[simonw]

You can become a DB expert by reading books, forums and practicing hard.

These days you can replace those books and forums with a top tier LLM, but you still need to put in the practice yourself. Even with AI assistance that's still a lot of work.

[lomase]

You could not replace good books with Intenert and you can't replace good books with a any LLM.

You can replace books with your own time and research.

Again making statements that are just not true. Typical HN behavior.

[simonw]

I don't appreciate how you accuse me of "making statements that are just not true" without providing a solid argument (as opposed to your own opinion) as to why what I'm saying isn't true.

[lomase]

You stated that an LLM can replace a book.

As far as I know in the field of logic the one making a statement, in this case you, is the one who has to prove it.

But in this case you make a statemen and then ask ME to prove it wrong? Makes zero fucking sense.

As much as you don't apreciate it, that is how debate and logic works.

[simonw]

The idea that an LLM can replace the role of a book doesn't seem like it should even be controversial to me.

You buy a non-fiction book to learn something, or to act as a reference.

An LLM provides an alternative mechanism for learning that thing, or looking up those reference points.

What am I missing here?

Do you think a search engine could replace a book?

[lomase]

So you are not only stating than a LLM can replace a book. Directly you are saying that it is an axiom.

It is so self evident true that you don't even need to reason about it.

That LLMs can replace a book is a fundamental truth of the universe like the euclid postulates or like 1=1.

Well then there is no way to continue the conversation, because by definition axioms can't be false.

[simonw]

I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but you'll have to make a concrete argument rather than just critiquing the way I'm discussing this.