I think the older AI users are even held back because they might be doing things that are not neccessary any more, like explaining basic things, like please don't bring in random dependencies but prefer the ones that are there already, or the classic think really strongly and make a plan, or try to use a prestigious register of the language in attempts to make it think harder.

Nowadays I just paste a test, build, or linter error message into the chat and the clanker knows immediately what to do, where it originated, and looks into causes. Often times I come back to the chat and see a working explanation together with a fix.

Before I had to actually explain why I want it to change some implementation in some direction, otherwise it would refuse no I won't do that because abc. Nowadays I can just pass the raw instruction "please move this into its own function", etc, and it follows.

So yeah, a lot of these skills become outdated very quickly, the technology is changing so fast, and one needs to constantly revisit if what one had to do a couple of months earlier is still required, whether there's still the limits of the technology precisely there or further out.

The obvious solution is for Anthropic et al. to certify the skills of each user:

> “Good at explaining requirements, needs handholding to understand complex algorithms, picky with the wording of comments, slightly higher than average number of tokens per feature.”

I’m not saying this would be good at all, but the data (/insights) and the opportunity are clearly there.

I hope it’s at least a little tricky, since Claude was released only 3 years ago. That said, I would not be surprised to see companies asking for 10 years experience, despite that inconvenient truth.

At work we’ve had like 10 hours of “AI training”. Like training us to use AI. I obviously learned nothing