[dylan604]

so now you're implying that everyone that has ever learned anything before an LLM could not see if they were really learning or not? the overly zealous pro-LLM crowd makes me sad that they cannot admit how ridiculous they sound to rationally thinking people

[sejje]

No, not at all.

I'm saying you can't judge some learning process that you're not even witnessing.

Maybe you haven't used an LLM to learn something; maybe you just let it write your code. Not everyone does that.

When folks like you narrow arguments "everyone can only use the LLM exactly like I have, and if you do that, it really hinders your learning"---who sounds irrational?

[dylan604]

the joke's on you then as I've never used an LLM. i see the results of other people using them, and i'm not impressed.

so who's irrational now by assuming something completely off base?

[sejje]

You're vigorously defending your opinion on LLMs after never having used one?

I think you've made my point

[dylan604]

just because I don't use it doesn't mean I'm ignorant on the subject.

[sejje]

I see a lot of morphine addicts, so I'm not ignorant about morphine.

Morphine is awful and should be banned--just look at these behaviors from addicts.

If you talk to me about valid uses like "minimizing suffering for terminal patients," I'm going to put my fingers in my ears, because I've seen the addicts.

[pqtyw]

To me it seemed like the comment said the complete opposite of what you are implying? i.e. "llm can teach you the basics" BUT "You can't see if it's really learning or not until you see how it's used."