Should Kids Still Learn to Code in the Age of AI? (yahoo.com) 170
This week the Computer Science Teachers Association conference kicked off Tuesday in Las Vegas, writes long-time Slashdot reader theodp.
And the "TeachAI" education initiative teamed with the Computer Science Teachers Association to release three briefs "arguing that K-12 computer science education is more important than ever in an age of AI." From the press release: "As AI becomes increasingly present in the classroom, educators are understandably concerned about how it might disrupt the teaching of core CS skills like programming. With these briefs, TeachAI and CSTA hope to reinforce the idea that learning to program is the cornerstone of computational thinking and an important gateway to the problem-solving, critical thinking, and creative thinking skills necessary to thrive in today's digitally driven world. The rise of AI only makes CS education more important."
To help drive home the point to educators, the 39-page Guidance on the Future of Computer Science Education in an Age of AI (penned by five authors from nonprofits CSTA and Code.org) includes a pretty grim comic entitled Learn to Program or Follow Commands. In the panel, two high school students who scoff at the idea of having to learn to code and instead use GenAI to create their Python apps wind up getting stuck in miserable warehouse jobs several years later as a result where they're ordered about by an AI robot.
"The rise of AI only makes CS education more important," according to the group's press release, "with early research showing that people with a greater grasp of underlying computing concepts are able to use AI tools more effectively than those without." A survey by the group also found that 80% of teachers "agree that core concepts in CS education should be updated to emphasize topics that better support learning about AI."
But I'd be curious to hear what Slashdot's readers think. Share your thoughts and opinions in the comments.
Should children still be taught to code in the age of AI?
And the "TeachAI" education initiative teamed with the Computer Science Teachers Association to release three briefs "arguing that K-12 computer science education is more important than ever in an age of AI." From the press release: "As AI becomes increasingly present in the classroom, educators are understandably concerned about how it might disrupt the teaching of core CS skills like programming. With these briefs, TeachAI and CSTA hope to reinforce the idea that learning to program is the cornerstone of computational thinking and an important gateway to the problem-solving, critical thinking, and creative thinking skills necessary to thrive in today's digitally driven world. The rise of AI only makes CS education more important."
To help drive home the point to educators, the 39-page Guidance on the Future of Computer Science Education in an Age of AI (penned by five authors from nonprofits CSTA and Code.org) includes a pretty grim comic entitled Learn to Program or Follow Commands. In the panel, two high school students who scoff at the idea of having to learn to code and instead use GenAI to create their Python apps wind up getting stuck in miserable warehouse jobs several years later as a result where they're ordered about by an AI robot.
"The rise of AI only makes CS education more important," according to the group's press release, "with early research showing that people with a greater grasp of underlying computing concepts are able to use AI tools more effectively than those without." A survey by the group also found that 80% of teachers "agree that core concepts in CS education should be updated to emphasize topics that better support learning about AI."
But I'd be curious to hear what Slashdot's readers think. Share your thoughts and opinions in the comments.
Should children still be taught to code in the age of AI?
Kids never should have been told to code (Score:2, Insightful)
Kids should know real life skills they can use in their daily lives.
My teen girl knows how to change a tire, for example. That's a useful universal life skill all people should have as long as cars have tires. Coding not so much.
This is similar to the fad of helicopter parents having their kids learn mandarin. FOTW nonsense. Although for reasons she can't explain my kid chose mandarin on her own (and is now regretting that decision), I let her make her own minor mistakes without comment so she can learn
Re:Kids never should have been told to code (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what you're saying is "not every kid needs to know how to program." Would that be correct? Because it makes no sense for you to think people can't both spend half an hour learning to change a tire (considering most new cars no longer come with a spare, I'd argue it no longer really qualifies as all that useful in daily life, but that's another topic I suppose), and any number of other "basic life skills", as well as something more time consuming like programming.
I do think kids should be taught *about* coding, even if not *to* code. I think it's useful to have some general idea of how the software, that is now fundamental to all of modern society, is created. Exposing kids to that also allows the nerds in the group to discover an interest, which I think schools should really focus more on. People's brains have different aptitudes and need to be exposed to a lot of variety to discover what appeals to them, so they can make informed choices for higher education or professions.
I would agree that coding is not a basic skill all should be forced to learn.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We live in a new world where computers dominate nearly every aspect of our daily lives. Learning to program is, without question, a basic skill.
It's also a skill that anyone can learn. It doesn't take a special mind. In fact, it's so easy that children can, and very often do, teach themselves.
Software has been commoditised (Score:2)
Back when computers were new, the idea was, "Soon computers will be everywhere! You'll need to know how to make them work!" It made sense because there was very little off-the-shelf software, and what software there was usually needed heavy customisation. Many computers booted to a BASIC interpreter. But these days, many people will be able to use off-the-shelf software for every task they need a computer for. There just isn't a big incentive to ensure everyone is a competent programmer (unless your go
Re: (Score:3)
Using your example of a washing machine, you use electric motors for everything, you should know how to rewind an armature and overhaul a gearbox, but do you? Electric motors are a commodity - most people can't service them. Same with the rest of a washing machine I'm not saying that we don't need programmers, I'm just saying that nowhere near everyone needs to learn to program, and it doesn't make sense to use school resources to try and make everyone into a programmer.
The "big tech" companies very much
Re: (Score:3)
We teach writing, but don't expect everyone to become a professional writer. We teach writing because everyone can benefit from being able to write.
We teach science, but don't expect everyone to become a scientist. We teach science because everyone can benefit from having some exposure to science and scientific knowledge.
Equally, the purpose of teaching everyone to program isn't to turn everyone into a professional programmer. Just about everyone, regardless of their profession, can benefit from being ab
But can they, with one intro class, outperform AI? (Score:2)
We live in a new world where computers dominate nearly every aspect of our daily lives. Learning to program is, without question, a basic skill.
I think the point of this article, how it differs from past incarnations of this question, is that the very simple programs your average student who took a coding class could do is within the realm of what AI may be able to code. Ie. is similar enough to what it found on the internet.
It's also a skill that anyone can learn. It doesn't take a special mind. In fact, it's so easy that children can, and very often do, teach themselves.
Yes, those with some sort of curiosity about coding. And for these kids their should be an elective. To let them discover if they like it, have an aptitude for it. Then provide them with intermediate and advanced coding classes
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, you're predicting that the AI of 20 years from now will have the same skills as the current AI. (Perhaps you're describing that as what the article addresses.)
I think the rate of change is fast enough that reasonable predictions in this area are impossible. I, personally, have no idea what today's students should study except a very few general rules:
1) Teach them how to recognize bad logic. For that programming can be useful, but it's certainly not essential.
2) Teach them to how to rec
Re: (Score:3)
I have no idea who gary marcus is, but if he sounds like me, he's clearly on the right track.
As for what we an do with LLMs, we have absolutely "hit a wall". We're well-past the point where increasing the size of the model results in noticeable gains. Even if there were massive speed and efficiency gains on the horizon, that has nothing what-so-ever to do with capability.
do what we can faster and more efficiently. that's enough to dislocate the entire market.
People want significantly better results, not the same shitty results faster. I can assure you that LLMs can do a lot less that you seem
Re: (Score:2)
We live in a new world where computers dominate nearly every aspect of our daily lives. BUT this has occured without coding being a basic skill. The vast majority of people on the planet do not know how to code. My experience also says that the majority of programmers don't know how to code (or program).
You may as well say that in this new world, the internal combustion engine dominates most aspects of our daily lives and is crucial to the world economy, and therefore auto-shop should be a mandatory class
Re: (Score:3)
We live in a new world where computers dominate nearly every aspect of our daily lives. Learning to program is, without question, a basic skill.
Knowing how to use a computer or smartphone, I would agree is a basic skill that has become necessary in today's society. Knowing how to program, I would very much disagree with being a basic skill everyone needs to know. Even if playing devil's advocate for myself, I can't come up with any good arguments to defend that stance.
Re: (Score:2)
"learning to change a tire (considering most new cars no longer come with a spare,"
Back in the day a man had to know how to change a tire (and have a working spare) because if you didnt and you got a flat you were stuck.
Now everyone has a cellphone, so you just call the AA or a nearby tow truck.
I never owned a car, I had a motorbike in the late 70's and I could always push it if it broke down.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, in addition to the above my parents said I had to take auto shop too, but that was back when schools had such things.
I have AA and cell phone, but I also have a flashlight, a first aid kit, a small tool bag and some hose clamps, fuses, etc and of supreme importance the roll of duct tape. I like options. I've u
Re: (Score:2)
Do note that most of those don't apply to electric cars, or even most modern ICE vehicles. The last car I owned the radiator was a sealed system, and I think checking the oil was intentionally made so difficult that only a mechanic could do it.
Coding is a shop class, not a core class (Score:2)
And like shop classes, if a kid developed an interest in that basic
Modern World Different (Score:3)
That's a useful universal life skill all people should have as long as cars have tires. Coding not so much.
Not so much. Newer cars are coming with no spare and run-flat tyres where you can drive to the nearest garage at reduced speed if you get a flat. Coding on the otherhand teaches kids about how computers and specifically computer algorithms work. This is useful to know as more and more of our lives are governed by machine learning algorithms and more and more jobs require an understanding of programming concepts even if it is just the simple programming of "smart" devices to make them do what you want or us
Re: (Score:2)
That's a useful universal life skill all people should have as long as cars have tires. Coding not so much.
Not so much. Newer cars are coming with no spare and run-flat tyres where you can drive to the nearest garage at reduced speed if you get a flat.
My previous car had an air pump with sealer combo instead of a spare. I insisted on a spare as well - which turned out to save my cute butt. The problem with the idea of driving to the nearest garage becomes apparent when you are a hundred miles from a garage, or have your flat on a Sunday.
Anyhow, the sealer actually worked pretty well, but I had another flat a few days later, on the weekend, in the wilds of PA with no cell coverage.
Coding on the otherhand teaches kids about how computers and specifically computer algorithms work. This is useful to know as more and more of our lives are governed by machine learning algorithms and more and more jobs require an understanding of programming concepts even if it is just the simple programming of "smart" devices to make them do what you want or using a spreadsheet. That being said before anything like changing tyres or writing code kids need to learn the basics like maths and the schools are failing at that so really discussions of teaching secondary skills like this is the same as discussing the best arrangment of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Re:Kids never should have been told to code (Score:5, Insightful)
Coding teaches how to break down a problem and translate it into an algorithm, and it teaches troubleshooting; an immensely useful skill in many endeavors. I think a bit of CS in high school is a good thing, teaching coding as well as other computer-related subjects. NOT with the goal of creating coders; the same way we teach children languages and arithmetic, without the ambition of turning out linguists and mathematicians. Teach the basics and hopefully spark an interest.
Turns out that many employers are shocked at the deplorable state of computer literacy amongst Gen Z employees. They grew up with tech but never had to seriously mess with it or troubleshoot anything... until they enter the workplace. Knowing a little bit about how computers work and how they fail is a useful skill for a technology-filled world, and coding teaches that skill like nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
Changing a tyre is as easy as mowing the lawn. Kids don't need to be taught that sort of thing in school. General logical problem solving skills are, on the other hand, widely applicable. Training your brain to think logically and to problem solve is good for you brain in the way that working out in the gym is good for your body: even if when your workout is done, all the weights are left where you found them, and no actual work is done, your body is healthier for the effort.
Re:Kids never should have been told to code (Score:4, Insightful)
Changing a flat used to be a fairly common occurrence, but between better tyres, mandatory inspections, and roads that are kept clean, I don't think I've even seen anyone change a tyre in the past 30 years or so. Your kid's changes of ever writing a line of code (if she knows how) are better than her having to change a tyre. Not saying that you shouldn't teach her that, teach her everything you know!
I changed two flats on my latest vehicle, the last less than a year ago. Maybe some people are leading blessed lives, and I'm there to even out the odds and protecting them by me having flats instead of them! 8^)
Coding teaches how to break down a problem and translate it into an algorithm, and it teaches troubleshooting; an immensely useful skill in many endeavors. I think a bit of CS in high school is a good thing, teaching coding as well as other computer-related subjects. NOT with the goal of creating coders; the same way we teach children languages and arithmetic, without the ambition of turning out linguists and mathematicians. Teach the basics and hopefully spark an interest.
I agree with you, the exposure is the important thing. We let them know something exists, and if they get hooked, then it's all good. My biggest issue is the idea that some people have that this is going to turn out a lot of developers - especially young ladies. Because it won't. If she is interested and pursues a career in the field, that is great. But I'm pretty convinced that programming is more aligned with the way some males think, and no where near as many women think that way. As I said, if she is and wishes to be a programmer, then she should take that path and no one should stop her.
Bona Fides - I spent many years working to get young ladies interested in STEM careers. In our post effort polls, more were interested in becoming a pop culture diva (think Taylor Swift or Beyonce) than any STEM activity, which was always at or near the bottom of their polled interests. And we couldn't get that number to budge.
Turns out that many employers are shocked at the deplorable state of computer literacy amongst Gen Z employees. They grew up with tech but never had to seriously mess with it or troubleshoot anything... until they enter the workplace. Knowing a little bit about how computers work and how they fail is a useful skill for a technology-filled world, and coding teaches that skill like nothing else.
Smartphones. So many people addicted to their smartphones and thinking they are high tech. They are not. It's a pernicious device if you ask me, and one that can snare you into a vortex of stupid if you let it. Once upon a time you had to be pretty smart and know a few things to work these dangfangled compooters, now the sales rep at the Verizon store sets your phone up, and you are ready to troll people on Facbook or Instagram.
Note how many people in here - of all places - think that desktops are superannuated, and useless, because all you need is a smartphone. They can't quite understand that someone has to create the things that they consume, keep the networks running so they can consume what they like.
So it would not surprise me that a lot of GenZ people wouldn't know much about actual computing.
Your sig - "If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building..." That's the one I've been looking for in reference to the Crowdstrike debacle.
Re: (Score:2)
Smartphones ARE high tech. Just try to build or repair one. But they're designed so the users don't need to be high tech.
I think that's a general guide to how the world is heading. If you want to guess what knowledge will continue to be valuable, look for what tasks can't be redesigned an refactored into something that's trivial to use or do.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. Some kids, namely those interested in it, should learn whatever they fancy and coding can be among that. But most people can never be good at coding. Accept it and move on. Coding well is hard. Coding badly is expensive, sometimes exceptionally expensive. And, even if the general public does not realize this, coding using AI is actually harder. AI code adds hard to spot mistakes and may well solve the wrong problem. To spot that, you need to be able to code _better_ than you would have to be a
Re: (Score:2)
But most people can never be good at coding. Accept it and move on.
That's nonsense. Programing is something that anyone can learn. It's so easy that children can, and very often do, teach themselves. Accept it and move on.
Coding badly is expensive, sometimes exceptionally expensive.
The trend of the last 20+ years has been "agile" development, which all but guarantees bad/low-quality code. Coding badly is, apparently, is cost effective.
Coding well is hard.
It doesn't have to be. If I've learned anything over the years, its that most projects are needlessly complicated. Programming is ridiculously easy, so programmers get bored and build absurd con
Re: (Score:2)
But most people can never be good at coding. Accept it and move on.
That's nonsense. Programing is something that anyone can learn.
No. End of story. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps at some age everyone can learn to be a good programmer, but that age is past before you reach your teens. Then there are habits of thought that make for a good programmer, and other habits that don't. And not everyone who would be good at it enjoys it.
Additionally, when talking about what children need to learn (as a career skill), you're predicting 20 or more years ahead. To predict that the AIs of that time will be the same as the AIs of today is to make a really unlikely-to-be-fulfilled predic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with your conclusions, though your arguments have a lot of weight.
I think that there's enough public domain text around to create web sites that harvest additional data. Consider, e.g., an AI trained to moderate a forum. The license could require allowing all the conversations to be read (and learned from) by the AI. This would give it a continual stream of text and the responses to that text by humans (or bots, so it would need to learn to recognize them).
Note that this wouldn't need to start
They should learn to code if they enjoy it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They should learn to code if they enjoy it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fun fact, woodworking was a mandatory subject when I went to school. As was learning a third language.
I agree kids should not be forced to learn programming if they have no interest in it. But I do think they should be taught a bit about it. Just like they should know something about how woodworking works, or how languages evolve and relate. It's foundational knowledge, I think, and kids can't know what will catch their interest unless exposed to it.
Re:They should learn to code if they enjoy it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, yes. Reserve 10% of math teaching for coding and algorithms. That would be quite enough to expose everybody to it. And it should stop there.
Re: (Score:2)
it should stop there.
Why? Because you're worried about job security?
Re: (Score:3)
No. If you have nothing besides an Ad Hominem, then you have nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact, woodworking was a mandatory subject when I went to school. As was learning a third language.
I agree kids should not be forced to learn programming if they have no interest in it. But I do think they should be taught a bit about it. Just like they should know something about how woodworking works, or how languages evolve and relate. It's foundational knowledge, I think, and kids can't know what will catch their interest unless exposed to it.
100 percent this.
There is a strange phenomenon that many people have that somehow they need to be taught only what they will use in their career. I hear all the time about how there was no need to teach advanced maths because if you aren't a professional mathematician, it was all wasted time.
Amazing prescience on their part. Knowing exactly what education they will ever need for their entire life. In my so called post retirement career, I'm using more math than I ever did during my main career (althou
Actually, debuggers have a deeper understanding. (Score:3)
It doesn't actually illuminate anything.
I think that everyone should know how to code to the level that they have to do several actual bug fixes. Once you understand that, and understand that spreadsheets work in a similar way, your ability to know when to distrust what in the modern world is vastly advanced.
Without that understanding, you think people are lying to you when they just don't know how to spot simple calculation errors. You also fail to spot when people are telling you lies relying on computer outputs that they have no justification
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who tried and failed multiple times to learn coding, I can tell you that hands-on experience doesn't give the abstract enlightenment you think. Debugging only taught me how much I wanted to take a baseball bat to my computer.
Re: (Score:2)
But not otherwise. It doesn't actually illuminate anything. In my experience, coders aren't any better than anyone else at understanding natural phenomena or societal phenomena. It's just a tool, so insisting on making kids code would be no different from insisting they know how to woodwork or weld, or know how to speak Italian or something. Completely arbitrary, and even less likely to be durably demanded over time given the dynamic markets involved.
I think insisting is wrong, as is a focus on coding. Languages come and go, but basic problem solving skills and how to approach a problem and layout what you want to d and how to do it is useful no matter what language you use; or even beyond mere coding. Give kids a chance to learn to use the tools and they will have skills they may find useful later. I've built furniture using the skills I learned in wood shop, and unfortunately not yet come up with a good excuse to buy an arc welder beyond "I want on
Re: (Score:2)
Valid, and common to the whole of STEM. Getting familiar with logical, parsimonious thinking and problem-solving procedure is the foundation.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd advise that the basic design approach to a program is highly applicable to many life problems. You need to define the end goals clearly and consider the steps needed to get there. The steps are broken into manageable parts that may need to be followed in a specific order. You know what each part is supposed to do and can test it to see if it's working properly.
This is directly applicable to dieting, budgeting, and any other long-term goals.
Re: (Score:2)
But not otherwise. It doesn't actually illuminate anything. In my experience, coders aren't any better than anyone else at understanding natural phenomena or societal phenomena.
I'm a little sketchy on this societal phenomena. The problem with that is who's version of society is the one taught to students.
It's just a tool, so insisting on making kids code would be no different from insisting they know how to woodwork or weld, or know how to speak Italian or something. Completely arbitrary, and even less likely to be durably demanded over time given the dynamic markets involved.
The problem I see is that people might think they know exactly what they are going to do their entire
Re: (Score:2)
If a business wants coders, they will pay what it takes to get them, including possibly creating new ones with professional training or
arithmetic in the age of calculators? (Score:4, Insightful)
same question decades ago. Answer: Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Learning outdoors survival in the age of mass transit.
Re: (Score:2)
Learn to read in this age of text-to-speech?
Learn basic arithmetic in this age of calculators?
Re: (Score:2)
>Learning to drive in age of self-driving cars.
This is something I think we could give up - if self-driving cars were actually as safe as a human and as common as the automatic transmission. Maybe the urban taxis in places with good weather, but otherwise there's a reason they all come with a disclaimer that a human has to be ready at the controls at all times (thus defeating the purpose of self-driving cars).
Anyway, learning to drive isn't all that difficult. It's just a matter of practice to minimize
Re: (Score:2)
We have greedy corrupt reasons to teach math now.
Such as?
Re:The Age of Education Reality. (Score:4, Insightful)
95%+ of adult humans never actually utilize math skills beyond the 4th grade
This is not an argument against teaching math, because the same argument applies to nearly everything else school teaches beyond basic writing skills. Nobody uses middle school science* "barium burns light green in a flame", "the Mohorovicic discontinuity lies 5-10km / 3-6 mi below ocean floor". The purpose of school is not to teach practical trades, it is to make you an educated person who knows the how and why. You won't learn "to fix your car", but you might learn how engines work. You won't learn "how to do your taxes", but you might learn basics of economics and accounting. It is good for the young to learn basics of programming, which is excellent at forming logical minds (a quality needed in many trades).
Of course not (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, kids need learn nothing at all nowadays, except talking, perhaps. Talking optional when better neuronal connections are developed. They will ask whatever they need to their all-knowing devices. Similar devices will plow the earth, make everything in automated factories, and manage the society. Of course they will repair themselves, as having a person asking for what to do at every step would be too inefficient.
The life of the kids will be just a journey of learning to ask the right questions.
Re: (Score:2)
The life of the kids will be just a journey of learning to ask the right questions.
That sounds like how some of the philosophers of yore conceptualized life.
Presumably, if you want answers, you need to first be asking the right questions.
Check your work (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't know how to check work then you don't know how to use AI for coding.
If you can't check your own work, you can't check AI's work either.
Re: (Score:2)
A car analogy - current coding practices require auto-assembly workers to also be mechanics.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People running unit testing? The tests run themselves.
People writing unit tests? Yes, they need to know how to write the tests.
Even if you have AI write the tests, now you need to be smart enough to know whether the tests actually test what you need tested.
Re: (Score:2)
People running unit testing? The tests run themselves.
Spontaneously and self-emergently? Don't be dense, someone has to decide what to test, know how to test it, set it up, and make sure it works as expected. So yes, people are running unit testing even if individual unit tests are automated.
People writing unit tests? Yes, they need to know how to write the tests.
Which is not the same thing as knowing how to write the code they are testing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Check your work (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
AI will be
Why is it never "AI is"? It's always some promise for a future that never seems to get any closer...
AI can't do what you want it to do. There are fundamental limitations that incremental improvements can not overcome. It doesn't matter how good you get at building ladders, you will never reach the moon. You need something fundamentally different.
Re: (Score:2)
And what is worse: Tests are typically only capable of finding accidental, simple mistakes. AI may well make mistakes "sophisticated" enough that they often are not caught by typical testing procedures.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have that job division, then it doesn't work well for AI.
If you try to do LLM to generate code, if all you can offer is "it didn't work", then the LLM will just kind of blindly mutate or just double down on the same wrong answer, and be unable to succeed. When LLM fails (which so far has been 100% failure rate for my personal real problems put to it, though it fares better with tutorial-ware), what little hope there is is in recognizing what it got right and either try to iterate on the bad part or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LLMs are not "designed" to do anything. They are trained. And whether the training contains additional data beyond the coding training data makes a difference in execution time, but not result quality. You are hallucinating.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty mich. I have just seen that life on an "open Internet" coding exam. People routinely completely fail even when they have AI at their disposal. Learning how to code takes time and quite a bit. AI is absolutely not replacement for solid skills in this area (or any area, really). All AI can do is accelerate looking up things, but on the minus-side fact-checking becomes harder because you are missing the context you get when you look up things yourself. I expect that longer-term it may even turn out that
Re:Check your work..yes, but (Score:2)
There was a recent math proof that was over 800 pages long. The only real way to check that is with an automated logic checker. And if you need to translate the proof to feed it into the logic checker (the current state) then you need to worry about whether the translation was accurate.
There are many, MANY, analogous cases. Fortunately it's usually easier to check something than to develop the initial plan.
But saying YOU should check the blueprints for a building or some such invites errors.
FWIW, I've fo
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm saying is, as a general principle, that you should eventually be able to do the calculations that would prove that the software did its job correctly or not by hand or as close to that as is practical. I'm not saying that you should do it that way. At some point you have to trust the tools as a practical measure, except that if you should have a chance to notice that the results are off, and you should also be able to determine whether they are. It doesn't really matter what your job is, you should
Learning to code will mean different thing (Score:2)
Knowing basics of coding allows greater level of understanding of any programmable device, not just computer. It also enables one to automate data processing tasks. However, learning specific programming language is all but useless. I think Coding 2.0 "programming languages" will be focused on how to correctly prompt AI to produce specific code and existing programming language, even scripting languages like Python, will become niche skill, like cod
Re: (Score:2)
So... Programming 2.0 is just programming, but with an ambiguous language that's damn-near impossible to debug because it produces different results for the same code every time you compile.
I don't think you've thought this all the way through.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Compilers are zero-error tools (not quite in reality, but that is the goal). LLMs are not zero-error tools and cannot ever be. Hence they have no place in a workflow that is aimed at generating working (correct, reliable, secure) code.
Also note that this "metaprogramming" idea has been tried time and again. It has always failed. Sometimes it produces additional languages that stick around.
Learning how to PM might be better (Score:3)
For one thing, that's how you effectively use an LLM.
But more fundamentally, learning how to precisely specify steps and logic is ultimately the basis of all programming. The rest is just syntax and tools, which change a lot.
Exactly. (Score:2)
Learning how to PM might be better
That's exactly what I told the Prime Minister and he scoffed at me! I think we'd have better prime ministers if more people learned how to prime minister.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no, but AI doesn't change the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not every kid should learn to code, not a decade ago, not now. Learning to code is like learning to sing or paint. Kids should be exposed to it, but we should recognize that not everyone can sing well, paint well, or code well, regardless of how many classes you put them through. I'm a terrible painter, and I've taken quite a few art classes. It's not my thing. But coding, that I can do. And further, I've learned to make art with my code.
Despite the hype, AI doesn't change any of this. I use GitHub Copilot frequently. It's an interesting and useful tool. It cuts my coding time significantly. But it's nowhere near good enough to release me from the need to know how to code. For example, if I tell it to revise a function, it might duplicate it instead of revising it. Or it might insert the revised function inside the existing one, in such a way that it won't even compile. I still get a lot of time savings, because I know how to fix what it breaks, because I know how to code.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Every kid should learn to code a little bit.
Just like every kid should learn to do a little bit of art, and a little bit of math, and a little bit of writing, and so on.
Spending a bunch of time and money teaching people a lot about coding when they will likely not wind up doing much of it would be foolish, but teaching people enough to understand something about computing when it underpins our entire modern existence would be very positive. Currently the computer is just a magic box (or slab) to the average
Re: (Score:2)
Spending a bunch of time and money teaching people a lot about coding when they will likely not wind up doing much of it would be foolish,
We spend a bunch of time and money teaching people reading, writing, math, and science, knowing full-well that they will "likely not wind up doing much of it". Is that foolish as well?
Re: (Score:2)
We spend a bunch of time and money teaching people reading, writing, math, and science, knowing full-well that they will "likely not wind up doing much of it". Is that foolish as well?
Maybe it is, to a degree. Maybe we should spend a little less time teaching some of them those things to the extent that we do, and spend more time teaching them some more of other things. Not everyone has the same aptitudes. Everyone needs a certain level of all the things just to participate in society in a meaningful way, so there is a certain minimum amount of education they should receive. But who would benefit most from what is also variable, and trying to make one "size" of school fit all is probably
The bare minimum (Score:3)
I think coding should be part of a basic curriculum - but you don't need to learn anything modern or fancy, just the concept of ordered groups of instructions passing values to each other and resulting in a desired outcome. It doesn't matter if you never sit in front of a computer, learning how to dissect a problem into component parts so you can solve it is a generally useful life skill.
Then again, I'm crazy, I think you should have basic instruction in statistics and probability as well. And civics. We put too many kids out into the world without the ability to understand it, which makes them fearful, angry, and helpless and from there vulnerable to being manipulated and exploited.
Re: (Score:3)
I think coding should be part of a basic curriculum - but you don't need to learn anything modern or fancy, just the concept of ordered groups of instructions passing values to each other and resulting in a desired outcome.
The problem I see is people want to start right away with creating "Hello, World!" so kids feel like they've learned something; instead of learning how to structure the problem, break it down into component steps, and create a logical flow to how to do what you want to do. Flowcharting seems a lost art, yet it is a very useful problem solving skill.
It doesn't matter if you never sit in front of a computer, learning how to dissect a problem into component parts so you can solve it is a generally useful life skill.
Exactly. Being able to break down a problem and attack it step by step is a very useful skill that many people sadly seem to lack. Maybe it's just my being a
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Being able to break down a problem and attack it step by step is a very useful skill that many people sadly seem to lack.
Including many modern developers... I blame the OOP craze, but that's a different topic.
If we're looking for skills that transfer, top-down design and step-wise refinement are where its at. By all means, bring back flow charts and structure charts. Being able to reason through a complex problem by breaking it down into manageable pieces will benefit them even if they never touch a computer.
Maybe it's just my being an engineer but I've found 90% of problem solving is figuring out what is wrong and what to do, and 10% is actually doing.
That's true for most problems, isn't it? From programming to plumbing, the "how to do something" part is a lot harde
Coding here is a euphamism (Score:3)
Kids should not learn to speak a computer language, but all kids should learn to process basic logic, the concepts of iteration and looping, the idea of something being conditional, and maybe even how OOP objects relate to one another. These are lessons beyond code.
The "learn to code" seems to miss the point of what is actually useful: It shouldn't even remotely be about code.
Re: (Score:2)
Kids should not learn to speak a computer language, but all kids should learn to process basic logic, the concepts of iteration and looping, the idea of something being conditional, and maybe even how OOP objects relate to one another. These are lessons beyond code.
The "learn to code" seems to miss the point of what is actually useful: It shouldn't even remotely be about code.
One challenge is anyone who is really good at that is probably going to bail after a few years of teaching and get, as my teacher friends put it "a real paying job." There is as much BS in the corporate world as there is in teaching, but at least you're making a living wage.
No, absolutely not. (Score:2)
Learn something rewarding, something that is good for your mental health, not something where every employer ever shows their disdain for you by trying to make you redundant, no matter how stupid the means. Employers don't understand what you do, so they can't tell quality from crap. You'll compete against people who copy and paste AI garbage to quickly make things that look right, so you can do the same and hate yourself or provide quality for no return because it's a lemon market.
No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone learns how to program, then being able to program won't make you special any more. This makes some people nervous.
We don't need more mall adjusted "computer geeks"
Malls are quickly becoming a thing of the past, so that part of the problem that will soon solve itself.
Hold up. (Score:2)
Since I've deferred all my reasoning and decision making to AI, I'll need to consult with my AI about this. .... OK, the AI says I should be using AI to make code instead of making it myself and frankly I agree because when has AI ever been wrong? [livescience.com]
What Rise of AI? (Score:2)
too late (Score:2)
Having gone through CS on the cusp of the computer revolution, I enjoyed the benefit of a 13dim Calculus mathematician as instructor. That was a time when CS depts. were first being stood up on the back of the administration computer downtime(IBM 1336). Infinite bit twiddling, dry runs and paper debugs were defacto standard.
Columbia U. 20yrs later provided a second CS update in all thing unix. Brilliant math department head, jealous to have not had such a strong start with him but Columbia was 1/2 the CS ed
kids should learn all sorts of things (Score:5, Insightful)
Kids should have the broadest possible set of experience we can give them.
Re: (Score:3)
This! Computers are part of our lives, like any other sort of technologies. It's good to at least understand how they work if not have a working knowlage.
There should be mandatory 'technology' class in high schools.
AI may bleep your alternatives also (Score:2)
Nobody knows WTF AI will change and how much. Just go into what you have a penchant for and worry about AI later.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody knows WTF AI will change and how much.
True, though I can say with a great deal of certainty that it will be significantly less than what people thought last year. The technology simply can not do the things people imagine.
I'm confident that almost nothing will change and in 10 years time we'll wonder what all the fuss was about, having moved on to some other ridiculous fad.
Problem solving (Score:3)
In higher grade levels, learning to code (and indeed Mathematics) ought to be about problem solving and logical thought. AI can't do that - yet at least.
While you might not be able to teach such skills in grade school, coding is really about the thought process and not the language. I mean, no one uses the languages they were teaching when we were in school. But if you have the right mindset you can transfer it to another language without too much difficulty
I mean, I actually learned to program in machine cod (not assembly, actual hexadecimal codes) on one of the old 8-bit systems. No one could have expected to use such a thing in real life, especially as no business systems ever used that processor (though it was in some satellites as it used less power and was more radiation-hardened than others of the time) But because of what I learned then it was easy for me to transition to higher level languages (everything is higher level than that).
Kids shouldn't learn to code now (Score:2)
We have our hands full just teaching basic mathematics above arithmetic level. We don't need to be teaching a job skill just so kids can enter an already crowded market. If you want to teach kids something new teach them critical thinking and media literacy so they stop falli
Today's AI... (Score:2)
...isn't good for much. It's a fun toy that may suggest what the future might look like, but it writes crappy code
Tomorrow's AI will be better, and will probably be an excellent assistant for programmers
There has been a myth floating around that writing programs in common language would be better than using programming languages. This is silly. Common language is way too vague and imprecise to result in good code, even if the compiler is a robot
As for teaching kids, not everybody can be a good programmer. T
Re: (Score:2)
Tomorrow's AI will be better, and will probably be an excellent assistant for programmers
That is not clear in any way. That is just the false promise that the AI field has been making for the last 50 years. It never panned out. It will not pan out this time.
So many strawmen (Score:2)
Reading "Guidance on the Future of Computer Science Education in an Age of AI" and some other stuff linked, it's really quite terrible.
The entire "guide" is written in such a way as to make exaggerated claims and then refute them. This doesn't really consider what things will be like. For example, refuting "Students do not need to learn to program because AI will replace all programming jobs" is easy because obviously AI will not replace *all* programming jobs. And frankly when the guide answers this with "
CS is still important (Score:2)
Robust CS education should be provided to all kids showing interest and abilities in that. Sacrificing CS for financial or other reasons, "because AI will write all our code" would just be one giant step in the direction of Idiocracy.
AI is crap, coding is real (Score:2, Interesting)
AI is garbage. It shoud not BE in the classroom AT ALL. Teach kids how writing code works, and how to do it, at least on a basic level.
Our civilization is increasingly becoming dependent on everything being automated, and it's not a good thing at all. I reference the movie WALL-E, where
Anti Intellectual world means no one wants to code (Score:2)
So forget about teaching or learning math, coding, or
No Funny here (Score:2)
Again disappointed, and I think this was a story with humor potential.
Re: (Score:2)
25 years ago, Java was at its peek in terms of popularity and (for better or worse) had radically changed how we thought about software and software development. Who the hell told you not to learn Java?
I mean, they weren't wrong in that Java was slow (though things had improved a lot by 1999) and it does consume a lot of memory (though there are things you can do to reduce that) but its future was assured. Hell, people were calling it the "new COBOL" at the time, a testament to its presumed longevity.
Also,