It’s endlessly fascinating to read the AI transcript of an expert who _really_ knows how to cut to the chase. It just shows how much you can potentially squeeze out of these models. I’m also surprised to see that even Terrence Tao seems to use it in a way that resembles, in progression, how I use llms in my area of expertise (emphasis on progression and usage patterns, not absolute skill, obv I don’t match that): short pointed questions that goes all in on the jargon and machinery of the field and steers the llm hard (eg no softballs). I’ve noticed that llms switch their tone and meet you basically more or less on your level.

▲ michaelchisari 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It reinforces how to "learn AI" is to first master the problem domain.

I can use AI for coding after decades of coding. I can't use it for theoretical physics because I can't evaluate the responses.

	▲	larsfaye 7 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Correctamundo. That's EXACTLY what I just wrote about. And how we'll create the next generation of people who know how to evaluate responses when we're creating a generation of people who are increasingly reliant on LLMs to do the work makes for a strange paradox. https://larsfaye.com/articles/ai-coding-will-prevent-experti...
	▲	natsucks 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		More and more the skill of being able to ask the right question seems critical to me, and I don't know how one can do that without deeper and deeper domain expertise.
	▲	ignoramous 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> I can't use it for theoretical physics because I can't evaluate the responses. A tool, even if it is a chisel, in the hands of a master sculptor would obviously result in a wildly different outcome.
	▲	vouaobrasil 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> I can use AI for coding after decades of coding. I can't use it for theoretical physics because I can't evaluate the responses. That is what will happen though to future generations: they won't be able to use it for anything because none of them will have the "decades of coding" experience that you have had the privelege to have without AI.

▲ wiether 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

  > I’m also surprised to see that even Terrence Tao seems to use it in a way that resembles, in progression, how I use llms in my area of expertise

I didn't understood anything about the thread, but reading Terrence's messages was weird because it looked exactly like the discussions I have with LLMs

I've mostly seen people trying to oneshot a result, while I'll quickly experienced that going through steps/discovery was more effective and more satisfying, since you can always steer it back in the right direction; while oneshotting is hit (and it kind feel like magic) or miss (and you'll have to rework your prompt).

	▲	neurahawk 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I was struck in the same way but I think it makes sense in terms of a thinking partner. It is still ultimately Terence that is steering things. What is crazy to me is how few of other people's conversations like this I have actually read. Tao is really great for this because the anti-AI crowd can't really chime in and take the thread in a pointless direction. It is hard to think of another human alive who can carry the weight of unassailable authority in the same way.

▲ raz32dust an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The top comment has a counter example though https://x.com/DmitryRybin1/status/2079904005652893709

I think it's not even about the ability to steer the AI. Just the ability to ask the right questions

▲ skeledrew 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I encountered something fairly similar working with Claude a few days ago. For a current project I've been fairly hand-wavy with requirements since I was getting good results, but it seemed to be failing hard on some key points, so I started to be more strict with it. Even after the fails were resolved, I've noticed that Claude now behaves differently within that project, carefully checking and rechecking things up front and also looking to me for guidance more often. Mildly irritating, but if it works...

	▲	CamperBob2 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The most powerful way to use Fable in particular seems to be to pit it against Sol as a reviewer (or, I suppose, vice versa.) After going back and forth a half-dozen times, the result tends to be pretty much bulletproof. What's somewhat disturbing is just how much Fable's code really does benefit from the review. It tends to leave a lot of low-hanging fruit, and you can see it getting kind of impatient when repeatedly called on it.

▲ s0rce 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, the AI models are so useful in areas where you are an expert and can guide it in a useful way. I use multiple chats delay to help figure out client projects.