I agree that people like to hire profesionals. That is why I hire db experts to work on our infra, not prompt engenieers.

Saying that anybody can learn to unblock a sink by watching youtube is your tipical HN mentality of stating opinons as facts.

"Saying that anybody can learn to unblock a sink by watching youtube is your tipical HN mentality of stating opinons as facts."

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that it's not true that anyone could learn to unblock a sink by watching YouTube videos?

Yes I do think not all people could fix it with Youtube. My grandma couldn't for example. I had a neigbor come for help with something like that too.

Is not that hard to understan mate. Maybe put my comment in the LLM so you can get it.

What is your point again?

My analogy holds up. Anyone could type "optimize my PostgreSQL database by editing the configuration file" into an LLM, but most people won't - same as most people won't watch YouTube to figure out how to unblock a sink.

If you don't like the sink analogy what analogy would you use instead for this? I'm confident there's a "people could learn X from YouTube but chose to pay someone else instead" that's more effective than the sink one.

You're exactly right (original commenter here). I began my career in professional software engineering in 1998. I've despaired that trained monkeys could probably wreck this part of the economy for over 25 years. But we're still here. :D

Personally I'd like to hire a DB expert who also knows how to drive an agentic coding system to help them accelerate their work. AI tools, used correctly, act as an amplifier of existing knowledge and experience.

As far as I know nobody has really came up with proof that LLMs act as an amplifier of existing knoledge.

It does make people FEEL more productive.

What would a "proof" of that even look like?

There are thousands (probably millions) of us walking around with anecdotal personal evidence at this point.

Some years ago when everybody here gave their anecdotal evidence about how Bitcoin and Blockchain were the future and they used it every day. You were a fool if you did not jump on the bandwagon.

If the personal opinions on this site were true, half of the code in the world would be functional, lisp would be one of the languages most used and Microsoft would have not bougth DropBox.

I really think HN hive minds opinions means nothing. Too much money here to be real.

I'm going to believe my own experience on this one.

I am going to wait until Chat GPT 8 solves quantum physics like the ex ceo of this site has stated.

Good thing there exists no middle ground between solving quantum physics and optimizing a SQL statement.

> Some years ago when everybody here gave their anecdotal evidence about how Bitcoin and Blockchain were the future and they used it every day.

I hardly remember anyone on HN, a tech audience, saying they used blockchain everyday. Why don't you go find some of that evidence?

you can become a db expert with the right prompts

You can learn how to pour a drink in 1 minute, that is why most bartenders earn minimum wage.

You can't become a db expert with a promt.

I hope you make a lot of money with your lies and good luck.

You can become a DB expert by reading books, forums and practicing hard.

These days you can replace those books and forums with a top tier LLM, but you still need to put in the practice yourself. Even with AI assistance that's still a lot of work.

You could not replace good books with Intenert and you can't replace good books with a any LLM.

You can replace books with your own time and research.

Again making statements that are just not true. Typical HN behavior.

I don't appreciate how you accuse me of "making statements that are just not true" without providing a solid argument (as opposed to your own opinion) as to why what I'm saying isn't true.

You stated that an LLM can replace a book.

As far as I know in the field of logic the one making a statement, in this case you, is the one who has to prove it.

But in this case you make a statemen and then ask ME to prove it wrong? Makes zero fucking sense.

As much as you don't apreciate it, that is how debate and logic works.

The idea that an LLM can replace the role of a book doesn't seem like it should even be controversial to me.

You buy a non-fiction book to learn something, or to act as a reference.

An LLM provides an alternative mechanism for learning that thing, or looking up those reference points.

What am I missing here?

Do you think a search engine could replace a book?

So you are not only stating than a LLM can replace a book. Directly you are saying that it is an axiom.

It is so self evident true that you don't even need to reason about it.

That LLMs can replace a book is a fundamental truth of the universe like the euclid postulates or like 1=1.

Well then there is no way to continue the conversation, because by definition axioms can't be false.

I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but you'll have to make a concrete argument rather than just critiquing the way I'm discussing this.