[coopykins]

When I have to put together a quick fix. I reach out to Claude Code these days. I know I can give it the specifics and, Im my recent experience, it will find the issue and propose a fix. Now, I have two options: I can trust it or I can dig in myself and understand why it's happening myself. I sacrifice gaining knowledge for time. I often choose the later, and put my time in areas I think are more important than this, but I'm aware of it.

If you give up your hands-on interaction with a system, you will lose your insight about it.

When you build an application yourself, you know every part of it. When you vibe code, trying to debug something in there is a black box of code you've never seen before.

That is one of the concerns I have when people suggest that LLMs are great for learning. I think the opposite, they're great for skipping 'learning' and just get the results. Learning comes from doing the grunt work.

I use LLMs to find stuff often, when I'm researching or I need to write an ADR, but I do the writing myself, because otherwise it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that you know what the 'LLM' is talking about, when in fact you are clueless about it. I find it harder to write about something I'm not familiar with, and then I know I have to look more into it.

[wtetzner]

I think LLMs can be great for learning, but not if you're using them to do work for you. I find them most valuable for explaining concepts I've been trying to learn, but have gotten stuck and am struggling to find good resources for.

[ensocode]

> I think the opposite, they're great for skipping 'learning' and just get the results. yes, and cars skip the hours of walking, planes skip weeks of swimming, calculators skip the calculating ...