Georg WeissenbacherMar 5
@krismicinski @shriramk @jfdm @csgordon @lindsey @jeremysiek we have been claiming for decades that we are not just educating coding monkeys, so it shouldn't really matter that LLMs can now do all the coding. As far as I see it, it's still necessary to identify and clearly formulate verifiable requirements and specifications, come up with a modular design, and verify the whole thing, because I still believe the ultimate responsibilty lies with the developer. So students still need to understand the fundamentals. But yes, it has become much harder to check *at scale* whether they actually grasped them.
Show threadShriram KrishnamurthiMar 6

@GeorgWeissenbacher @[email protected] @jfdm @csgordon @lindsey @jeremysiek
Yes to most of that. I think it's not that hard to assess if that is what people were always assessing that.

I actually disagree w/ your opening comment. Most intro CS educators will say (and have said), "I don't teach programming, I teach *problem solving*" (whatever the fuck that is). My response is, "great, this should be your liberation! Programming got easy, what are your «problem solving» ideas?"

Show threadTony Garnock-JonesMar 6
@shriramk @GeorgWeissenbacher @krismicinski @jfdm @csgordon @lindsey @jeremysiek ... did programming get easy? Can one be said to be programming if one asks someone else (or an LLM) to write a program for you? Or is some other kind of (not- or not-quite-programming) interaction going on?
Show threadShriram KrishnamurthiMar 6
@tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @[email protected] @jfdm @csgordon @lindsey @jeremysiek
I very much think of what I'm doing with Claude Code as a kind of programming — indeed, the kind of programming I always wished I could do! But if it makes you happier to use a different term for it (not "vibecoding", that has too many specific connotations and is definitely not how *I'm* doing things), and it's *useful* to have that other term…that's fine by me. I guess my slogan is: "Philosophy…but not too much".
Show threadLindsey KuperMar 6
@shriramk @tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @krismicinski @jfdm @csgordon @jeremysiek This comment made me realize something about myself: this is *not* a kind of programming I always wished I could do. I really only like programming because I like manipulating formal systems. That might explain a lot about why this kind of programming doesn't appeal to me, aside from all the bad externalities.
Show threadSam Tobin-Hochstadt

@lindsey As someone who is having a lot of (too much) fun writing programs with LLMs, the thing I really enjoy is the feeling of creation, the same way when I wrote a little game on my TI-86 and got to play it. But it's been interesting understanding that about my own motivation.

@shriramk @tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @jfdm @csgordon @jeremysiek

Mar 10 at 4:02amWeb
Show threadLindsey KuperMar 10
@samth @shriramk @tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @jfdm @csgordon @jeremysiek Yeah, I think this is one thing that makes me different from a lot of folks in CS. I've never been primarily motivated by a desire to make things.
Show threadDavid BeazleyMar 10
@lindsey @samth @shriramk @tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @jfdm @csgordon @jeremysiek I don't want to make things so much as figure out how things work. I can geek out over some of the most esoteric low-level stuff and have a great time. Lot's of people can use bolts to make things, but how many people understand how to make bolts?
Show threadLindsey KuperMar 10
@dabeaz @samth @shriramk @tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @jfdm @csgordon @jeremysiek Yeah, I'm also mainly motivated by a desire to understand things. Not that that doesn't also motivate folks like Sam, of course. But for me that's what it's all about.
Show threadShriram KrishnamurthiMar 10

@lindsey @dabeaz @samth @tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @jfdm @csgordon @jeremysiek
This is a more interesting distinction!

Like Sam, I enjoy the feeling of creation, especially of things others can use.

But for me the "how things work" is not separated: I understand how things work *through* creation.

The message I keep preaching to my students—my MO—is "reflective creation": get it done, but think hard about how you did, and what sucked about that. Then let's go fix that!

Show threadDavid BeazleyMar 10
@shriramk @lindsey @samth @tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @jfdm @csgordon @jeremysiek Sadly, I'm not seeing a whole lot of "reflection" when it comes to LLMs and their externalities.
Show threadShriram KrishnamurthiMar 10

@dabeaz
I don't know how to quantify this. I spend a lot of time reflecting on how I'm using the LLM, how the LLM is responding, etc. And there's certainly a fair number of bloggers who are describing similar things, though often (unfortunately) cast in the form of *advice* (which feels very premature).

But also, we're only 4 months in. Give it time to settle. Once the initial excitement is over, sober reflection follows.
@lindsey @samth @tonyg @GeorgWeissenbacher @jfdm @csgordon @jeremysiek

Show threadckfiniteMar 10

@lindsey @dabeaz Yeah - this is something that I've noticed a lot; I also really appreciate the process of learning how things work, almost moreso than the ultimate product (though that's not bad either!). What I struggle with LLMs on is that it doesn't feel like I really own that process, that in delegating it to the LLM that I've given up responsibility in whole and that steals a lot of the excitement out of it for me.

Beyond that, I also struggle with the feeling of "is it *right* to not use an LLM? Could I have done it [better somehow] if I had used one?" On one hand I don't think that this is a reasonable position in some senses - but it's one that I haven't been able to get over. It's hard, to be honest, in a context where everyone is beating the "it's so much faster/better/stronger" drum to feel justified in not using the LLM.