5 ms·

Interesting. But will computer science education be relevant in the next 10 yrs when everyone is going to be a prompt engineer. An analogy is we used to memoriz

Interesting. But will computer science education be relevant in the next 10 yrs when everyone is going to be a prompt engineer. An analogy is we used to memorize 20-30 phone numbers in our brain and with the advent of smartphones, we didnt have a need anymore and we stopped doing that and we dont know the numbers of our dear ones too. Imagine a situation when you lose your phone, your entire life will stall for moment. Similarly with prompts, I feel people will stop understanding the underlying tech and only become more and more dumber. Isn't it?

dns_snek 2y ago
I can't relate to your analogy, rote memorization is the least interesting and least useful part of knowledge work. Even if a future LLM could recall information with perfect accuracy it can't make you understand. > Similarly with prompts, I feel people will stop understanding the underlying tech and only become more and more dumber. Isn't it? You're probably right, posers will follow the path of least resistance, but others will continue to challenge themselves and build a deep understanding because they have an intrinsic desire to understand how systems, organizations, algorithms, etc., work. I think the second group (experts) will always be in demand.
thefz 2y ago
> But will computer science education be relevant in the next 10 yrs when everyone is going to be a prompt engineer. AI runs on computers so there will always be someone that needs to understand cpu microcode, firmware, operating systems... and at a lower level, electronics.
- krapp 2y ago
  Not many. AI will be designing the chips, running the factories, and writing the firmware and OS. A consequence of the normalization of AI will be the belief that low-level or mission critical programming is too important or complex to allow human beings into the loop, that it would be dangerous for humans to even know about such things.
  - jeremyjh 2y ago
    "Make shit up that sounds plausible" is actually not a useful strategy for running real world operations. Yet so many people are so certain as you are - when all they've seen is a convincing bullshit artist.
    - krapp 2y ago
      >"Make shit up that sounds plausible" is actually not a useful strategy for running real world operations. That's often how the real world works, though. Rich, powerful people decide this is going to be the future and they throw money and infrastructure at it until it happens or the economy collapses. Lather, rinse, repeat. I think in the short term you're correct because AI often doesn't live up to the hype (especially where the arts are concerned,) and it may take one or two AI winters and hype cycles to get there, but I've already seen AI do too many "impossible" things for me to be confident that it will remain bullshit forever.
      - jeremyjh 2y ago
        > That's often how the real world works, though. Rich, powerful people Are not running operations. They hire the people that do.
      - thefz 2y ago
        > That's often how the real world works, though. No. If your house stands up or the light switches on when you press a button, it is all because someone did their homework and was good at their job. Sometimes I wonder if people dream of an AI-driven (not the current AI, AGI) because it means they will not have to learn anything anymore.
  - EliRivers 2y ago
    Did it not turn out that AIs creating output based on AI-created output, iteratively, pretty quickly turns into nonsense? That would suggest that we'll need humans always to provide training material, and for that training material to be meaningful, it'll have to be created by humans who know what they're doing.
hulitu 2y ago
> Imagine a situation when you lose your phone, your entire life will stall for moment Maybe one should not rely on a single point of failure. You can back up your contacts.
nottorp 2y ago
> everyone is going to be a prompt engineer What you overlook and what this article says is that you need to know your shit already to be an effective prompt engineer, and using the prompts instead of an actual learning process to learn said shit does not work.
- msnkarthik 2y ago
  That is true, But my point is will people still try to learn about processes and understand the code in the background, when they get used to the ease of generating code as the speed of thought?

dns_snek 2y ago

I can't relate to your analogy, rote memorization is the least interesting and least useful part of knowledge work. Even if a future LLM could recall information with perfect accuracy it can't make you understand. > Similarly with prompts, I feel people will stop understanding the underlying tech and only become more and more dumber. Isn't it? You're probably right, posers will follow the path of least resistance, but others will continue to challenge themselves and build a deep understanding because they have an intrinsic desire to understand how systems, organizations, algorithms, etc., work. I think the second group (experts) will always be in demand.

thefz 2y ago

> But will computer science education be relevant in the next 10 yrs when everyone is going to be a prompt engineer. AI runs on computers so there will always be someone that needs to understand cpu microcode, firmware, operating systems... and at a lower level, electronics.

krapp 2y ago
Not many. AI will be designing the chips, running the factories, and writing the firmware and OS. A consequence of the normalization of AI will be the belief that low-level or mission critical programming is too important or complex to allow human beings into the loop, that it would be dangerous for humans to even know about such things.
- jeremyjh 2y ago
  "Make shit up that sounds plausible" is actually not a useful strategy for running real world operations. Yet so many people are so certain as you are - when all they've seen is a convincing bullshit artist.
  - krapp 2y ago
    >"Make shit up that sounds plausible" is actually not a useful strategy for running real world operations. That's often how the real world works, though. Rich, powerful people decide this is going to be the future and they throw money and infrastructure at it until it happens or the economy collapses. Lather, rinse, repeat. I think in the short term you're correct because AI often doesn't live up to the hype (especially where the arts are concerned,) and it may take one or two AI winters and hype cycles to get there, but I've already seen AI do too many "impossible" things for me to be confident that it will remain bullshit forever.
    - jeremyjh 2y ago
      > That's often how the real world works, though. Rich, powerful people Are not running operations. They hire the people that do.
    - thefz 2y ago
      > That's often how the real world works, though. No. If your house stands up or the light switches on when you press a button, it is all because someone did their homework and was good at their job. Sometimes I wonder if people dream of an AI-driven (not the current AI, AGI) because it means they will not have to learn anything anymore.
- EliRivers 2y ago
  Did it not turn out that AIs creating output based on AI-created output, iteratively, pretty quickly turns into nonsense? That would suggest that we'll need humans always to provide training material, and for that training material to be meaningful, it'll have to be created by humans who know what they're doing.

hulitu 2y ago

> Imagine a situation when you lose your phone, your entire life will stall for moment Maybe one should not rely on a single point of failure. You can back up your contacts.

nottorp 2y ago

> everyone is going to be a prompt engineer What you overlook and what this article says is that you need to know your shit already to be an effective prompt engineer, and using the prompts instead of an actual learning process to learn said shit does not work.

msnkarthik 2y ago
That is true, But my point is will people still try to learn about processes and understand the code in the background, when they get used to the ease of generating code as the speed of thought?