maybesomaybenot

Someone made a subjective statement that I'm wrong, without knowing ANYTHING about me. Go blow, kiddo.

I think a lot of these people object to AI probably see the gross amounts of energy it is using, or the trillions of dollars going to fewer than half a dozen men (most american, mostly white).

But, once you've had AI help you solve some gnarly problems, it is hard not to be amazed.

And this is coming from a gal who thinks the idea of self-driving cars is the biggest waste of resources ever.

Please let me die before I become a shallow husk of bony flesh, immobile and at the mercy of a team of humans to keep me alive.

"knowing about technology" ... filter out the javascript programmers and that leaves about 15% of HN.

Thanks for telling me how wrong I am! I bet you're fun at parties.

Like I made very clear, it is great at some things and terrible at others.

YMMV. /shrugs/

You can also test your professor's answers. I don't just walk around going "Oh, Claude was right", I'm literally using what I just learned and am generating correct results. I'm not learning facts like dates, or subject things, I'm learning laws, equations, theories, proofs, etc. (Like how to apply Euler's totient or his extended theories on factorization... there's only one "right answer").

Also, you method for attesting your professors accuracy is inherently flawed. That little piece of paper on their wall doesn't correlate with how accurate they are; it doesn't mean zero, but it isn't foolproof. Hate to break it to you, but even heroes are fallible.

Simple: one thing I'm learning about is RFCs for TCP/IP. I can literally go test it. It's like saying, "How do you know it is right when it says 2+2=4"? Some knowledge when taught is self-correcting. Other things I'm studying, like, say, tensor calculus, I can immediately use and know I learned it correctly.

Creating new knowledge from current knowledge is called "synthesis" (ancient term, nothing modern). I'm hoping you're right, it would be amazing.

You assume automation solves the problem. If it did, Facebook wouldn't be hiring close to 100,000 humans to inspect content.

Claude is like having my own college professor. I've learned more in the past month with Claude then I learned in the past year. I can ask questions repeatedly and get clarification as fine as a need it. Granted, Claude has limits, but its a game-changer.

> I think the key to being successful here is to realize that you're still at the wheel as an engineer. The llm is there to rapidly synthesize the universe of information.

Bingo. OP is like someone who is complaining about the tools, when they should be working on their talent. I have a LOT of hobbies (circuits, woodworking, surfing, playing live music, cycling, photography) and there will always be people who buy the best gear and complain that the gear sucks. (NOTE: I"m not implying claude is "the best gear", but it's a big big help.)

I think the only problem with LLMs is synthesis of new knowledge is severely limited. They are great at explaining things others have explained, but suck hard at inventing new things. At least that's my experience with Claude: it's terrible as a "greenfield" dev.

Um, no. I don't want to see pics of NSFL gore before the userbase has had a chance to remove them. Which is what most moderators spend time removing from FB, to the point where it psychologically traumatizes them.