This is fantastic, stealing this.

The evidence it cites is that paper from 3 months ago claiming your brain activates less while prompting than actually writing an essay. No duh, the point is that you flex your mental muscles on the tasks AI can't do, like effective organization. I don't need to make a pencil to write.

The most harmful myth in all of education is the idea that you need to master some basic building blocks in order to move on to a higher level. That really is just a noticeable exception. At best you can claim that it's difficult for other people to realize that your new way solves the problem, or that people should really learn X because it's generally useful.

I don't see the need for this kind of compulsory education, and it's doing much more harm than good. Bodybuilding doesn't even appear as a codified sport until well after the industrial revolution, it's not until we are free of sustenance labor that human intelligence will peak. Who would be happy with a crummy essay if humans could learn telekinesis?

That's how you end up in the Idiocracy world, where things still happen, but they are driven by ads rather than actual need, no one really understands how anything works, somehow society plods along due to momentum, but it's all shit from top to bottom and nothing is getting better. "Brawndo: it's got what plants crave!" is the end result of being lead around by marketers.

And you are in a comment chain discussing how there is a subset of people where the study is not true.

An abstraction doesn't cease to be one because it's imperfect, or even wrong.

I mean, it’s more like 0.1% of the time but I’ve definitely had to do this in embedded programming on ARM Cortex M0-M3. Sometimes things just didn't compile the way I expected. My favorite was when I smashed the stack and I overflowed ADC readings into the PC and SP, leading to the MCU jumping completely randomly all over the codebase. Other times it was more subtle things, like optimizing away some operation that I needed to not be optimized away.

I do not think determinism of behaviour is the only thing that matters for evaluating the value of an abstraction - exposure to the output is also a consideration.

The behaviour of the = operator in Python is certainly deterministic and well-documented, but depending on context it can result in either a copy (2x memory consumption) or a pointer (+64bit memory consumption). Values that were previously pointers can also suddenly become copies following later permutation. Do you think this through every time you use =? The consequences of this can be significant (e.g. operating on a large file in memory); I have seen SWEs make errors in FastAPI multipart upload pipelines that have increased memory consumption by 2x, 3x, in this manner.

Meanwhile I can ask an LLM to generate me Rust code, and it is clearly obvious what impact the generated code has on memory consumption. If it is a reassignment (b = a) it will be a move, and future attempts to access the value of a would refuse to compile and be highlighted immediately in an IDE linter. If the LLM does b = &a, it is clearly borrowing, which has the size of a pointer (+64bits). If the LLM did b = a.clone(), I would clearly be able to see that we are duplicating this data structure in memory (2x consumption).

The LLM code certainly is non-deterministic; it will be different depending on the questions I asked (unlike a compiler). However, in this particular example, the chosen output format/language (Rust) directly exposes me to the underlying behaviour in a way that is both lower-level than Python (what I might choose to write quick code myself) yet also much, much more interpretable as a human than, say, a binary that GCC produces. I think this has significant value.

Unrelated to the gp post, but isn't LLMs more like a deterministic chaotic system than a "non-deterministic" one? "Tiny changes to the input can change the output quite a lot" is similar to "extreme sensitivity to initial condition" property of a chaotic system.

I guess that could be a problematic behavior if you want reproducibility ala (relatively) reproducible abstraction like compilers. With LLMs, there are too many uncontrollable variables to precisely reproduce a result from the same input.

This is meaningless. An LLM is also deterministic if configured to be so, and any library, framework, module can be non-deterministic if built to be. It's not a distinguishing factor.

The advice I've seen with delegation is the exact opposite. Specifically: you can't delegate what you can't do.

Partially because of all else fails, you'll need to step in and do the thing. Partially because if you can't do it, you can't evaluate whether it's being done properly.

That's not to say you need to be _as good_ at the task as the delegee, but you need to be competent.

For example, this HBR article [1]. Pervasive in all advice about delegation is the assumption that you can do the task being delegated, but that you shouldn't.

> Just that it's not an expectation, e.g., you don't expect a CEO to be able to do the CTO's job.

I think the CEO role is actually the outlier here.

I can only speak to engineering, but my understanding has always been that VPs need to be able to manage individual teams, and engineering managers need to be somewhat competent if there's some dev work that needs to be done.

This only happens as necessary, and it obviously should be rare. But you get in trouble real quickly if you try to delegate things you cannot accomplish yourself.

1. https://hbr.org/2025/09/why-arent-i-better-at-delegating

I think what you're trying to reference is APIs or libraries, most of which I wouldn't consider abstractions. I would hope most senior front-end developers are capable of developing a date library for their use case, but in almost all cases it's better to use the built in Date class, moment, etc. But that's not an abstraction.

There's an interesting comparison in delegation where for example people that stop programming through delegation do lose their skills over time.

You are far too optimistic in terms of willingness of the moneyed to let something like a toaster having theoretical feelings get in the way of their Santa Claus machines.