Sending an AI response communicates more than just the response itself:
1. "I'm not entirely sure, but this is what it says to save you some time."
2. "You didn't ask the question precisely because you are not an SME, but I reworded it using the jargon that would allow the AI to answer better and here is the response."
3. "This response is AI, but in general my other ones are not"
One of the values of doing your own research is it forces you to speak the "language" of what you're trying to do.
It's like the struggle that we've all had when learning our first programming language. If we weren't forced to wrestle with compilation errors, our brains wouldn't have adapted to the mindset that the computer will do whatever you tell it to do and only that.
There's a place for LLMs in learning, and I feel like it satisfies the same niche as pre-synthesized Medium tutorials. It's no replacement for reading documentation or finding answers for yourself though.
The lack of syncing doesn't bother me, because the purpose of taking notes always falls into one of these categories:
1. I read the code to get an idea of how something works. The code is there to make examples/variable names concrete, but I don't need to know the exact implementation.
If the notes need to sit in the code, usually that's because the answer spans multiple methods (eg "what does an e2e request look like?"). A set of comments on outdated code is always good enough for me.
Otherwise, a lot of times the answer can be summarized in one line (eg "where is the state tracked?" -> in FooBarClass). These can go into personal notes.
2. I need to know the implementation and it is complex and hard to follow.
If I need to know the implementation, either it is because I'm actively working on it, or I need to make [complex idea] more concrete in my head.
If it's the former, usually I'll have memorized it by the time I read through it.
If it's the latter, by the end of it I'll have gotten the main idea and it's fine to forget the implantation details.
> What’s deeply frustrating is that for more than a decade Sal Khan similarly said that the videos on his “Khan Academy” would revolutionize education, and they utterly failed to do so.
How does one determine whether an edtech startup like KA has succeeded or failed? As someone who has found KA useful at times, I don't understand where the author is coming from
1. "I'm not entirely sure, but this is what it says to save you some time."
2. "You didn't ask the question precisely because you are not an SME, but I reworded it using the jargon that would allow the AI to answer better and here is the response."
3. "This response is AI, but in general my other ones are not"
4. "I trust the AI's response in this scenario."