alt Hacker NewsThe thing with calculator argument that always gets me. I do math unconsciously all the time. Even something as simple as adjusting a recipe when cooking. I don't need to grab a device to do that, I just do the quick math in my head. And the only way I can do that is because I learned how to do math. And even with a calculator, I still needed to know what to calculate. The argument "we don't need math, we have a calculator" assumes you always get a textbook question that lays it out for you.
Same goes for LLMs. I can use them for programming, and they're very convenient. But I still need to know what to ask it and make sure it stays within the confines of what I want. And without my knowledge I would have no clue if what it's trying do is correct, or safe.
Naturally, this assumes a workflow where you do actually look and modify the output yourself. But I'd argue that any non tech person is inevitably going to hit a wall where they can't debug themselves out of without getting a human involved.
Replies
> I just do the quick math in my head. And the only way I can do that is because I learned how to do math.
A lot of Hacker news commenters tend to overestimate human ability without education. That is, the tend to believe that people are able to do a lot more without regular training than they actually are. They believe that "math" is some naturally ordained eventuality that humans just do, or likewise that "reasoning" is some immutable natural behavior. In truth these things are "unnatural" human reinforced structures that we have to learn and adapt our brains into.
Underrated and paradoxical element of this, to which, as far as I can tell, LLM boosters offer no solution:
> And without my knowledge I would have no clue if what it's trying do is correct, or safe.
I would contend you got the knowledge by typing the code yourself, that there's no other way to get it, and that if you stop typing the code yourself--and the slogging that entails--you'll lose the ability to prompt LLMs effectively.
It's not that I think the physiokinetic aspects of typing as an input mechanism hold some metaphysical distinction, but rather the level of engagement it forces with the code, and the units in which it does so. I'm not aware as yet of any viable replacement for that.
It's easy to trade on decades of software engineering experience with LLMs: with sufficient experience, everything goes around and comes around, almost any pattern is recognisable, the gratification is immediate, the benefits are now, while the costs and disasters are down the road.
However, the technology world is not static, and if you don't keep up with new frameworks, libraries, languages and other tech in that physical-mechanical "mind-body-keyboard" way that typing--or something substantially close to it--accomplishes, you will lose the ability to navigate that world fluently. To say it's just another abstraction layer and that the world didn't crumble after compilers is to miss something quite essential about how LLMs differ from compilers or high-level languages. The disengagement with the process of physically programming something quite specific will take down with it the ability, over time, to formulate useful prompts and competently review the output.