← Back to context

Comment by wrasee

2 months ago

I would remember the reply from the LLM, and cross references back to the particular parts of the RFC it identified as worth focusing time on.

I’d argue that’s a more effective capture as to what I would remember anyway.

If wanted to learn more (in a general sense) I can take the manual away with me and study it, which I can do more effectively on its own terms, in a comfy chair with a beer. But right now I have a problem to solve.

Reading it at some later date means you also spent time with the LLM without having read the RFC. So reading it in the future means it’s going to be useful fewer times and thus less efficient overall.

IE LLM then RFC takes more time then RFC then solving the issue.

  • Only if you assume a priori that you are going to read it anyway, which misses the whole point.

    Because you should have read RFC 1331.

    Even then your argument assumes that optimising for total time (to include your own learning time) is the goal, and not solving the business case as a priority (your actual problem). That assumption may not be the case when you have a patch to submit. What you solve at what time point is the general case, there’s no single optimum.

    • You’re assuming your individual tasks perfectly align with what’s best for the organizations which is rarely the case.

      Having a less skilled worker is a tradeoff for getting one very specific task accomplished sooner, that might be worth it especially if you plan to quit soon but it’s hardly guaranteed.

      4 replies →