[cortesoft]

I 100% agree that this is how the experience is right now.

I don't necessarily think it will stay this way, though. The tools are so new, we shouldn't be so sure that the future versions won't allow non-coders to code successfully.

[netsharc]

Isn't it a subset of "understanding".. AI as we have them currently emulates something that understands us. If you ask it to write a program, how would a non-coder know if the output of the emulated understanding is accurate enough as code, or a miss?

Reminds me of the joke:

int getRandom() {

  return 4; // chosen by a dice, guaranteed to be random

}

[JSteph22]

>how would a non-coder know if the output if the emulated understanding is accurate

QA for non-AI code is limited at best to begin with, why would AI code be any different?

[latexr]

> Reminds me of the joke

Source: https://xkcd.com/221/

[actsasbuffoon]

I disagree, at least for the next 5 years or so.

Even with humans, it’s very common to ask them for something and get something back that’s completely different than what you wanted. Short of reading your mind, AI is going to require a lot of info to get the desired result.

So someone is going to have to gather requirements and break them down into a clear, well thought out set of instructions for the computer. That’s literally what programmers already do. We’re just programming in a different language now.

[sixtyj]

In the past, we depended on editors that were easy to switch. Now coders are becoming dependent on tools that are hard to switch off.

And I’ve realized that even when I try to stay in control, I often don’t read the output code—I just copy and paste.

Metaphorically, it’s like pilots who know how to use the autopilot, but can’t switch back to manual control. That’s the generation of coders we’re raising.

[dmitrygr]

> we shouldn't be so sure that the future versions won't allow non-coders to code successfully

Care to put some money behind this fantastical claim, in a bet?

[cortesoft]

Sure, if you granted me odds commiserate with my statement that "you can't be so sure", meaning I would get like 99-1 odds.

I wasn't saying it will certainly reach the point where non-coders can code, I am saying we can't be certain it won't just because it can't yet

[dmitrygr]

1:1 odds, but i'll give you a huge (tech-wise) time horizon of, say, 3 years?

[anon22981]

Since you are only willing to go for 1:1 odds with a 3 year timeframe, I assume you are in agreement that it might happen? Otherwise I’m sure you would give him better odds with a larger timeframe :)

[cortesoft]

Ha, no I am thinking more like 10-20 years, or maybe even longer. But I know from experience that 10-20 years goes by faster than you think.

[johnnyanmac]

Reality is often disappointing. The reality is that this is sold to people who don't know how to code as a way to code. Even if the theory is that an engineer can make the best use of it (whether or not it helps is another debate).