[margalabargala]

You call compilers "levels of abstraction but still thinking", I call LLMs yet another level of abstraction.

This isn't really some new concept, the only thing new is that it's being applied to areas that haven't historically had a ton of automation.

Hand-wringing about LLMs and "not thinking" is the same thing that was hand-wrung about students using calculators and not knowing how to do long division. Or using a computer lookup and not knowing how to use the dewey decimal system. Heck, or using an automobile/bicycle and not knowing how to shoe a horse.

People over the last decade have demonstrated they are perfectly capable of generating large quantities of crappy, not-thought-out code all on their own. Just look around you. LLMs democratize the lowest common denominator, and those that are doing sufficiently difficult, nuanced, unique things that they actually need to know what they're doing, will continue to do so.

I don't think LLMs will reduce the abilities of the 10% best software engineers, and I don't think the quality of output of the rest will meaningfully change.

[neilv]

In this thread, I'm responding to the question of whether you teach a child the things, vs. OP's "Knowing fundamentals is always useful, but learning to collaborate with an AI is probably the more important long-term skill."

I agree that our field is already full of poo. But, at least with one child, we have a chance to nurture them to be much better than that.

I'll make that argument with enthusiasm and determination.

[margalabargala]

I completely disagree.

We're trying to teach a child. That requires things like maintaining interest. Results beat out rigor and fundamentals every time. Teaching primitives is how they lose interest, showing them "this is how you make a game with an LLM, here's the game!" followed by, if they're interested, showing how to change certain things in code, is how they want to learn more.

In a similar vein, MythBusters got more kids into science than any scientific paper ever did, rigor be damned. When you teach a child, you want to emphasize "you, too, can do this!" not "a monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors".

Let the child's interest guide them and you, not your interest.

[neilv]

Some of what you're arguing agrees with what I said in previous comments in this thread.

What I disagree about is pushbutton generative "AI" popping out the end product.

I want kids to learn by figuring out things as they're building something that they want to build.

And when they can't independently invent a concept or technique that they need for something they're building, you can nudge them. (Example: Their 2D video game screen refreshes are too slow, and now they would be excited to be introduced to double-buffering. And now they'll know exactly why they need it and how it works. So, the next time they need a related graphics improvement, they've had that prior learning experience, and might be able to figure it out on their own.)

Imagine if young Carmack had been plopped down in front of a vibe coding session for Unity or Unreal, stated what he wanted, and it emitted yet another generic 3D first-person shooter. Would he have ever been motivated to innovate anything, and if he was, would he have the cognitive strength and learning skill to do so?