11–20 of 57 posts
In a learning context, sure, you probably should not be using copilot or similar, the same way you shouldn't be using a calculator when doing your basic arithmetic homework.
Beyond that, this just seems like a classic scrub mentality hangup. If a tool is useful, you should use it where appropriate. You'd be a fool not to. If it's not useful, then don't use it.
1972: Using Anything Other Than Assembly Will Make You a Bad Programmer 1995: Using a Language with a Garbage Collector Will Make You a Bad Programmer 2024: Using AI Generated Code Will Make You a Bad Programmer
I get where this is coming from and it is true sometimes (e.g. my favorite example is Google maps). But it’s quite silly to assume this for all tools and all skill sets, especially with more creative and complex skills like programming.
Wise and experienced practitioners will stay grounded in the fundamentals while judiciously adding new tools to their kit. This requires experimentation and continual learning.
The people whose skills will be impacted the most are those who didn’t have strong fundamentals in the first place, and only know the craft through that tool.
Edit: forgive my frequent edits in the 10 minutes since after initially posting
fun fact: after 25 years as a software engineer in silicon valley, I'm convinced nobody cares about code quality and they never have.
If it wasn't for that, I'd switch to Cursor or use copilot in a instant, because honestly, I've asked some ai tools like Claude for help a couple of times, and those has been for tasks that I know more than one would need to be involved in to complete that, but with Claude, I solved it in a couple of hours, incredible stuff!
Also, if it wasn't obvious, I am not claiming that this is the case, these are just my feelings, I would love to be convinced otherwise because then I might switch and try out the luxury QoF others are having.
But in all seriousness, these models are getting to the point where they're really useful for me to just build one-off tools for my own use or to prototype things to show other people what I'm looking for (like an interactive mockup). That's the power of turning a non-programmer into a bad programmer, and it's certainly worth something!
> You May Become Dependent on Your Own Eventual Replacement If you're going to be eventually replaced, and I absolutely believe that even the best of us will, you may as well get in on the ground floor to extract value for a bit before that happens. Not writing your own code doesn't need to mean turning your brain off. You still need to look at what came out, understand it, and spot where it didn't match your needs.
By that point, having never used any of the tools makes you almost no different from anyone off the street.
In a way I welcome it. Writing the same menial code as everyone else slightly differently becomes a pretty stale existence.
1972: Using Anything Other Than Assembly Will Make You a Bad Programmer 1995: Using a Language with a Garbage Collector Will Make You a Bad Programmer 2024: Using AI Generated Code Will Make You a Bad Programmer
1972: Using Anything Other Than Assembly Will Make You a Bad Programmer 1995: Using a Language with a Garbage Collector Will Make You a Bad Programmer 2024: Using AI Generated Code Will Make You a Bad Programmer
Both of these remain true to today, which is why we always interview people at one layer below the requirement of the job so they know what they’re doing.
Writing C/C++ - know how the output looks like. Using GC-based languages? Know the cleanup cycle (if any).
I would wager the third also holds true.
Buckle up, LLMs are here to stay and will likely continue improving for a while before they plateau.