Comment by hollowturtle
6 days ago
I'm experienced, I don't accept the implication that I might not be able to use these tools are their full potential and you won't convince me only because you mention an anecdotical example
6 days ago
I'm experienced, I don't accept the implication that I might not be able to use these tools are their full potential and you won't convince me only because you mention an anecdotical example
You must be very confident in your own ability if you think you can use any tool to its full potential with no scope for getting better.
I have tools I've been using for 25 years that I still think I could be using better.
Absolutely but we're talking about structured tools, like a cli, not unstructured non deterministic "agents" that fails to give the same answer twice, ls -la doesn't lie
You also must be very confident in your own ability if you don’t think that at least some of the things you’re doing that you’d classify as “skill at using the tool” aren’t just superstitions à la Skinner’s pigeons.
I'm sure a lot of them are superstitions! I've written about that before: https://simonwillison.net/2023/Aug/27/wordcamp-llms/#superst...
One of the more "engineering" like skills in using this stuff is methodically figuring out what's a superstition and what actually works.
7 replies →
Since you are convinced you’re using the tools to their full potential, the quality problem you experience is 100% the tools fault. This means there is no possible change in your own behavior that would yield better results. This is one of those beliefs that is self fulfilling.
I’ve found it much more useful in life to always assume I’m not doing something to its full potential.
Have you used the tools to their full potential?
Another non existing argument, if the agent fails to give the same answer twice i can't even explore his full potential
Hope you've never tried training a dog!
12 replies →