Top
Best
New

Posted by MaxMussio 4 days ago

LLMs reward expertise(www.seangoedecke.com)
1409 points | 569 commentspage 11
stillpointlab 4 days ago|
I agree with this post's gist, and I've certainly noticed how LLMs change their interaction with me once I demonstrate some knowledge. I've often started a technical conversation very vaguely and only once I challenge the LLM on its simplifications does it start to actually get to the meat of issues. Often there is a perceptible moment where the LLM seems to recognize my level of ability and how it communicates clearly changes.

But another thing I have found is that I get significantly better results from the LLM by treating it like an intelligent independent agent. All of the "you are a senior dev ..." or "your starving kids depend on the correctness of this answer ..." kind of prompting has been mostly useless. In general, I find being honest and clear to be the best strategy.

You can't "pretend" to be a senior software engineer. If I can root you out of an interview process then you aren't going to fool the LLM. But if you clearly state your level of expertise and your desired outcome, then the LLM does a very good job of meeting you where you are.

There is also a strange ephemeral attitude I get from agents sometimes, like they don't like to be called out for being wrong. But in the same way that human's show this trait, they also seem to warm up over time as they gain trust. It is almost like social positioning, once they realize they aren't actually expert they morph into a support role stance pretty seamlessly. That is also why they can still feel sycophantic, because once they realize they aren't actually driving the discussion they can actually feel like enthusiastic passengers, wanting to see where the conversation leads as much as the prompter.

still_grokking 4 days ago|
That's some of the most weird anthropomorphization of a next token predictor I've read in a while…

This things output token which are correlated with the context given. That's all!

If you feed it some context the parrot will answer with the same.

It does not "sense your expertise level"—it just outputs correlated tokens… Is this really so hard to understand?

stillpointlab 3 days ago||
It seems possible, in fact reasonable, to understand my observation as following from your assumed "correlation". I gave it context that it is having a conversation with an expert, it correlates it's output with the context. A non-expert user can't fake that context so they never see similar correlated output. This context-correlation doesn't happen if one uses "You are a expert ..." prompting "tricks".

My experience has been, if you speak like an expert who is speaking to an expert you get better results. I'm not sure how that is anthropomorphizing. It is just "if I do these things, I get these results".

vatsachak 4 days ago||
The LLM knows how to solve problems in any way you want. This is not a good thing
ixlixl 4 days ago||
Did you ever hear of this neat thing called "The Bitter Lesson" ?
mrloopex 4 days ago||
They’re a force multiplier if you are skilled and chaos if you are not.
qwertox 4 days ago|
If you are not skilled they are not chaos, just more distracted, wasting tokens in being nice to humans. It could still teach one very well so that one improves its domain expertise.
walrus01 4 days ago||
LLMs reward architecture knowledge of how to structure things and how to not just say "Claude, make me Microsoft Flight Simulator, make no mistakes".
bonoboTP 4 days ago||
Many, including myself, report having a lot of success with braindumping and not structuring anything. Just talking into speech recognition for 2-10 minutes as a stream of consciousness about what my context is, what I want, what I know already, what I have a vague hunch about, how it fits into a bigger picture, what aspects are most important to me, any footguns I already know about, really like having a chat with a person on the phone, with someone you have to guide remotely because they have to implement the thing right now but you have to be out of office and so your only interface is speech. Except you can be more structureless because the AI won't be offended. Just keep on rambling, and press enter, don't even correct mistranscriptions. It will understand it anyway.

Now, the key is, that while rambling without structure, you do have to drop the key facts into your speech, and you have to know what you're talking about in at least a good portion of it.

I think people are afraid of doing it, because it seems "not the right way" or "not scientific" or whatnot. They want to believe there is some magic to writing the right prompt. So let me tell you, it works.

walrus01 4 days ago||
I don't completely disagree with the concept of giving a free association thought process ramble into context. But I also bet that when you start getting it to actually generate code and link modules of things together, subroutines, functions, code structure and filenames, you still pay attention to what it does and you guide it into the architecture that makes logical sense to you.
bonoboTP 4 days ago||
For real work yes. For personal projects, less and less since Fable came out (probably the same if true of the other frontier models). You can get a lot done if it's just some one off, or a personal tool, even without looking at the code, just trying the application. Frontier models now automatically test it before handing the thing to you, they take screenshots, they fix the superficial issues themselves. To get something up and running, it's enough to send chat messages.
champagnepapi 4 days ago||
Unfortunately the software industry is saying things like "don't look at the code", "LLMs have made developers 10-100x faster", etc. The only way they can make such claims is by saying what you said above: "Claude, make me Microsoft Flight Simulator, make no mistakes". Additionally engineers are facing pressures via deadlines to work in the paradigm of "Claude, make me Microsoft Flight Simulator, make no mistakes"...
natsucks 4 days ago||
The question i wonder about is, when will an event come along that persuades everyone that human understanding is still required? Or will it never come?
champagnepapi 4 days ago|||
I wonder the same thing. I think we've already seen some of this happening, however the consequences haven't been large enough to the organization, for example:

- https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/20/meta-ai-a...

- https://tech.yahoo.com/articles/ai-code-wreaked-havoc-amazon...

- https://alexeyondata.substack.com/p/how-i-dropped-our-produc...

We can only hope that engineers working in safety critical systems haven't fallen to these working conditions.

RideOnTime22 4 days ago||
As long as people keep gaslighting by sayting those events are just "skill issues," I doubt there will sadly be a catalyst.
strange_quark 4 days ago||
Yeah, this will never happen until governments step in and cause these companies real pain. I mean just look at Crowdstrike. They caused billions and billions in economic damage due to their incompetence, and nothing happened. In fact, their stock is close to an all time high.
kaibee 4 days ago||||
You're assuming that LLMs entered a world of people who understood how the systems they're inside of work, why they're setup that way, and that LLMs are displacing them. I sadly don't think that's the case in... well... a lot of the cases.
thewebguyd 4 days ago||||
Such an event would have to be pretty catastrophic at this point to slow down the inertia. Perhaps the tech debt will just pile up until someone's product implodes, or there's a massive safety issue that causes loss of life, or some big hedge fund goes bust.
wrs 4 days ago||||
That question makes me think about Boeing. Or NASA. Or Enron. Reality always wins, no matter what management and Investor Relations says.
icedchai 4 days ago||
It makes me think about The Terminator.
icameron 4 days ago|||
The event could be when fair pricing comes from the model providers. We're still at the cash burning stage. When the economy crashes a little and departments start monitoring their spending, and the prices for inference are 10x what they are, there will be less tolerance for employees to substitute constant AI usage for understanding.
vicentwu 4 days ago||
LLMs raise the floor, but you determine the ceiling.
jambalaya8 4 days ago||
The problem is LLMs reward no expertise and stupidity also.
mariorossi25 4 days ago||
What's this LLM's generated yapping?
waldarbeiter 4 days ago|
Maybe LLMs don't usher in the end of software engineering but they definitely end the whole "made with love (and coffee) in X". Nobody cares if you put effort into something software related. "Does it work? Yes? Ok build the next thing." Its the same with the notion of "taste" (see "sometimes tasteless computer code" from the Goedecke article), your colleague who is also a SE might respect your choices as good taste. But it ends there. This was also the case pre-LLMs I would argue. What is worse now is that communicating any uncertainty in decisions related to implementation will result in an immediate "Have you asked Claude?".
More comments...