That's like saying "we don't need teachers because we've got books". A how-to guide has to assume a certain level of knowledge, so will inevitably be insultingly basic for some readers or completely impenetrable for others. A static document can't elaborate on something you don't understand or fill in gaps in your knowledge. It can't help you debug a problem or look at your setup and point out where you might have gone wrong.
We now have good evidence that AI-assisted learning can be substantially more effective than traditional methods, at incredibly low marginal cost.
> That's like saying "we don't need teachers because we've got books".
I respectfully disagree. I don't think it's wrong or useless to get an LLM to help, I recently did a similar project myself (even though I manually fact-checked all the high-voltage stuff).
If you find a guide that explains too much then you can skip the parts you know. If it doesn't explain something you don't know yet then you recursively look that stuff up. It doesn't matter if it's a book or a teacher or a search engine or an LLM.
It's just not good journalism here, because evidently this project has been done lots of times in similar circumstances without LLMs.
>evidently this project has >been done lots of times in >similar circumstances without >LLMs.
LLMs help organizing knowledge and research in a novel domain. The point is not “can you do it”. LLMs are great at giving vanilla standard answers. Which is exactly what you want when researching a novel domain. I’ve been dipping into novel domains for 25 years and LLM:s make it so much more pleasant.
We now have good evidence that AI-assisted learning can be substantially more effective than traditional methods, at incredibly low marginal cost.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/09/professor-tai...
https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/education/From-chalkboards-to...