4 ms·

My advice as an older programmer who has a son in engineering school (who is asking similar questions) … stay in CS. The world will change as a result of LLMs,

My advice as an older programmer who has a son in engineering school (who is asking similar questions) … stay in CS. The world will change as a result of LLMs, of course, but new opportunities emerging will be one of those changes, and a CS background will help you prepare for such opportunities. My $0.02.

rgrieselhuber 4y ago
Agreed. There will be even more need for humans who understand CS to direct the LLM-based systems.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- gerad 4y ago
  A tool that makes programmers 10x more efficient does not make programmers less valuable.
  - zamfi 4y ago
    In fact, the opposite!
xtracto 4y ago
Programming in the 2010s was nothing like programming in the 2000s, was nothing like programming in the 1990s, was nothing like programming in the 1980s , was nothing like programming in the 1970s... etc.. I personally experienced the paranoia of the "end of programming " when VisuslBasic was first released, and when UML code generation ('member Rational Rose?) Tools arrived. I'm still doing a good living with my programming skills.
- jonny_eh 4y ago
  > 'member Rational Rose? oh boy I do. Had a whole course in engineering school on it. Never touched it since. LLMs will just be another programming tool to help us be more productive, at most.
  - rektide 4y ago
    A meager defense of the Rational Rose universe, which I never touched, but kind of liked in principle some of the ideas/aspirational-vibes I was getting from... Having higher-level views & tools that can portray & show the abstractions of computing sound so interesting. Having higher-order control over code sounds so compelling & interesting. In practice it seemed impossible to have a two-way relationship between ideal & real code, but that never seemed like a "real" limitation, like a set-fact, just happenstance that the tools all kind of blew chunks. Different subject, but in some ways, I think what would flip the bit for me in believing in machine-learned code-working is systems that can do really great refactoring things on instruction. Taking some human instruction & spitting out some html or js doesn't really impress me, to be honest. But if machine learning can take my code, create a builder pattern based off the current constructor, make a config file that allow programmatic defaults, that's a huge time saver of manual labor, not at generating boilerplate, but at helping me shift around what I have. Rational Rose & it's ilk were never particularly great at helping folks refactor systems, but ideologically they suggested that good code had graphical representation & that there was a bi-directional relationship; bringing out that promise doesn't take machine learning, but if machine learning got good at helping juggle code, could open the door to those ideas again, that would be powerful.
    - zamfi 4y ago
      Prepare to be blown away very soon.
      - rektide 4y ago
        Doubt it. Thanks for writing. Maybe actually say something, next time? There's literally nothing to agree or disagree with in your content-free position. Ok, latter, bye!
        zamfi 4y ago
        > But if machine learning can take my code, create a builder pattern based off the current constructor, make a config file that allow programmatic defaults, that's a huge time saver of manual labor, not at generating boilerplate, but at helping me shift around what I have. I encourage you to try this in ChatGPT. Give it some code and ask it to refactor out a builder pattern. It won't be perfect, but if it's like anything I've tried, what it gives you will save you some time, and may offer you an insight or two. --- On an entirely unrelated note, I also encourage you to keep your frustration in check -- an aggressive response to a perceived contentless message says more about you. Equally effective without being condescending or aggressive would have been "Could you say more?" I chose to interpret your message in this way; others may not be so kind.
- jacknews 4y ago
  "('member Rational Rose?)" I see some of the people involved in that are heavily dunking on GPTs. While they have a valid point not to get carried away and ascribe capabilities that aren't really there, it seems to me GPTs have perhaps already, in a few months, had more positive impact on code and coding than those methodologies and tools have, ever.

rgrieselhuber 4y ago

Agreed. There will be even more need for humans who understand CS to direct the LLM-based systems.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gerad 4y ago
A tool that makes programmers 10x more efficient does not make programmers less valuable.
- zamfi 4y ago
  In fact, the opposite!

xtracto 4y ago

Programming in the 2010s was nothing like programming in the 2000s, was nothing like programming in the 1990s, was nothing like programming in the 1980s , was nothing like programming in the 1970s... etc.. I personally experienced the paranoia of the "end of programming " when VisuslBasic was first released, and when UML code generation ('member Rational Rose?) Tools arrived. I'm still doing a good living with my programming skills.

jonny_eh 4y ago
> 'member Rational Rose? oh boy I do. Had a whole course in engineering school on it. Never touched it since. LLMs will just be another programming tool to help us be more productive, at most.
- rektide 4y ago
  A meager defense of the Rational Rose universe, which I never touched, but kind of liked in principle some of the ideas/aspirational-vibes I was getting from... Having higher-level views & tools that can portray & show the abstractions of computing sound so interesting. Having higher-order control over code sounds so compelling & interesting. In practice it seemed impossible to have a two-way relationship between ideal & real code, but that never seemed like a "real" limitation, like a set-fact, just happenstance that the tools all kind of blew chunks. Different subject, but in some ways, I think what would flip the bit for me in believing in machine-learned code-working is systems that can do really great refactoring things on instruction. Taking some human instruction & spitting out some html or js doesn't really impress me, to be honest. But if machine learning can take my code, create a builder pattern based off the current constructor, make a config file that allow programmatic defaults, that's a huge time saver of manual labor, not at generating boilerplate, but at helping me shift around what I have. Rational Rose & it's ilk were never particularly great at helping folks refactor systems, but ideologically they suggested that good code had graphical representation & that there was a bi-directional relationship; bringing out that promise doesn't take machine learning, but if machine learning got good at helping juggle code, could open the door to those ideas again, that would be powerful.
  - zamfi 4y ago
    Prepare to be blown away very soon.
    - rektide 4y ago
      Doubt it. Thanks for writing. Maybe actually say something, next time? There's literally nothing to agree or disagree with in your content-free position. Ok, latter, bye!
      - zamfi 4y ago
        > But if machine learning can take my code, create a builder pattern based off the current constructor, make a config file that allow programmatic defaults, that's a huge time saver of manual labor, not at generating boilerplate, but at helping me shift around what I have. I encourage you to try this in ChatGPT. Give it some code and ask it to refactor out a builder pattern. It won't be perfect, but if it's like anything I've tried, what it gives you will save you some time, and may offer you an insight or two. --- On an entirely unrelated note, I also encourage you to keep your frustration in check -- an aggressive response to a perceived contentless message says more about you. Equally effective without being condescending or aggressive would have been "Could you say more?" I chose to interpret your message in this way; others may not be so kind.
jacknews 4y ago
"('member Rational Rose?)" I see some of the people involved in that are heavily dunking on GPTs. While they have a valid point not to get carried away and ascribe capabilities that aren't really there, it seems to me GPTs have perhaps already, in a few months, had more positive impact on code and coding than those methodologies and tools have, ever.