alt Hacker NewsI think the problem is overstated.
People always learn the things they need to learn.
Were people clutching their pearls about how programmers were going to lack the fundamentals of assembly language after compilers came along? Probably, but it turned out fine.
People who need to program in assembly language still do. People who need to touch low-level things probably understand some of it but not as deeply. Most of us never need to worry about it.
Replies
>People always learn the things they need to learn.
No, they don't. Which why a huge % of people are functionaly illiterate at the moment, know nothing about finance and statistics and such and are making horrendous decisions for their future and their bottom line, and so on.
There is also such a thing as technical knowledge loss between generations.
I don't think the comparison (that's often made) between AI and compilers is valid though.
A compiler is deterministic. It's a function; it transforms input into output and validates it in the process. If the input is incorrect it simply throws an error.
AI doesn't validate anything, and transforms a vague input into a vague output, in a non-deterministic way.
A compiler can be declared bug-free, at least in theory.
But it doesn't mean anything to say that the chain 'prompt-LLM-code' is or isn't "correct". It's undecidable.