I've been thinking about that comparison as well. A common fantasy is that civilization will collapse and the guy who knows how to hunt and start a fire will really excel. In practice, this never happens and he's sort of left behind unless he also has other skills relevant to the modern world.
And, for instance, I have barely any knowledge of how my computer works, but it's a tool I use to do my job. (and to have fun at home.)
Why are these different than using LLMs? I think at least for me the distinction is whether or not something enables me to perform a task, or whether it's just doing the task for me. If I had to write my own OS and word processor just to write a letter, it'd never happen. The fact that the computer does this for me facilitates my task. I could write the letter by hand, but doing it in a word processor is way better. Especially if I want to print multiple copies of the letter.
But for LLMs, my task might be something like "setting up apache is easy, but I've never done it so just tell me how do it so I don't fumble through learning and make it take way longer." The task was setting up Apache. The task was assigned to me, but I didn't really do it. There wasn't necessarily some higher level task that I merely needed Apache for. Apache was the whole task! And I didn't do it!
Now, this will not be the case for all LLM-enabled tasks, but I think this distinction speaks to my experience. In the previous word processor example, the LLM would just write my document for me. It doesn't allow me to write my document more efficiently. It's efficient, only in the sense that I no longer need to actually do it myself, except for maybe to act as an editor. (and most people don't even do much of that work) My skill in writing either atrophies or never fully develops since I don't actually need to spend any time doing it or thinking about it.
In a perfect world, I use self-discipline to have the LLM show me how to set up Apache, then take notes, and then research, and then set it up manually in subsequent runs; I'd have benefited from learning the task much more quickly than if I'd done it alone, but also used my self-discipline to make sure I actually really learned something and developed expertise as well. My argument is that most people will not succeed in doing this, and will just let the LLM think for them.
I remember seeing a tweet awhile back that talked about how modernity separated work from physicality, and now you have to do exercise on purpose. I think the Internet plus car-driven societies had done something similar to being social, and LLMs are doing something to both thinking, as well as the kind of virtue that enables one to master a craft.
So, while it's an imperfect answer that I haven't really nailed down yet, maybe the answer is just to realize this and make sure we're doing hard things on purpose sometimes. This stuff has enabled free time, we just can't use it to doomscroll.
>Internet plus car-driven societies had done something similar to being social,
That's an interesting take on the loneliness crisis that I had not considered. I think you're really onto something. Thanks for sharing. I don't want to dive into this topic too much since it's political and really off-topic for the thread, but thank you for suggesting this.
Radio and especially TV also had large social effects. People used to play cards, instruments, and other social things before TV. Then household TV watching maxxed at 9 hours/day in 2010 (5hr/d in 1950). (Would like to know the per person watching and these are from Nielsen who would want higher numbers) [1].
Cars help people be social in my world. I would say that riding on a train in your own bubble with strangers is not a social activity, but others would disagree.
You don't just set up Apache to have run Apache? You set it up to serve web content! It is middleware, it is not in of itself useful?
Isn't setting up Apache robbing yourself of the opportunity to learn about writing your own HTTP server? In C? And what a bad idea that is?
The LLM helping you configure a web server is no different than the web server helping you serve HTTP instead of implementing a web server from scratch. You've just seemingly? arbitrarily decided your preferred abstraction layer is where "real work" happens.
Okay, maybe LLMs might disappear tomorrow and so for some reason the particular skill of configuring Apache will become useful again, maybe! But I'm already using brainpower to memorize phone numbers in case my smartphone contacts disappear, so maybe I won't have room for those Apache configs ;-)
Computers have a bunch of abstractions, but they are leaky abstractions. Apache is not leaking that much, so you don't need to write an HTTP server (until you write an Apache module). Abstracting over Apache can be something able to do when all you need to do is host static pages on port 80/443, that's called a Webhoster or github.io .
> the distinction is whether or not something enables me to perform a task, or whether it's just doing the task for me.
I think school has taught us to believe that if we're assigned a task, and we take a shortcut to avoid doing the task ourselves, that's wrong. And yes, when the purpose is to learn the task or the underlying concepts, that's probably true. But in a job environment, the employer presumably only cares that the task got done in the most efficient way possible.
Edit to add: When configuring or using a particular program is tedious and/or difficult enough that you feel the need to turn to an LLM for help, I think it's an indication that a better program is needed. Having an LLM configure or operate a computer program for you is kind of like having a robot operate a computer UI that was designed for humans, as opposed to having a higher-level program just do the higher-level automation directly. In the specific case of the Apache HTTP Server, depending on what you need to do, you may find that Caddy is easy enough that you can configure it yourself without requiring the LLM. For common web server scenarios, a Caddyfile is very short, much shorter than a typical Apache or nginx configuration.
When I perform a task myself, it will be reproducible, so it is done once and for all for this employer. That probably won't be the case for the LLM, which will change or might be down next week.
> But for LLMs, my task might be something like "setting up apache is easy, but I've never done it so just tell me how do it so I don't fumble through learning and make it take way longer." The task was setting up Apache. The task was assigned to me, but I didn't really do it. There wasn't necessarily some higher level task that I merely needed Apache for. Apache was the whole task! And I didn't do it!
To play devil's advocate: Setting up Apache was your task. A) Either it was a one-off that you'll never have to do again, in which case it wasn't very important that you learn the process inside and out, or b) it is a task you'll have to do again (and again), and having the LLM walk you through the setup the first time acts as training wheels (unless you just lazily copy & paste and let it become a crutch).
I frequently have the LLM walk me through an unfamiliar task and, depending on several factors such as whether I expect to have to do it again soon, the urgency of the task, and my interest and/or energy at the moment, I will ask the LLM follow-up questions, challenge it on far-fetched claims, investigate alternative techniques, etc. Execute one command at a time, once you've understood what it's meant to do, what the program you're running does, how its parameters change what it does, and so on, and let the LLM help you get the picture.
The alternative is to try to piece together a complete picture of the process from official documentation like tutorials & user manuals, disparate bits of information in search results, possibly wrong and/or incomplete information from Q&A forums, and muddle through lots of trial and error. Time-consuming, labor-intensive, and much less efficient at giving your a broad-strokes idea of how the whole thing works.
I much prefer the back-and-forth with the LLM and think it gives me a better understanding of the big picture than the slow and frustrating muddling approach.
The alternative to LLMs wouldn't necessarily be to start from scratch, you likely will just start with a documented version from your distro, and change the documented settings suggested. Meanwhile using the documentation, that is also provided by the distro.
I would say that with a computer you're using a tool to take care of mundane details and speed up the mechanics of tasks in your life. Such as writing a document, or playing a game. I can't think of a way I would be seriously disadvantaged by not having the ability to hand-write an essay or have games I can readily play without a computer. Computers are more like tools in the way a hammer is a tool. I don't mind being totally dependent on a computer for those tasks in the same way I don't mind that I need a hammer anytime I want to drive a nail.
But for many people, LLMs replace critical thinking. They offer the allure of outsourcing planning, research, and generating ideas. These skills seem more fundamental to me, and I would say there's definitely a loss somehow of one's humanity if you let those things atrophy to the point you become utterly dependent on LLMs.
>But for many people, LLMs replace critical thinking...[and] outsourc[e] planning, research, and generating ideas
Sure, but I guess you could say that any tech advancement outsources these things, right? I don't have to think about what gear to pick when I drive a car to maximize its performance, I don't have to think about "i before e" types of rules when spell check will catch it, I don't have to think about how to maintain a draft horse or think as much about types of dirt or terrain difficulties when I have a tractor.
Or, to add another analogy, for something like a digital photo compared to film photography that you'd develop yourself or portrait painting before that: so much planning and critical thought has been lost.
And then there's another angle: does a project lead not outsource much of this to other people? This invites a "something human is being lost" critique in a social/developmental context, but people don't really lament that the CEO has somehow lost his humanity because he's outsourcing so much of the process to others.
I'm not trying to be clever or do gotchas or anything. I'm genuinely wrestling with this stuff. Because you might be right: dependence on LLMs might be bad. (Though I'd suggest that this critique is blunted if we're able to eventually move to hosting and running this stuff locally.) But I'm already dependent on a ton of tech in ways I probably can't even fully grasp.
I don't have any great answer. But when I think about this for myself, I realize there is are different kinds of abstraction that qualitatively change the nature of the work.
I don't want my software developer's experience to turn into a real estate developer's experience. I don't want to go from being a technical knowledge worker to a financier or contract negotiator. I've realized I was never in it for the outcome. I was in it for the exploration and puzzles.
Similarly, I don't want to become a "Hollywood producer" cliche. This caricature was a common joke earlier in my tech career in Southern California. We detested the idea of becoming a "tech" person acting like a Steve Martin parody of a Hollywood wheeler-dealer. Someone sitting in a cafe, pitching ideas that was nothing more than a reference to an existing work with an added gimmick or casting change.
To me, that caricature combines two negative aspects. One is the heavily derivative and cynical nature. The other is the stratospheric abstraction level, where folks at this level see themselves as visionaries rather than just patrons of someone else doing all the creative work.
I don't want to be a patron of an LLM or other black box.
And, for instance, I have barely any knowledge of how my computer works, but it's a tool I use to do my job. (and to have fun at home.)
Why are these different than using LLMs? I think at least for me the distinction is whether or not something enables me to perform a task, or whether it's just doing the task for me. If I had to write my own OS and word processor just to write a letter, it'd never happen. The fact that the computer does this for me facilitates my task. I could write the letter by hand, but doing it in a word processor is way better. Especially if I want to print multiple copies of the letter.
But for LLMs, my task might be something like "setting up apache is easy, but I've never done it so just tell me how do it so I don't fumble through learning and make it take way longer." The task was setting up Apache. The task was assigned to me, but I didn't really do it. There wasn't necessarily some higher level task that I merely needed Apache for. Apache was the whole task! And I didn't do it!
Now, this will not be the case for all LLM-enabled tasks, but I think this distinction speaks to my experience. In the previous word processor example, the LLM would just write my document for me. It doesn't allow me to write my document more efficiently. It's efficient, only in the sense that I no longer need to actually do it myself, except for maybe to act as an editor. (and most people don't even do much of that work) My skill in writing either atrophies or never fully develops since I don't actually need to spend any time doing it or thinking about it.
In a perfect world, I use self-discipline to have the LLM show me how to set up Apache, then take notes, and then research, and then set it up manually in subsequent runs; I'd have benefited from learning the task much more quickly than if I'd done it alone, but also used my self-discipline to make sure I actually really learned something and developed expertise as well. My argument is that most people will not succeed in doing this, and will just let the LLM think for them.