Or any other LLM that’s continuously trained on trending news?
Or any other LLM that’s continuously trained on trending news?
Instead of the core of the answer coming from the LLM, it could piece together a few relevant contexts and just provide the glue.
Odds are pretty good that, at least for not very popular projects, the homepage's themselves would soon be produced by some LLM, and left at that, warts and all...
How do you know the media isn't lying to you ? It's happened many times before (think pre-war propaganda)
> In responding to user queries, Grok has a unique feature that allows it to decide whether or not to search X public posts and conduct a real-time web search on the Internet. Grok’s access to real-time public X posts allows Grok to respond to user queries with up-to-date information and insights on a wide range of topics.
Other considerations:
- Visiting the actual website, you’ll see the programming languages logo. That may be a useful memory aide when learning.
- The real website may have diagrams and other things that may not be available in your LLM tool of choice (grok).
- The ACT of browsing to a different web page may help some learners better “compartmentalize” their new knowledge. The human brain works in funny ways.
- i have 0 concerns of a hallucination when readings docs directly from the author/source. Unless they also jumped on the LLM bandwagon lol.
Just because you have a hammer in your hand doesn’t mean you should start trying to hammer everything around you friend. Every tool has its place.
For some cases I absolutely prefer an LLM, like discoverability of certain language features or toolkits. But for the details, I'll just google the documentation site (for the new terms that the LLM just taught me about) and then read the actual docs.
I'm hard pressed to construction an argument where, with widely-accessible LLM/LAM technology, that still looks like:
1. User types in query
2. Search returns hits
3. User selects a hit
4. User looks for information in hit
5. User has information
Summarization and deep-indexing are too powerful and remove the necessity of steps 2-4.F.ex. with the API example, why doesn't your future IDE directly surface the API (from its documentation)? Or your future search directly summarize exactly the part of the API spec you need?
Language Implementation Patterns (the book) |> Analyzing Languages (the part) |> Tracking and Identifying Program Symbols (the chapter) |> Resolving Symbols (the section)
or Unit Testing: Principles, Practices,and Patterns (the book) |> Making your tests work for you (the part) |> Mocks and test fragility (the chapter) |> The relationship between mocks and test fragility (the section) |> Intra-system vs. inter-system communications
or Python 3.13.3 Documentation (docs.python.org) |> The Python Standard Library |> Text Processing Services |> stringAnd if you are reading technical docs, especially good ones, each word is there for a reason. LLM throw some that information away, but they don't have your context to know if the stuff they throw away is useful or not. The text the summary omitted may likely contain an important caveat or detail you really should have known before starting to use that API.
I recently configured Chrome to only use google if I prefix my search with a "g ".