I will add, too, although less relevant to education than just generally - for all the talk that these tools must be useless and incorrect, that just plainly does not map to my experience using these tools. AI can chew through a debug log on a custom system and pick out root causes on behaviors very effectively, in my experience.
It is just hard to reconcile that denigration of AI with the typical experience I have using these tools in the real world. It is not omnipotent or God, but it can effectively assist in work. There is a certain cognitive dissonance I feel when I walk away from using the tool to help accomplish particular tasks, then hear over and over people say the technology is fundamentally useless and fundamentally does not work. I guess I am just not enough of an academic to understand how something can accomplish work yet fundamentally isn't, somehow.
Respectfully, I disagree. I think there's absolutely a case for AI being encouraged in younger people, and there's room for these tools. I've been leaning on LLMs for side learning in side projects, and it has concretely helped me with conceptual questions about math and Vulkan as I've been trying to learn some graphics basics with side projects.
I would grant: I was not the most studious kid, I could definitely stand to learn how to read code a lot more effectively than I do; but I have found being able to ask a computer, "what portions of the Vulkan Programming Guide are less relevant with Vulkan's design changes since the release" pointing me to the dynamic rendering extensions and placing it into context, with inline code and links out to useful blog posts for additional reading, that sort of thing is very helpful.
Working on a prototype before I was trying to learn Vulkan, I was using it to explore SDL_GPU's API which definitely had some gaps in its documentation. Granted again, I could have referenced the sample code - I am sure you'll prefer I'd have done that - but it helped to get information about what each piece of the API was doing, and gave reasonable results that made sense and did inform me enough to understand what I was doing, turning much of that into an interactive learning of basic GPU programming for graphics. Where the AI hallucinated, it was often on things like method names, which I was able to read through and find the methods it was intending to name. (This only occurred once or twice when I was learning).
Unrelated, but adding the C macro syntax and nesting macros, which I could have an LLM explain inline and link the GNU manual. Never got that taught to me in a C course. Man, computers are complicated!
These have not replaced textbooks; I have been using them alongside textbooks and handwriting code for practice, and they work as a very good complement. I also sometimes use them to unblock me - I don't know CMake very well and lean on AI to do CMake, so I can focus on learning C++ and graphics, which is my primary objective right now.
I would add too, I have for fun given it prompts about various topics I learned in university, and I often will get answers that are bang-on what I learned in university undergraduate courses - the topics I tried were welfare state taxonomies, distributed systems, disk storage performance, filesystem layouts and internals.
Boy, this would've been cool for me as a kid. There's just so much information right there, and pointing you to topics and textbooks a couple questions away, I wish I had these tools. I was a curious kid in a terrible MAGA-esque family that was deeply uncurious about the world, had no knowledge of any advanced subject and basically mocked me for trying to learn more about stuff. And you go to the school library and it's all kids shit, not even an option to try and reach out for more. Now smart kids might be able to go just learn shit very freely and be pointed to textbooks, and go pirate them off some Russian site, and start learning and go tutor themselves, as I'm doing today as an adult.
At least knowing myself and knowing if there's another kid like me, I think they would deeply enjoy having a natural language encyclopedia, if we can get it as close to that as possible. I think even with some error inherent, if the tools can be often and directionally correct, that would be a plus. I went to university, and the professors there hallucinated some things so embarrassing it should bar them from teaching, for the standards people hold LLMs to! i.e., sanitizing conspiracy theories that Android records all language through the microphone therefore iOS is better, Apple Silicon is more battery efficient because it is RISC and not CISC. Got a terrible history of computer graphics technology you'd know was slanted if you watch the 8 Bit Guy on YouTube. Rubbish.
The thing that worries me, and what this article really talks about, are the kids that just don't give a shit. They are not new - when I went to high school, before AI, stupid kids would copy code off the internet. I think AI probably makes it worse because it makes it harder to call out and enforce against it, and agreed, that should be stopped. But to me, that is mainly a cultural problem. Too many Americans are completely uncurious and just spout garbage; there are a lot of kids who grow up in that cesspool and are going to grow up uncurious, and then AI acts as a shortcut rather than a vehicle of curiosity.
And granted, maybe AI is less useful when you are in a structured environment - but the structured environment has its downsides. Even in that environment many of the TAs were clueless and unhelpful, or just too damn busy or already too knowledgeable to meet students where they were at. Again, talk about hallucinations with TAs! Many times in my experience. And that's all to say nothing about getting people to not just do homework but actually go get curious about things and try stuff that isn't required of them.
I think there will be some culture that remains curious, and has these tools, will come to grips with where they can help, where they go wrong, how to balance it with other learning methods; and I think they are going to have kids that absorb a lot more knowledge and get to play with topics and learn things, faster, to each kids' interest, perhaps even individualized tutoring at better scale - I hope that is possible.
I hope the United States as well, but maybe not, because holy cow our culture and attitudes are plainly terrible these days. Your comment is pretty representative of how most people react if I suggest this or talk about my own experiences I'm describing here. But I hope at least I'm arguing something comprehensive here. There is too little conversation beyond hyperbolic nonsense on the internet; I consider "FUTURE LUDDITE" etc. to be in that realm.
I'm not aware of any self-driving widely available ten years ago. I just took my Model Y over Highway 1 in California without requiring human intervention (other than when I chose to pull the car over).
Obviously when these things can become fully autonomous isn't absolutely clear, and there may always be some discomfort with a probability of failure without a human chain of responsibility.
But, given ten years ago this didn't exist at all for consumers, and it now more reliably does? It doesn't seem insane to think ten years from now, it might address more edge cases, and be safer and more effective.
Why would you look at the general trend and assert jettisoning the effort?
EDIT: It seems some of the tech started rolling out 2016; my mind mentally was thinking 2015. So maybe this started about a decade ago. Though still, the trajectory is a decade of these systems going from limited assists toward greater autonomy with demonstrable progress.
From Wikipedia, United States government and policy, citing several democratic institutes:
"The United States was the most prominent liberal democracy for much of the 20th and early 21st centuries, but has undergone significant democratic backsliding and a shift toward a hybrid regime—a political system combining autocratic and democratic features.[185][186][237] There is an ongoing debate among political scientists on whether the country is more appropriately classified as an electoral autocracy or illiberal democracy, with few still considering it a robust liberal democracy.[238]"
It is interesting to see a general bias taken away from the study, which I wouldn't necessarily guess given my own experience. My X "For You" feed mostly does not read pro-Trump - instead mostly pushing very intense pro-European and pro-Canadian economic and political separation from the USA, and pushing very negative narratives of the USA, although I suppose it occasionally also introduces pro-Trump posts, and perhaps those do not sway me in the same way given I am a progressive American.
That said, the Trending tab does tend to push very heavy MAGA-aligned narrative, in a way that to me just seems comical, but I suppose there must be people that genuinely take it at face value, and maybe that does push people.
Less to do with the article:
The more I think about it, I'm not really even sure why I use X these days, other than the fact that I don't really have much of an in-person social life outside of work. Sometimes it can be enjoyable, but honestly the main takeaway I have is that microblogging as a format is genuinely terrible, and X in particular does seem to just feed the most angry things possible. Maybe it's exciting to try and discuss opinions but it is also simultaneously hardly possible to have a nuanced or careful discussion when you have limited characters, and someone on the other end that just wants to shout over you.
I miss being a kid and going onto some forums like for Scratch or Minecraft or whatever. The internet felt way more fun when it was just making cool things and chatting with people about it. I think the USA sort of felt more that way too, but it's hard to know if that was just my privilege. When I write about X, it uncomfortably parallels to how I would consider how my interactions have evolved with my family and friends in real life.
If it is not a small fee, I do wonder - is there still advantage to having a provider which one may take out a lawsuit against if something goes wrong? To what extent might liability and security vetting by scaled usage still hedge against AI, in your view?
I would add: open source throws additional curveballs. The EU wants to push for open source, and that is admirable, but I wonder what the sustainable funding model would be, and how that could attract attention. I wonder about business models and ability to generate return on investment.
I would think the saner solution is allowing proprietary companies, but imposing technical standards which companies collaborate on, enabling interoperation. Am I mistaken, that the EU is trying to do this with the DMA? I have heard general overtones, but I haven't looked at it very closely, and our media doesn't cover EU tech regulations in much detail in the US, though in a decent world it would, I wish it would.
AI replacing vendors feels like a strange risk, though I'm not sure if vendors view things through a technical lens. Security concerns and service maintenance alone, IMO, makes writing internal software a large proposition - one that I would want a trusted vendor if it wasn't a hobby project and I could just afford that. Particularly if that data being lost or broken would severely harm a business.
There are also already frameworks in languages like Python that make putting up an internal website very, very simple. If you don't need production grade, you might have already had a pretty low barrier to entry, if you have the skills to figure out how to host the service you just vibe coded, you can probably figure out some basic django to throw data in its ORM, or find libraries that do the work for you.
AI does feel in those technical ways to be an overstated risk, to me at least.
Far more worrying to me is the breakdown of the USA and its role. We are going to have blocs of software and hardware entirely from competing geopolitical regions, which may not be able or authorized to communicate with one another. Any businesses in the USA with significant CA or EU marketshare right now will decline in value to the degree client companies choose, or are told, to stop using USA systems.
(My own governor in California outright antagonized the Europeans at Davos calling them "pathetic" while telling them to get tough on Trump, which means in practice, stop using US, meaning yes California, tech goods and services. A lot of revenue from tech comes from overseas, and we are going to lose at least some portion of that. Particularly in California which already has budget problems with what revenue it's got. Stunning how even The Guardian treated those remarks as "tough" and not insane and self-destructive... sadly it's nothing compared to the worst of the US right now.)
So, where do you throw investment right now? To the US where the marketshares will likely decline, and the political and trade environment is insanely uncertain, but there is momentum on AI and generally decent hardware design, and the existing software companies and knowledge? To the EU or Canada where maybe a nascent software industry will take hold, or perhaps American companies will relocate talent if the USA collapses into civil conflict? To China, if they end up becoming a hegemon, given their strength in hardware and their growing efforts to invest in software alternatives?
I suppose I read markets don't react to "tensions," and maybe it is unprecedented to modern memory, but I think about these things more than AI.
I suppose I should add, I largely fear more and more regulation around software, especially at the level of "commercial vs. not" - one, much commercial software uses open source; two, I am extraordinarily wary that we may lose pretty much all digital freedom to increasingly authoritarian societies - I sort of expect such licensing requirements to keep pushing that along and breaking any possibility of making modern technology less bad, instead burdening the field such that only major corporations may effectively contribute, and cutting off all funding to independent developers. It's already grim in that respect to be sure. Licensure feels like it is on the path to whitewash intense restrictions on computation in the language of protection and security.
Many big technology companies have zero ethics or desire for it. I only have faith in smaller groups and independent developers, and I don't want to stifle them if they have some path to come back and compete.
Hell, at this point my main computer is Linux, with a mixture of open source and donation-driven (this could be considered commercial!) software. My desktop environment is made by someone in a bedroom in Poland and it's better than anything Apple or god forbid Microsoft can ship. I would prefer to not have some licensing body to come and make it illegal for me to use that desktop and send this developer money so he can pay his rent.
I am ambivalent about this, leaning towards negative.
I have some open questions, though this is more implementation than concept - what categories of software would need what licensing? Is there a delineation for platforms with more or less effective sandboxing, e.g., mobile vs desktop platforms? Do we need licensing for non-mission-critical software like game development (not a trivial question given multiplayer transmits and parses data)? Memory-safe versus memory-unsafe languages?
Now, I can think of some good situations that should maybe require formal licensing, e.g., cryptography, though how to delineate that could be tricky. Certainly I would want someone building a cryptographic vault or library to have very good knowledge of cryptography - I am not sure this is needed if you are effectively dispatching to a known good library, but it is still possible to build highly insecure protocols on top of it. Wondering if I would want a single large license, or some kind of specialty licenses for such cases, though.
My biggest gripe though, is that I feel most of the problems of software come from companies behaving irresponsibly - collecting too much data, rushing features through, pushing top-down control and schedules making it difficult for engineers to push back for needs and to build systems effectively. A lot of corporations pretty much give marching orders to their engineers. Maybe if software engineers were licensed, and there was personal liability against one's license to disobey, it would create a strong incentive to not implement such systems. I have my doubts this would get implemented in the USA though, as we have already unfortunately mostly stood against regulations like the GDPR. Maybe the EU would do this - but I am not sure if it is a better strategy, if that is the intent, versus focusing the state on attacking companies with malicious intent and sending them directly out of business.
It is just hard to reconcile that denigration of AI with the typical experience I have using these tools in the real world. It is not omnipotent or God, but it can effectively assist in work. There is a certain cognitive dissonance I feel when I walk away from using the tool to help accomplish particular tasks, then hear over and over people say the technology is fundamentally useless and fundamentally does not work. I guess I am just not enough of an academic to understand how something can accomplish work yet fundamentally isn't, somehow.