101–110 of 652 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm an external examiner for CS students in Denmark and I disagree with you. What we need in the industry is software engineers who can think for themselves, can interact with the business and understand it's needs, and, they need to know how computers work. What we get are mass produced coders who have been taught some outdated way of designing and building software that we need to hammer out of them. I don't partic…
What is an "external examiner?"
AI is incredibly dangerous because it can do the simple things very well, which prevents new programmers from learning the simple things ("Oh, I'll just have AI generate it") which then prevents them from learning the middlin' and harder and meta things at a visceral level. I'm a CS teacher, so this is where I see a huge danger right now and I'm explicit with my students about it: you HAVE to write the code. You CAN'…
The idea was to develop a feel for cutting metal, and to better understand what the machine tools were doing.
--
My wood shop teacher taught me how to use a hand plane. I could shave off wood with it that was so thin it was transparent. I could then join two boards together with a barely perceptible crack between them. The jointer couldn't do it that well.
AI is incredibly dangerous because it can do the simple things very well, which prevents new programmers from learning the simple things ("Oh, I'll just have AI generate it") which then prevents them from learning the middlin' and harder and meta things at a visceral level. I'm a CS teacher, so this is where I see a huge danger right now and I'm explicit with my students about it: you HAVE to write the code. You CAN'…
AI is incredibly dangerous because it can do the simple things very well, which prevents new programmers from learning the simple things ("Oh, I'll just have AI generate it") which then prevents them from learning the middlin' and harder and meta things at a visceral level. I'm a CS teacher, so this is where I see a huge danger right now and I'm explicit with my students about it: you HAVE to write the code. You CAN'…
It’s like weightlifting: sure you can use a forklift to do it, but if the goal is to build up your own strength, using the forklift isn’t going to get you there. This is the ultimate problem with AI in academia. We all inherently know that “no pain no gain” is true for physical tasks, but the same is true for learning. Struggling through the new concepts is essentially the point of it, not just the end result. Of cou…
We have a decent sized piece of land and raise some animals. People think we're crazy for not having a tractor, but at the end of the day I would rather do it the hard way and stay in shape while also keeping a bit of a cap on how much I can change or tear up around here.
AI is incredibly dangerous because it can do the simple things very well, which prevents new programmers from learning the simple things ("Oh, I'll just have AI generate it") which then prevents them from learning the middlin' and harder and meta things at a visceral level. I'm a CS teacher, so this is where I see a huge danger right now and I'm explicit with my students about it: you HAVE to write the code. You CAN'…
I remember reading about a metal shop class, where the instructor started out by giving each student a block of metal, and a file. The student had to file an end wrench out of the block. Upon successful completion, then the student would move on to learning about the machine tools. The idea was to develop a feel for cutting metal, and to better understand what the machine tools were doing. -- My wood shop teacher tau…
> Not only does an agent not have the ability to evolve a specification over a multi-week period as it builds out its lower components, it also makes decisions upfront that it later doesn’t deviate from. That's your job. The great thing about coding agents is that you can tell them "change of design: all API interactions need to go through a new single class that does authentication and retries and rate-limit throttl…
> That's your job. Exactly. AI assisted development isn't all or nothing. We as a group and as individuals need to figure out the right blend of AI and human.
> AI assisted development isn't all or nothing.
> We as a group and as individuals need to figure out the right blend of AI and human.
"We as a group need to figure out the right blend of strong static and weak dynamic typing."
One can look around and see where that old discussion brought us. In my opinion, nowhere, things are same as they were.
So, where will LLM-assisted coding bring us? By rhyming it with the static types, I see no other variants than "nowhere."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My way is to understand my own codebase and look at the output of the LLM. Then you are not vibe coding. The core, almost exclusive requirement for "vibe coding" is that you DON'T look at the code. Only the product outcome.
This seems to be a major source of confusion in these conversations. People do not seem to agree on the definition of vibe coding. A lot of debates seem to be between people who are using the term because it sounds cool and people who have defined it specifically to only include irresponsible tool use, then they get into a debate about if the person was being irresponsible or not. It’s not useful to have that debate…