I think it's incredible how much those ancient brains can successfully adapt to technology. Some people can sit in highly-strung sports cars and use them at the absolute limit of their performance like they're just an extension of our own limbs and senses.
I partly agree, depending on what you count as the basics. I don't think there's much value in learning the quirks of LLMs today: they will just change, your value-add becomes part of the model or harness.
On the other hand I think there are real development gains in jumping on the train today. To my career's detriment.
>(perhaps guide them how they can use them professionally)
If that's anything like how they guided me to use programming languages professionally...
In my workplace I find systems and policies move too slowly to keep up with how rapidly the LLM world is changing. Colleges are even more glacial. They've barely adapted to video conferencing.
I love this book. Before anything else it's a pleasure to read: it's funny, touching, and the constant referring to the poem at its core forces literary engagement - even if it's only to notice where Kinbote is bending the truth. It also scratches a metafictional itch that has now become a huge trend in modern media...
Spoilers below
...but I find it suffers in criticism for a different trend: that everything has a 'gotcha'. While I accept that there is no sensible reading where the narrator is entirely reliable, I reject that there is an evocative reading using the Shadean theory referenced in footnote 2.
Sometimes this is given as 'Shade wrote the whole book'. I have no time for that. You don't need a character who writes Pale Fire on index cards: that's just Nabokov. And what would it mean if this Shade writes a heartfelt canto about his own loss, then the interpretation that cruelly misses the topic?
Sometimes it's given that Kinbote is a dissociative identity of Shade. I see this as an interpretation that minimised the impact of the text to maximise the self-satisfaction of the reader. Read through the book with it in mind and you find yourself asking what's the point of it all. In line 62's explanation, Kinbote reads 'hal.....s' as 'hallucinations'. If Kinbote is a real character within the story, that's a joke between Nabokov and the reader. With this theory it's nothing. Kinbote's writings make up the bulk of what you read. It's much more interesting to do so if you choose believe there's a point to them.
Spoilers done
I had a similar experience reading interpretations of Lolita, with the added problem of takes that over-correct and signal against the subject and wider public perception.
Counter-anecdote: I've played a game where the developer included a bug that gave other players arbitrary code execution on my PC and left it online while fixing the bug. I've never launched it since and had owned it less than 48 hours. Steam rejected my refund.