[djsavvy]

> This idea summarizes why I disagree with those who equate the LLM revolution to the rise of search engines, like Google in the 90s. Search enginers offer a good choice between Exploration (crawl through the list and pages of results) and Exploitation (click on the top result). > LLMs, however, do not give this choice, and tend to encourage immediate exploitation instead. Users may explore if the first solution does not work, but the first choice is always to exploit.

Well said, and an interesting idea, but most of my LLM usage (besides copilot autocomplete) is actually very search-engine-esque. I ask it to explain existing design decisions, or to search for a library that fits my needs, or come up with related queries so I can learn more.

Once I've chosen a library or an approach for the task, I'll have the LLM write out some code. For anything significantly more substantive code than copilot completions, I almost always do some exploring before I exploit.

[trollbridge]

I’m finding the same usage of LLMs in terms of what actually I use them for day to day. When I need to look up arcane information, an LLM generally does better than a Google search.

[bluefirebrand]

How do you verify the accuracy of "arcane information" produced by an LLM?

"Arcane Information" is absolutely the worst possible use case I can imagine for LLMs right now. You might as well ask an intern to just make something up