weiliddat

Why?

I'm sure you're where you are in some part due to hard work, skill, decisions. But surely you don't believe that it's purely down to skill where one lives/works at?

Don't disagree that that's the system not working well.

You're lucky to be in a system that works out for you. Not everyone is in such a lucky position. LLMs help automate the tedium out of their job, and hopefully, have a bit more extra energy to make a better system within their immediate locus of control.

Yeah exactly. One more metric isn't going to solve it.

I don't necessarily mean reguritating it, but choosing which part of the scripture to surface to the user is already some interpretation/choice. Even the devil can quote scripture (I'm playing the devil's advocate here).

Yes it can point you to the right place, but choosing which part of scripture to point you to is already a choice/interpretation

Anecdote: was testing Opus 5 and even ASD-STE100 cannot save you from its meta-commentary and signposting all the time. It writes what it wants to write, e.g. "here's where you are right/wrong" instead of "Your instinct of the shape is right, but here's a sharper version". I could not get it to stop doing that.

In contrast if you ask GPT 5.5/5.6 to speak directly/plainly, it will just straight up tell you the content "X is right, Y is wrong". Much preferable.

> They'd be 10x better than us already if task tedium was the problem... the areas where people think that LLMs excel at coding and don't like doing manually it's usually because the human was inclined to slop out repetitive boilerplate and thought that was the only way.

There is so much work out there that is repetitive / boilerplate / tedium. If you get to personally work on interesting work more than 50% of the time (pre-LLM) I'd say your job is #blessed.

I get where you're coming from, and the intent to make it easier for people to find examples and verses, but there's a fine line with LLMs giving you answers, is that it's interpreting it in some form. Doesn't that run counter to prevailing ideology, that you're meant to either struggle with the materials / seek understanding yourself, or have your religious leaders interpret/receive those insights?

Kinda, more accurately the current goal for labs is to produce economic value to justify high valuations / capex, thus having to RL on correct answers rather than interesting ones.

If you could access the current models as base models I guess you'd still get very interesting hilarious stuff.

idk if you're still actually looking for a solution (I got nerdsniped heh), but I found a seamless way to have it locked into the speakers + room, instead of a specific source/software, is using an iLoud subwoofer that routes to any speaker setup and has room correction + EQ that lives on the sub.

What you said made me think that it's similar (not entirely the same, but adjacent) to those make-a-website for $XX or buy-a-template era of websites.

If we think about that as the intended competition (and not websites corps spent millions on design/polish/copy), I'd argue that AI (model + coding agent + skills + whatever) is doing a better job overall. Most agencies don't spend enough effort in understanding what you want, or hire juniors and bill them as seniors. It's almost always late, overbilled, somewhat what you said you wanted but not really, and technically terrible.