So human teachers are good to have as well, but I remember they were of limited use for me when I was learning programming without AI. So many concepts they tried to teach me without having understood themself first. AI would have likely helped me to get better answers instead of, "because that is how you do it" when asking why to do something in a certain way.
So obviously I would have prefered competent teachers all the time and also now competent teachers with unlimited time instead of faulty AIs for the students, but in reality human time is limited and humans are flawed as well. So I don't see the doomsday expectations for the new generation of programmers. The ultimate goal, building something that works to the spec, did not change and horrible unmaintainable code was also shipped 20 years ago.
> will not necessarily make you a more knowledgeable programmer
I think we'd better start separating "building software" from programming, because the act of programming is going to continue to get less and less valuable.
I would argue that programming has been very overvalued for a while even before AI. And the industry believes it's own hype with a healthy dose of elitism mixed in.
But now AI is removing the facade and it's showing that the idea and the architecture is actually the important part, not the coding if it.
Also, not all dev jobs are web tech or AI tech.
Or maybe it's more like going from analog photography to digital photography. Whatever it is, you get more programming done.
Just like when you go from assembly to c to a memory managed language like java. It did some 6502 and 68000 assembly over 35 years ago, now nowbody knows assembly.
Key words there. To you, it's a electric saw because you already know how to program, and that's the other person's point; it doesn't necessarily empower people to build software. You? Yes. Generally though when you hand the public an electric saw and say "have at it, build stuff" you end up with a lot of lost appendages.
Sadly, in this case the "lost appendages" are going to be man-decades of time spent undoing all the landmines vibecoders are going to plant around the digital commons. Which means AI even fails as a metaphorical "electric saw", because a good electric saw should strike fear into the user by promising mortal damage through misuse. AI has no such misuse deterrent, so people will freely misuse it until consequences swing back wildly, and the blast radius is community-scale.
> more like going from analog photography to digital photography. Whatever it is, you get more programming done.
By volume, the primary outcome of digital photography has been a deluge of pointless photographs to the extent we've had to invent new words to categorize them. "selfies". "sexts". "foodstagramming". Sure, AI will increase the actual programming being done, the same way digital photography gave us more photography art. But much more than that, AI will bring the equivalent of "foodstagramming" but for programs. Kind of like how the Apple App Store brought us some good apps, but at the same time 9 bajillion travel guides and flashlight apps. When you lower the bar you also open the flood gates.
Aren't you being overly optimistic that these would even get traction?
With ai it’s cheap and fast for a professional to ask the AI: what does this rubbish software do, and can you create me a more robust version following these guidelines.
This falls apart today with sufficiently complex software and also seems to require source availability (or perfect specifications).
One of the things I keep an eye out for in terms of "have LLMs actually cracked large-product complexity yet" (vs human-overseen patches or greenfield demos) is exactly that sort of re-implementation-and-improvement you talk about. Like a greenfield Photoshop substitute.
Trade schools and certificate programs are designed to churn out people with journeyman-level skills in some field. They repeatedly drill you on the practical day-in-day-out requirements, tasks, troubleshooting tools and techniques, etc. that you need to walk up to a job site and be useful. The fields generally have a predictable enough set of technical problems to deal with that a deep theoretical exploration is unnecessary. This is just as true for electricians and auto mechanics as it is for people doing limited but logistically complex technical work, like orchestrating a big fleet of windows workstations with all the Microsoft enterprise tools.
In software development and lots of other fields that require grappling with complex theoretical stuff, you really need both the practical and the theoretical background to be productive. That would be a ridiculous undertaking for a school, and it’s why we have internships/externships/jr positions.
The combination of these tools letting the seniors in a department do all of the work so companies don’t have to invest in interns/juniors so there’s no reliable entry point into the field, and there being an even bigger disconnect between what schools offer and the skills they need to compete, the industry has some rough days ahead and a whole lot of people trying to get a foothold in the industry right now are screwed. I’m kind of surprised how little so many people in tech seem to care about the impending rough road for entry-level folks in the industry. I guess it’s a combination of how little most higher level developers have to interact with them, and the fact that everybody was tripping over themselves to hire developers when a lot of seniors joined the industry.
Potentially very beneficial, if it turns out software engineers are still needed but nobody has been training them for half a decade
That's also the huge difference between AI and brains: AI does not work on the real world but on our communication (and even that is limited to text, missing all the nuance or face to face communication includes). The brain works based on sensor data from the real world. The communication method, language, is a very limited add-on on top of how the brain really works. We don't think in language, to do even some abstract language based thinking, e.g. when doing formal math, requires a lot of concentration and effort and still uses a lot of "under the hood" intuition.
That is why even with years of learning the same curriculum we still need to make a significant effort for every single concrete example to "get everyone on the same page", creating compatible internal models under the hood. Everybody's own internal model of even simple things are slightly different, depending on what brain they brought to learning and what exactly they learned, where even things like social classroom interactions went into how the connections were formed. Only based on a huge amount of effort can we then use language to communicate in the abstract, and even then, when we leave the central corridor of ideas people will start arguing forever about definitions. No matter how the written text is the same, the internal model is different for every person.
As someone who took neuroscience, I found this surprisingly well written:
"The brain doesn't like to abstract unless you make it"
http://howthebrainworks.science/how_the_brain_works_/the_bra...
> This resource, prepared by members of the University of London Centre for Educational Neuroscience (CEN), gives a brief overview of how the brain works for a general audience. It is based on the most recent research. It aims to give a gist of the brain’s principles of function, covering the brain’s evolutionary origin, how it develops, and how it copes in the modern world.
The best way to learn is to do things IRL that matter. School is a compromise and not really all that great. People motivated by actual need often can learn things that take years in school with middling results significantly faster and with better and deeper results.