If it is I'd very much like to learn more about the science.

I find it hard to believe that wasting hours hunting for a missing semicolon (at the very real risk of quitting entirely) is essential for learning. Does that mean every student who asks a TA or fellow-student to help them find that semicolon is hurting themselves when they do that?

If not, what's different about asking an LLM?

I had Claude go dig up some science for me: https://claude.ai/share/2dc95280-ff92-4b13-816f-24f5993d8fc7

The most relevant concepts appear to be:

- Desirable Difficulties - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desirable_difficulty - "A desirable difficulty is a learning task that requires a considerable but desirable amount of effort, thereby improving long-term performance. [...] The task must be able to be accomplished. Too difficult a task may dissuade the learner and prevent full processing."

- Worked-example effect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worked-example_effect - "Specifically, it refers to improved learning observed when worked examples are used as part of instruction, compared to other instructional techniques such as problem-solving. [...] However, it is important to note that studying [worked examples] loses its effectiveness with increasing expertise"

- Expertise reversal effect - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expertise_reversal_effect - "The expertise reversal effect refers to the reversal of the effectiveness of instructional techniques on learners with differing levels of prior knowledge."

- "Generation effect" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_effect - "The generation effect is a phenomenon whereby information is better remembered if it is generated from one's own mind rather than simply read."

Well that's a gross oversimplification of the process. Hunting for a missing semicolon is a basic mechanical task that doesn't require much thought.

Engaging with an intellectual problem, trying to solve it one way, failing, reasoning through the process and the requirements, trying to discover a better way of solving something, going down some wrong paths, backtracking, merging diverging ideas and ultimately finding a solution is going to yield an infinitely deeper understanding of the problem, what works, what doesn't, and improve your general intuition and problem-solving skills.

Deep engagement builds deep understanding, shallow engagement builds shallow understanding. There's no substitute for doing the hard work yourself - I've tutored classmates in school and I find this rather obvious. A tutor (human or LLM) can try to find a way to explain something in a way that you understand but if you don't do most of the hard work yourself it's never going to stick. I noticed that when I would spoon-feed answers to people it would always just lead them into a false sense of confidence.

My argument here is that you can still do hard work that helps you learn while leaning on an LLM to help along the way.

There's a reason kids do better when assigned a 1-1 tutor. LLMs, used effectively, can have a similar effect. Probably a weaker effect although maybe it can be stronger since there's no shame involved in asking an LLM a question.

I am far from being an expert on this topic. I took this course (many years ago?) https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn and held this idea since.

> ind it hard to believe that wasting hours hunting for a missing semicolon

That's not what I meant by "struggle" and you do not use an LLM for that anyway.

What did you mean by struggle?

I use LLMs to help me spot mistakes like that all the time, and I encourage people learning to code to do the same.