zlacker

[return to "My AI skeptic friends are all nuts"]
1. capnre+15[view] [source] 2025-06-02 21:39:49
>>tablet+(OP)
The argument seems to be that for an expert programmer, who is capable of reading and understanding AI agent code output and merging it into a codebase, AI agents are great.

Question: If everyone uses AI to code, how does someone become an expert capable of carefully reading and understanding code and acting as an editor to an AI?

The expert skills needed to be an editor -- reading code, understanding its implications, knowing what approaches are likely to cause problems, recognizing patterns that can be refactored, knowing where likely problems lie and how to test them, holding a complex codebase in memory and knowing where to find things -- currently come from long experience writing code.

But a novice who outsources their thinking to an LLM or an agent (or both) will never develop those skills on their own. So where will the experts come from?

I think of this because of my job as a professor; many of the homework assignments we use to develop thinking skills are now obsolete because LLMs can do them, permitting the students to pass without thinking. Perhaps there is another way to develop the skills, but I don't know what it is, and in the mean time I'm not sure how novices will learn to become experts.

◧◩
2. jedber+Hi[view] [source] 2025-06-02 23:02:12
>>capnre+15
If I were a professor, I would make my homework start the same -- here is a problem to solve.

But instead of asking for just working code, I would create a small wrapper for a popular AI. I would insist that the student use my wrapper to create the code. They must instruct the AI how to fix any non-working code until it works. Then they have to tell my wrapper to submit the code to my annotator. Then they have to annotate every line of code as to why it is there and what it is doing.

Why my wrapper? So that you can prevent them from asking it to generate the comments, and so that you know that they had to formulate the prompts themselves.

They will still be forced to understand the code.

Then double the number of problems, because with the AI they should be 2x as productive. :)

◧◩◪
3. palata+Hk[view] [source] 2025-06-02 23:15:56
>>jedber+Hi
> They will still be forced to understand the code.

But understanding is just one part of the learning process, isn't it? I assume everybody has had this feeling: the professor explains maths on the blackboard, and the student follows. The students "understands" all the steps: they make sense, they don't feel like asking a question right now. Then the professor gives them an exercise slightly different and asks to do the same, and the students are completely lost.

Learning is a loop: you need to accept it, get it in your memory (learn stuff by heart, be it just the vocabulary to express the concepts), understand it, then try to do it yourself. Realise that you missed many things in the process, and start at the beginning: learn new things by heart, understand more, try it again.

◧◩◪◨
4. jedber+fl[view] [source] 2025-06-02 23:19:00
>>palata+Hk
That loop is still there. They have to get the AI to write the right code.

And beyond that, do they really need to understand how it works? I never learned how to calculate logarithms by hand, but I know what they are for and I know when to punch the button on the calculator.

I'll never be a top tier mathematician, but that's not my goal. My goal is to calculate things that require logs.

If they can get the AI to make working code and explain why it works, do they need to know more than that, unless they want to be top in their field?

[go to top]