Thread

1. Madmallard · 1790439783 · focus · HN ↗

   "The result is not perfect" as LLMs are

   "The fact that it reflects on my own thinking during the game makes it interesting from a teaching point of view, so I thought it was worth sharing." As AI the premium sycophantic scammer does

   "but for me it is a much more pleasant and memorable experience than clicking around Stockfish branches"

   And SO much less effective than doing the harder, more tedious feeling work

   1. brumar · 1790441385 · focus · HN ↗

      The jury is out for the effectiveness, it's hard to debate this subject. From my cognitive background I know very well how important the generative effect is for learning. Maybe I'll add features that leverage generative/testing effect one day. Anyway, clicking on stockfish branches can be quite a passive activity too if done badly. I don't know how to do that well to be honest. My goal is often to just to understand what I missed, full stop.

      For the sycophancy, I can say I did not feel that at all. When stockfish says your move suck, claude would have a hard time saying the opposite (no "you are absolutely right" when I am not).

      1. Madmallard · 1790441972 · focus · HN ↗

         Generative AI is really good at making you feel like you understand a lot without actually making you understand anything in-depth

         Because lengthy difficult cognitively intensive labor is required for the brain to actually change its structure and connections

         1. brumar · 1790442939 · focus · HN ↗

            Very true. I like to think AI somehow optimizes for "efficient vagueness", which is bad news for our brain.

            Nonetheless, as many do, I often ask AI to explain me stuff. I know it's not perfect, but it's convenient, it's a trade-off to make.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.