You can still argue that LLMs won't replace human programmers without downplaying their capabilities. Modern SOTA LLMs can often produce genuinely impressive code. Full stop. I don't personally believe that LLMs are good enough to replace human developers, but claiming that LLMs are only capable of writing bad code is ridiculous and easily falsifiable.

At this point I don't think there's any point arguing with this belief. If you haven't found a way to make the models useful you will have a lot of difficulty staying relevant

I wouldn't hire anyone who doesn't use LLMs and I specifically screen for people who are good at it

Every school has students work off their Chromebooks here in Colorado, regardless of how rich community is. This started with the Covid lockdowns and is pretty much standard now.

It's not good if you're a freshman currently starting a CS program or a teacher trying to figure out what to do

> Remember that high level programming languages are "merely" a sop for us humans to avoid low level languages.

High-level languages are deterministic and reliable, making it possible for developers to be confident that their high-level code is correct. LLMs are anything but deterministic and reliable.

> My recommendation would be to encourage the tutor to ask the student how they use the LLM and to school them in effective use strategies

It's obviously not quite the same as programming, but my English professor assigned an essay a few weeks ago where we had to ask ChatGPT a question and then analyze its response, check its sources, and try to spot hallucinations. It was worth about 5% of our overall grade. I thought that it was a fascinating exercise in teaching responsible LLM use.

But, we as humans still have a need to understand the outputs of AI. We can't delegate this understanding task to AI because then we wouldn't understand AI and thus we could not CONTROL what the AI is doing, optimize its behavior so it maximizes our benefit.

Therefore, I still see a need for highlevel and even higher level languages, but ones which are easy for humans to understand. AI can help of course but challenge is how can we unambiguously communicate with machines, and express our ideas concisely and understandably for both us and for the machines.

> My recommendation would be to encourage the tutor to ask the student how they use the LLM and to school them in effective use strategies

This reminds me of folks teaching their kids Java ten years ago.

You’re teaching a tool. Versus general tool use.

> Those calculators are largely still what you get nowadays too and I suspect that LLMs will settle into a similar role

If correct, the child will be competent in the new world. If not, they will have wasted time developing general intelligence.

This doesn’t strike me as a good strategy for anything other than time-consuming babysitting.

I agree they are great tools, but they will increasingly do more of the work and will rapidly do almost all work a software engineer currently does, I'd say within 5 years with near certainty but possibly within 1-2

Calculators dont make you forget math.

> Coding via prompt is simply a new form of coding.

No, it isn't. "Write me a parser for language X" is like pressing a button on a photocopier. The LLM steals content from open source creators.

Now the desperate capital starved VC companies can downvote this one too, but be aware that no one outside of this site believes the illusion any longer.