[throwaway613745]

The topic is basically irrelevant. I could just edit my post to change the two instances of "vector database" to "vector database integration" and nothing else would change about my point.

I could change the post to be about learning word-working by watching a robot build a shelf and nothing would change.

[simonw]

I genuinely do think you can learn 90% of what that is to learn about integrating with a vector database from having an LLM do the work for you and then carefully reviewing what it did.

Turns out there's science that backs me up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worked-example_effect - showing people "worked examples" can be more effective than making them solve the problem themselves.

That Wikipedia article is a little weak, this MIT page is better: https://tll.mit.edu/teaching-resources/how-people-learn/work...

[throwaway613745]

> Worked examples are step-by-step illustrations of the process required to complete a task or solve a problem.

That’s not what having a bot generate your integration is and reading it post-facto is. The bot isn’t guiding you through the process so you can go do it yourself. At best you would use this as a reference to go do another integration yourself - but at this point why even bother when you can just get the bot to do it again?

The only thing people learn using AI is how to do things with AI.

[jfreds]

Having gone though exactly this exercise recently comparing a homegrown vector db against Qdrant, I’m wholeheartedly in agreement that getting a working solution FAST, and then spending a decent amount of time interrogating it (with help of LLM), is my favorite learning pattern