I think your final sentence is more accurate than your churn argument. AI doesn't double output, but actually writing the code is only a small part of the job.
I understand the vision, but how does this work on a global scale. e.g. American employees refuse to build this, but China's don't.
Edit: I originally ended with "What would have happened if Germany had a nuclear bomb and America didn't?", but I think it distracted from the point I was trying to make so moving this to an edit. I'm not trying to ask "is the US the bad guy". I'm trying to ask how to balance personal anti war sentiments with the realities of the world (specifically in this case keeping up in an arms race).
Purely anecdotal, but my friend's dad was a professor at well respected university in California doing Cancer research and recently moved to China even though he didn't want to because the money was too much for him to pass up.
Admittedly I haven't used C# in a few years, but to my knowledge it is much more ergonomic than java and personally it's my preferred language. Only thing stopping me from using it more is it has a much smaller community than java/python etc. Wondering what you think is missing.
I worked for a publicly traded corporate elearning company that was written this way. Mainly sprocs with a light mapping framework. I agree this is better as long as you keep the sprocs for accessing data and not for implementing application logic.
ORMs are way more trouble than they’re worth because it’s almost easier to write the actual SQL and just map the resulting table result.
Regarding your concerns about tutor emulation, your argument seems to be students use chatbots as a way to cheat rather than as a tutor.
My pushback is its very easy to tell a chatbot to give you hints that lead to the answer and to get deeper understanding by asking follow up questions if that's what you want. Cheating vs putting in work has always been something students have to choose between though and I don't think AI is going to change the amount of students making each choice (or if it does it won't be by a huge percentage). The gap in skills between the groups will grow, but there will still be a group of people that became skilled because they valued education and a group that cheated and didn't learn anything.
Is it true that it's bad for learning new skills? My gut tells me it's useful as long as I don't use it to cheat the learning process and I mainly use it for things like follow up questions.
I see you were right, but I think both choices (loathe and likely) are acceptable. I originally thought jack was saying "its unfortunate to find" or "it's disgusting to find".
All FAANG interviews are easily studied and passable by anyone that's motivated. Ridiculous to imply FAANG only hires geniuses. And since sign on bonus offsets backloaded vesting it hardly matters unless you truly believe amazon stock growth is going to rapidly increase in the next two years (and even then you could just buy the stock yourself with your bonus).