HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
67% Positive
Analyzed from 2171 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#code#more#don#skill#skills#things#someone#actually#writing#every
Discussion (33 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
In the aggregate everyone maybe learns on average about as much new stuff in a year anyway.
There _are_ still humans out there talking to each other.
At least we're (mostly) not scrolling feeds all day at work. AI is going to be like this for all our professional competencies.
I suppose that Socrates would strongly agree, seeing how the same argument could be applied to learning from a book.
Except there's mass directives to eat as much seed corn as you can
What are we even doing here?
Getting past that, the author has a point. There's a loss of shared expertise when there aren't people around learning and doing something. In the US, we've seen this in manufacturing. The number of Americans who know how to set up a good production plant is much lower than it was in the 1980s. That's the consequence of the hollowing out of American manufacturing. The author talks about AI vs. white collar work, but fails to make the connection with outsourcing vs. blue collar work.
The loss of this expertise has recently been made very clear in the US as attempts are made to scale up weapons production for the US's various wars. Progress is very slow, as has been seen with both artillery ammo and air-defense missiles.
The term is not "common" or "commons" but "tragedy of the commons" which dates back to a book in 1968 by Garrett Hardin. Elisabeth Ostrom subsequently showed that most or all of Hardin's assumptions and claims were wrong, or at the very least, far from universal, and that the process he describes elides what actually drives the destructions of resources held in common: greed and power.
The hype from non-technical people about AI would make you think they already discovered AGI.
How people in tech are aware they're training their replacements?
Or are we quickly approaching an apex where the people running these companies realize AI cannot completely replace human developers?
Same goes for writing, anyone who has written long complex texts with LLMs knows that a ton of editing is required to make it half decent.
So basically, if you use it to wave away things you've mastered or explicitly don't want to learn at the moment, you can stay focused on things you are figuring out. I don't see it as any different from writing "by induction" in a math proof without writing all the details because you and the reader know you could easily work them out. In this way I can learn things that I simply would not have the time to dig into before, increasing my skillset. As is was before AI, metacognition is the most widely useful skill to have.
Maintenance <> growth
Once you got a skill it’s quite hard to actually lose it. It’s like riding a bike as they say.
I find all the reading of those walls of code exercises my mind better than the writing did. I’m sure I lost memories of how to read a file by hand or balance a tree but who cares?
I am thinking about architecture and design a lot more these days and every decision I make has to be actually argued for even to myself. I can no longer lean back and say “that’s how we always do it” or “too expensive to change now” as I find many people in practice actually do. They were just coasting on premade architectural choices and their “skills” consisted of knowing arcane incantations and syntactic details completely unrelated to the (business) problem at hand.
I am not convinced many developers actually have the skills they think they have. They could wrestle syntax and mess around with tooling, but could they abstract properly? Define clear semantic boundaries? Have proper civil discussions about responsibilities and where they should lie on the right level of abstraction? Nothing has changed in that regard. If anything that part has been amplified. (“taste”)
Is this -> More people that are not devs, are using AI to create things, and are skilling up to a mediocre level?
or
Is this -> Existing experts, are actually loosing there skills? Using AI is reducing someone already known skills.
Like, problems that I would previously dig into on my own, poking at this and that log file to try to understand what happened to get a system into a particular state, now claude is mediating most of those kinds of interactions and it is the one doing the first pass surfacing of "okay I discovered X, Y, and Z things that are hinky, and I'm not totally sure yet what this all means, but let's look together."
Nowadays I feel almost naked looking at a terminal where I'm typing each character myself. A lot of the old instincts around tab completion and grepping through the --help output of every tool, all that stuff has atrophied somewhat. Maybe that is genuine skill decline?
The only way I've found to make juniors develop that instinct is to make them do it until it comes naturally--to continually demand they verify their assumptions, test out theories while debugging. If you don't practice being comfortable with the unfamiliar, you lose the knack.
It's fine, of course, to lose the knack to AI, as long as you'll never need to solve a problem the AI can't (or can't access). I don't think that's a good assumption for everyone to make.
What skills are being developed by non-devs prompting AI to churn out code they don't understand? Note that I'm not debating if the code is good or works or whatever, I'm asking if any real skills are being developed merely by prompting AI towards some goal.
If they are producing code, there is some knowledge being absorbed. Nobody is using AI to create an app is learning zero.
Its just what they are learning, is not as much as they think, and really random, not-structured. Like reading just a few random chapter of a book across multiple classes. They get a smattering of ad-hoc tidbits of knowledge.
I am really worried if using AI is reducing someone's already gained knowledge. Moving someone backwards. That has me a bit more scared.
AI is good enough to generate a first pass for an increasingly large number of projects. An engineer using AI can create an even larger amount.
But muscle memory and expertise are not fixed. They fade over time without use. If you're no longer writing code yourself, you'll get rusty on syntax in the short term. In the long term, you'll get rusty on code structure and layout.
But many engineers are no longer reviewing code either. Reviewing code written by an AI is now the bottleneck, so you're expected to allow AI to review it as well.
So we have a group of people who are no longer engaging in either the writing of the code, or the analysis of the code that's written.
Obviously, this would lead to skill loss.
Many would argue that they're not truly losing skills, because they're more engaged in the grander architecture of the code. To that I would say--your job title says engineer, not architect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3OCFfDStgM
I'm not worried about AI taking jobs. I'm worried that humanity has lost the ability to share at such a monumental level that basic sustenance and financial security are out of reach, even with AI.
After lifetimes of negative reinforcement, the only salvation seems to be the disruption of capitalism itself. Somewhat ironically, the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world seem to be investing trillions of dollars into AI to do just exactly that.
The other thing is to give your agent a skill not to solve certain key problems unless explicitly prompted. Write the scaffolding sure, but leave the juicy parts alone. And if I get stuck, I have it enter into a dialogue with me, nudging me towards understanding.
Actually engaging my brain to solve the lower-level, on-the-ground code allows me to think of better ways to do things while I'm writing them. It's like writing anything. You start with something you want to convey, a thesis, and then it evolves and becomes better as you write it. An agent will just write it with no thought, as in it will reflect one of the LLM 'ghosts' as Andrej Karpathy puts it, doing something in the same way that someone in the training data has done it on a similar or different problem. This is why I get conniptions now when I am sent generated text or am expected to read it on a public forum. It's disrespectful of the time of every person expected to read it.
That said, I wouldn't like to go back to the before times without having the agentic option available. Ideally, businesses should not mandate how LLM's are to be used at their company, and just let the devs find their own flow. That is, if quality is even a factor that any company optimizes for anymore.
but the phrasing of "who pays for the increased schooling times?" is a good one. i think "debt" can be a decent way to conceptualize the cost and repayment of training someone. feels evil to say, but viewing people as firms you can invest in and expect returns upon. you know not all loans will be repayed, but hopefully they'll average to a profit. (risk management etc.)
student loans are. a decent example. the government/private enterprise gives money to pay for education, then this is repayed, providing a financial incentive for paying for someone else's longer schooling timelines. firms investing in training can be viewed as an extension of student loans. but then ah, there are countless stories of how debtor/creditor relationships can be exploited. indentured servitude etc. there are a lot of complications coming to mind. also "altruistic" people who give without expectation of repayment. or the divide between like, communal vs individualistic cultures. (individualism, i argue, encourages the formalization of debt, as opposed to a more communal culture where the expectation of repayment is informal.) you could do math on how many people pay vs how many people benefit, who is the biggest stakeholder, etc.
but i am on my lunch break and need to get back to my work. good article tho. good topic to bring up.