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. gwbas1+c9[view] [source] 2025-06-02 22:05:05
>>capnre+15
> 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?

Well, if everyone uses a calculator, how do we learn math?

Basically, force students to do it by hand long enough that they understand the essentials. Introduce LLMs at a point similar to when you allow students to use a calculator.

◧◩◪
3. palata+4k[view] [source] 2025-06-02 23:11:43
>>gwbas1+c9
> Well, if everyone uses a calculator, how do we learn math?

Calculators have made most people a lot worse in arithmetic. Many people, for instance, don't even grasp what a "30%" discount is. I mean other than "it's a discount" and "it's a bigger discount than 20% and lower than 40%". I have seen examples where people don't grasp that 30% is roughly one third. It's just a discount, they trust it.

GPS navigation has made most people a lot worse at reading maps or generally knowing where they are. I have multiple examples where I would say something like "well we need to go west, it's late in the day so the sun will show us west" and people would just not believe me. Or where someone would follow their GPS on their smartphone around a building to come back 10m behind where they started, without even realising that the GPS was making them walk the long way around the building.

Not sure the calculator is a good example to say "tools don't make people worse with the core knowledge".

◧◩◪◨
4. istjoh+Zo[view] [source] 2025-06-02 23:46:20
>>palata+4k
I'm unconvinced that calculators have made most people a lot worse in arithmetic. There have always been people who are bad at math. It's likely there are fewer people who can quickly perform long division on paper, but it's also possible the average person is _more_ numerate because they can play around with a calculator and quickly build intuition.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. palata+Tq[view] [source] 2025-06-03 00:01:01
>>istjoh+Zo
> I'm unconvinced that calculators have made most people a lot worse in arithmetic. There have always been people who are bad at math.

Arithmetic is a subset of maths.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. MangoT+Ru[view] [source] 2025-06-03 00:37:18
>>palata+Tq
Arithmetic is also near-useless if you have access to a calculator. It's also a completely different skill thab reasoning about numbers, which is a very useful skill.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. nitwit+5Y[view] [source] 2025-06-03 05:52:30
>>MangoT+Ru
But, logically, you need to spend time thinking about numbers to be good reasoning about them, and the calculator is about reducing that time.

I feel there's a bit of a paradox, with many subjects, where we all know the basics are the absolute most important thing, but when we see the basics taught in the real world, it seems insultingly trivial.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. MangoT+ms1[view] [source] 2025-06-03 11:09:39
>>nitwit+5Y
I understand what you're saying, but I legitimately am unconvinced learning long division is necessary to learn by hand to master division. If anything, perhaps we should be asking children to derive arithmetic from use of a calculator.
[go to top]