alt Hacker News> literacy implies understanding
Agree. Do we not understand how LLMs work? Some of us understand better than others, just like literacy is also not guaranteed just because you learned the alphabet.
Accepting the output of an LLM is really materially not different from accepting books, newspapers, opinion makers, academics at face value. Maybe different only in speed of access?
> LLM generated code in the hands of someone who doesn’t read it is the opposite of literacy.
"A popsi article title or paper abstract/conclusion in the mind of someone who doesn't read is the opposite of literacy."
I’m not sure I understand your point. Mind clarifying? It seems you might be trying to contradict what I said but are in fact only adding to it.
> just like literacy is also not guaranteed just because you learned the alphabet.
I didn’t claim learning the alphabet equals literacy, you did. Your argument comes down to “you’re not literate if you’re not literate”. Which, yes, of course.
> Accepting the output of an LLM is really materially not different from (…)
Multiple things can be true at once. If someone says “angry stupid people with machine guns are dangerous”, responding “angry stupid people with explosives are dangerous” does nothing to the original point. The angry stupid people are part of the problem, sure, but so are the tool which are enabling them to be dangerous. If poison is being dumped in a river and slowly killing the ecosystem, then someone else comes along wanting to dump even more of a different poison, the correct response is to stop both, not shrug it off and stop none.