[munchler]

> On any topic that I understand well, LLM output is garbage: it requires more energy to fix it than to solve the original problem to begin with.

That's probably true, which is why human most knowledge workers aren't going away any time soon.

That said, I have better luck with a different approach: I use LLM's to learn things that I don't already understand well. This forces me to actively understand and validate the output, rather than consume it passively. With an LLM, I can easily ask questions, drill down, and try different ideas, like I'm working with a tutor. I find this to be much more effective than traditional learning techniques alone (e.g. textbooks, videos, blog posts, etc.).

[erhaetherth]

Might be better to think of the LLM as the student, and you're an imposter tutor. You're trying to assess the kid's knowledge without knowing the material yourself, but the kid is likely to lie when he doesn't know something to try to impress you, hoping that you don't know your stuff either. So you just have to keep probing him with more questions to suss out if he's at least consistent.

[LamaOfRuin]

I would classify all of those as "non-traditional" learning techniques, unless you actually mean using a textbook while taking a class with a human teacher.

Well written textbooks are consumable on their own for some people, but most are not written for that.

[djmips]

That's a good observation about textbooks and helps explain why I had difficulties trying to teach myself topics from a textbook alone!

[ghaff]

A lot just aren't very good but they also tend to make assumptions about prior knowledge in line with what would be typical prerequisites for a class and some degree of guidance.

[ptx]

I've had teachers who didn't understand the subject they were teaching. It's not a good experience and replicating that seems like a terrible idea.

[burnished]

A key advantage is that LLMs dont have emotional states that need to be managed.