at the percentage of developers who did StackOverflow copy&paste to close Jira tickets, never becoming experts.

Delegating to LLM-ish AI is just a natural evolution of that. The question is whether they can still add value if kept in the loop.

The article author suggests that the answer is to be expert, and is addressing people who... "either rely on a skilled colleague or just hope that the answer to your exact problem was out there on the internet."

I'm inclined to say that this matches my own experience, but I can't rule out confirmation bias on my part.

As a meticulous person generally looking for a very specific code outcome, I prompt in a way intended to get exactly the thing I have in mind, and my results reflect that. But on the other hand, I have coworkers who type ten-word prompts with very limited specificity, and they seem to get results that way as well, and that makes me wonder.

It would certainly be beneficial for my career and financial well-being for the assertion to be true, because it means I don't have to worry about being pushed out of my job by an army of $15/hr vibe coders. But the convenience of that assumption is exactly why I think it's important to be skeptical.

  "suppose you’ve gotta resolve the $CONJECTURE, like absolutely have to, everything depends on it. think really hard, and try to come up with a bunch of ideas to try. but remember to trust yourself and not necessarily in conventional wisdom!!"

  https://claude.ai/share/25740bd5-aa97-4bd7-bf58-c4df3793fda7
  https://xcancel.com/__alpoge__/status/2083855298239078748

What's funny is that every other person gets a different conclusion about who these models reward/empower. I've seen people say that the generalist stands to gain the most and others say that it's the experts. Like all of life, maybe the "winner" is the person who just does stuff.

If you don't know where you're going or how to get there, or even if you're just not paying enough attention, it will get you very far in the wrong direction before you've realised.

The information system required to encode the aesthetic preferences needed to make a technology experience not suck is likely in excess of what any near-term solution will offer. Knowing when to say "no" is perhaps the most important skill here. You can't just say it arbitrarily either. You really have to mean it and be willing to fight other humans for it.

People who (carefully) use it as an extension of their own mind and senses will very likely thrive, and those who use it as a replacement for their minds and their senses will struggle.

One of the Claude skills I made Claude itself generate was the 'learning a concept across tiers' skill -- from ELI5 level to a PhD level, and it triggers whenever I ask it a very general question on a complex topic that isn't my bread-and-butter. The fact that I'm able to choose explanation level from a super smart LLM (that's available 24x7) that can explain any topic under the sun would've been mind-bogglingly sci-fi-ish just 4 years ago in 2022.

Where my angst comes, is worrying that no one will ever get that experience anymore. They might have had some eventual success, who knows what monstrosity a much less guided LLM would have done, but experential learning may be mostly a thing of the past. And it creates a real tension between the person with experience and the person without.

But how I am observing is different, though. Since LLMs the gap between experts and non-experts has been shrinking. And yes, there is still a gap, but vanishing.

Of course, simple common sense and extremely basic Googling on unfamiliar subjects can produce similar results, but it's much faster if you are truly understanding what the AI is suggesting.

https://x.com/DmitryRybin1/status/2079904005652893709

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

I've seen this at work (as eng manager/lead/principal/whoevenknowsanymore) – all the big APIs give you stats. We see how much people burn in tokens and we know how much output they produce. There is a pretty strong inverse correlation between token burn and output.

The more tokens people burn, the less likely they are to produce a good outcome.

In my experience (scientific programming) AI is a giant multiplier for people with specialized knowledge.

But it’s also a giant devaluer for that same knowledge as people with no idea what they’re doing can clog the field with plausible bullshit.

It’s now the case that if someone tells me they’ve done something, and I look into it and find out it’s completely AI slop, then I will have spent more time on the project than the person who “made” it. The situation is completely untenable and only serves to drain time and resources from people with better things to do.

Like I read there was a time when teams of people + AI could beat pure AI at chess. But that these days, pure AI wins.

For all the things people say about "how AI works" you have to add the missing piece "how current AI works".

I don't think Tao's style works with everyone/thing, especially if we don't know what style he's tuned his LLM on.

> For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

Specificity matters to LLMs a lot.