6 ms·

> 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?

> 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.

mmasu 1y ago
While I agree with your suggestion, the comparison does not hold: calculators do not tell you which numbers to input and compute. With an LLM you can just ask vaguely, and get an often passable result
- gwbas1c 1y ago
  Then figure out how to structure the assignment to make students show their work. If a student doesn't understand the concept, it will show in how they prompt AI. For example, you could require that students submit all logs of AI conversations, and show all changes they made to the code produced. IE, yesterday I asked ChatGPT how to add a copy to clipboard button in MudBlazor. It told me the button didn't exist, and then wrote the component for me. That saved me a bunch of research; but I needed to refactor the code for various reasons. So, if this was for an assignment, I could turn in both my log from ChatGPT, and then show the changes I made to the code ChatGPT provided.
palata 1y ago
> Well, if everyone uses a calculator, how do we learn math? Calculators have made most people a lot worse in arithmetic. Many people, for instance, don't even grasp what a "30%" discount is. I mean other than "it's a discount" and "it's a bigger discount than 20% and lower than 40%". I have seen examples where people don't grasp that 30% is roughly one third. It's just a discount, they trust it. GPS navigation has made most people a lot worse at reading maps or generally knowing where they are. I have multiple examples where I would say something like "well we need to go west, it's late in the day so the sun will show us west" and people would just not believe me. Or where someone would follow their GPS on their smartphone around a building to come back 10m behind where they started, without even realising that the GPS was making them walk the long way around the building. Not sure the calculator is a good example to say "tools don't make people worse with the core knowledge".
- istjohn 1y ago
  I'm unconvinced that calculators have made most people a lot worse in arithmetic. There have always been people who are bad at math. It's likely there are fewer people who can quickly perform long division on paper, but it's also possible the average person is _more_ numerate because they can play around with a calculator and quickly build intuition.
  - palata 1y ago
    > I'm unconvinced that calculators have made most people a lot worse in arithmetic. There have always been people who are bad at math. Arithmetic is a subset of maths.
    - MangoToupe 1y ago
      Arithmetic is also near-useless if you have access to a calculator. It's also a completely different skill thab reasoning about numbers, which is a very useful skill.
      - recursive 1y ago
        I can do plenty of arithmetic much faster than I could type it on a calculator keypad. That's like saying hardware keyboards are near-useless if you have access to a touchscreen.
        MangoToupe 1y ago
        I just don't really work much with arithmetic to begin with. Almost 100% of the numerical work I do is symbolic.
        recursive 1y ago
        All well and good, but don't mistake a practice you don't use as being generally useless.
username223 1y ago
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.
- gwbas1c 1y ago
  Early calculators were unreliable. Assume that AI based coding will improve.
  - sarchertech 1y ago
    What early calculators were unreliable? I’m unaware of any, but even if there is an example it was before they were in widespread use.

mmasu 1y ago

While I agree with your suggestion, the comparison does not hold: calculators do not tell you which numbers to input and compute. With an LLM you can just ask vaguely, and get an often passable result

gwbas1c 1y ago
Then figure out how to structure the assignment to make students show their work. If a student doesn't understand the concept, it will show in how they prompt AI. For example, you could require that students submit all logs of AI conversations, and show all changes they made to the code produced. IE, yesterday I asked ChatGPT how to add a copy to clipboard button in MudBlazor. It told me the button didn't exist, and then wrote the component for me. That saved me a bunch of research; but I needed to refactor the code for various reasons. So, if this was for an assignment, I could turn in both my log from ChatGPT, and then show the changes I made to the code ChatGPT provided.

palata 1y ago

> Well, if everyone uses a calculator, how do we learn math? Calculators have made most people a lot worse in arithmetic. Many people, for instance, don't even grasp what a "30%" discount is. I mean other than "it's a discount" and "it's a bigger discount than 20% and lower than 40%". I have seen examples where people don't grasp that 30% is roughly one third. It's just a discount, they trust it. GPS navigation has made most people a lot worse at reading maps or generally knowing where they are. I have multiple examples where I would say something like "well we need to go west, it's late in the day so the sun will show us west" and people would just not believe me. Or where someone would follow their GPS on their smartphone around a building to come back 10m behind where they started, without even realising that the GPS was making them walk the long way around the building. Not sure the calculator is a good example to say "tools don't make people worse with the core knowledge".

istjohn 1y ago
I'm unconvinced that calculators have made most people a lot worse in arithmetic. There have always been people who are bad at math. It's likely there are fewer people who can quickly perform long division on paper, but it's also possible the average person is _more_ numerate because they can play around with a calculator and quickly build intuition.
- palata 1y ago
  > I'm unconvinced that calculators have made most people a lot worse in arithmetic. There have always been people who are bad at math. Arithmetic is a subset of maths.
  - MangoToupe 1y ago
    Arithmetic is also near-useless if you have access to a calculator. It's also a completely different skill thab reasoning about numbers, which is a very useful skill.
    - recursive 1y ago
      I can do plenty of arithmetic much faster than I could type it on a calculator keypad. That's like saying hardware keyboards are near-useless if you have access to a touchscreen.
      - MangoToupe 1y ago
        I just don't really work much with arithmetic to begin with. Almost 100% of the numerical work I do is symbolic.
        recursive 1y ago
        All well and good, but don't mistake a practice you don't use as being generally useless.

username223 1y ago

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.

gwbas1c 1y ago
Early calculators were unreliable. Assume that AI based coding will improve.
- sarchertech 1y ago
  What early calculators were unreliable? I’m unaware of any, but even if there is an example it was before they were in widespread use.