I've been reliant on GPS on my phone for probably over a decade now. I'm probably lost without it. But... I explore way more of the world now! I'll quite happily bounce around to random parts of a city that's completely foreign to me, safe in the knowledge that I'll always be able to find my way back again.
(I don't know if this analogy will hold up for AI-assisted programming - I still think programmers who actually understand the details will be a whole lot useful in the long run over programmers who don't - but I'm definitely not going to ditch my GPS in an attempt to improve my sans-GPS navigation skills.)
I don’t think it’s a great analogy, and here’s why:
When trying to get from point A to point B, there is a clear, well defined goal.
Streets (paths) are also clear and well defined (within reason on most popular GPS direction software).
An expert in city streets may get you there a little faster, but the end result of both GPS directions and city street experts is the same; getting you to B. What’s more, once you’re at B, the route you took probably no longer matters.
The only side effect of taking different routes is the time involved.
Coding is different. There’s a combinatorial explosion of different paths to get to any step of any problem. Each path has consequences which can be very difficult to understand at the time. (for example, the classic of-by-one error always causes some strange behavior)
Also, the code is an artifact that would need to be understood, built upon, and changed in the future.
It’s just a different beast than getting directions.
> When trying to get from point A to point B, there is a clear, well defined goal.
In programming, you also go from point A (requirements analysis phase) to point B (shipping the product). The only difference is that you may face multiple paths leading to point B.
I feel like I shouldn’t need to point out how literally going from point A to point B is wildly different than going from a requirement to a shipped product.
Or how your example “a shipped product” is not a well defined goal.
What i said is -somehow- the scenario described in the article: a craftsman who relies on something to do his craft but can't actually do the craft by himself. I'd est, he's no longer a craftsman.
The author didn't say stop using AI. He offered his solutions.
I've been reliant on GPS on my phone for probably over a decade now. I'm probably lost without it. But... I explore way more of the world now! I'll quite happily bounce around to random parts of a city that's completely foreign to me, safe in the knowledge that I'll always be able to find my way back again.
(I don't know if this analogy will hold up for AI-assisted programming - I still think programmers who actually understand the details will be a whole lot useful in the long run over programmers who don't - but I'm definitely not going to ditch my GPS in an attempt to improve my sans-GPS navigation skills.)