|
|
|
|
|
by neilv
382 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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.