Comment by Retric
2 months ago
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.
No, just basic judgement and prioritisation, which are valuable skills for an employee to have. The OP was effective at finding the right information they needed to solve the problem at hand: In about an hour, the OP knew enough about PPP to fix the bug and submit a patch.
Whereas it's been all morning and you're still reading the RFC, and it's the wrong RFC anway.
I know who i'd hire.
3 replies →