[IMTDb]

That’s true for “tips and tricks” knowledge like “which model is best today” or “tell the model you’ll get fired if the answer is wrong to increase accuracy” that pops up on Twitter/X. It’s fleeting, makes people feel like “experts”, and doesn’t age well.

On the other hand, deeply understanding how models work and where they fall short, how to set up, organize, and maintain context, and which tools and workflows support that tends to last much longer. When something like the “Ralph loop” blows up on social media (and dies just as fast), the interesting question is: what problem was it trying to solve, and how did it do it differently from alternatives? Thinking through those problems is like training a muscle, and that muscle stays useful even as the underlying technology evolves.

[skydhash]

> what problem was it trying to solve, and how did it do it differently from alternatives?

Sounds to me like accidental complexity. The essential problem is to write good code for the computer to do it's task?

There's an issue if you're (general you) more focused on fixing the tool than on the primary problem, especially when you don't know if the tool is even suitable,

[camdenreslink]

It does seem like things are moving very quickly even deeper than what you are saying. Less than a year ago langchain, model fine tuning and RAG were the cutting edge and the “thing to do”.

Now because of models improving, context sizes getting bigger, and commercial offerings improving I hardly hear about them.