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. userna+8p[view] [source] 2025-06-02 23:48:00
>>gwbas1+c9
If calculators were unreliable... Well, we'd be screwed if everyone blindly trusted them and never learned math.

They'd also be a whole lot less useful. Calculators are great because they always do exactly what you tell them. It's the same with compilers, almost: imagine if your C compiler did the right thing 99.9% of the time, but would make inexplicable errors 0.1% of the time, even on code that had previously worked correctly. And then CPython worked 99.9% of the time, except it was compiled by a C compiler working 99.9% of the time, ...

But bringing it back on-topic, in a world where software is AI-generated, and tests are AI-generated (because they're repetitive, and QA is low-status), and user complaints are all fielded by chat-bots (because that's cheaper than outsourcing), I don't see how anyone develops any expertise, or how things keep working.

◧◩◪◨
4. gwbas1+kd4[view] [source] 2025-06-04 10:38:16
>>userna+8p
Early calculators were unreliable. Assume that AI based coding will improve.
[go to top]