I understand the author’s sentiment but I would like to give a counter example:
I like to read philosophy and after I read a passage and think about it, I find it useful to copy the passage into a decent model and ask for its interpretation, or if it is something old ask about word choice or meaning.
I realize that I may not be getting perfect information, but LLM output gives me ideas that are a combination of live web searching and whatever innate knowledge the LLM holds in its weights.
Another counter example: I have never found runtime error traces from languages like Haskell and Common Lisp to be that clear. If the error is not clear to me, sometimes using a model gets me past an error quickly.
All that said, I think the author is right-on correct that using LLMs should not be an excuse to not think for oneself.
I like to read philosophy and after I read a passage and think about it, I find it useful to copy the passage into a decent model and ask for its interpretation, or if it is something old ask about word choice or meaning.
I realize that I may not be getting perfect information, but LLM output gives me ideas that are a combination of live web searching and whatever innate knowledge the LLM holds in its weights.
Another counter example: I have never found runtime error traces from languages like Haskell and Common Lisp to be that clear. If the error is not clear to me, sometimes using a model gets me past an error quickly.
All that said, I think the author is right-on correct that using LLMs should not be an excuse to not think for oneself.