4 ms·
This is just part of our capabilities now. I think we have to accept that there are parts of programming that most programmers will never need to know because t
by jstanley 2y ago
This is just part of our capabilities now. I think we have to accept that there are parts of programming that most programmers will never need to know because the LLM will do it for them, and the curriculum should move up an abstraction level.
- monocasa 2y agoYeah. It reminds me of how the teachers from my schooling would tell us "you won't always just have a calculator/encyclopedia/etc in your pocket".
- boredtofears 2y agoif you've ever endured the pain of PR'ing a medium-ish sized feature from someone who copiloted their way through the entire thing you know it doesn't work that way
- starfezzy 2y agoTwo comments: First, it's not often noted in these conversations that there are two types of LLM-using programmers/learners. One kind uses it to radically accelerate the learning process, the other kind uses it so they don't have to learn. Actually, make that three kinds—the third (probably a subset of the second) has extremely low creativity and can't understand how to use LLM tools effectively, and so can't guide their output effectively, or wrangle it after the fact. I suspect your comment is referring to PRs by the latter kind. This is not a problem with LLMs, or with people using them to enhance productivity. Second, what is your realistic proposal for how to confront the reality that we're accelerating through irreversible technology-assisted change? Just like, apart from catastrophes, there's no longer a concern that we won't have massive factory farms, or that we won't have access to calculators, or that programmers won't have access to Google, there's no future where programmers wont have increasingly helpful and capable AI tools. There will always be low IQ, low performance individuals. Can you recognize that the problem—as always—is those people, not the technology?
- boredtofears 2y agoI don’t agree with the OPs statement: > I think we have to accept that there are parts of programming that most programmers will never need to know because the LLM will do it for them I don’t think people lacking fundamentals use LLMs very effectively.
- fragmede 2y agoThing is, LLMs can teach the fundamentals if the person is clever enough to ask it. Eg if I was just starting out and didn't understand the difference between bash and ssh, I can chat with the LLM until I get it.
- nradov 2y agoOur languages should move up an abstraction layer. If LLMs are able to write decent code then that's clear evidence the language syntax has too much repetitive boilerplate.
- dangsux 2y ago[dead]
- sensanaty 2y agoI'd love to see the code for this app you've made, could you link the repo?
- ThrowawayR2 2y agoAnyone other than me get the vibe of Isaac Asimov's classic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feeling_of_Power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feeling_of_Power from such posts?