<story><title>AI Homework</title><url>https://stratechery.com/2022/ai-homework/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>rednerrus</author><text>Couldn&amp;#x27;t this help a 10x engineer become a 100x engineer? The secret is still going to be in understanding what to ask for and ensuring that what gets spit out works. It&amp;#x27;s just going to be so much faster. Is there anyplace in the world for a .5x developer or even a 1x developer in a chatgpt world?</text></item><item><author>thundergolfer</author><text>Over the weekend Twitter was 30% ChatGPT screenshots and 20% engineers frothing about how ChatGPT would replace programming, article writing, even Google Search.&lt;p&gt;Such engineers must be juniors, or have persisted in their life with a totally wrong idea of how engineering is done and engineering is built. I can&amp;#x27;t imagine thinking that one could build software systems or essay arguments by trusting an AI system you don&amp;#x27;t understand to provide answers you don&amp;#x27;t understand.&lt;p&gt;Like you say, we very well could faceplant society with this misconception that regurgitation plausible code and prose is what education and understanding looks like.</text></item><item><author>fellerts</author><text>There has been a lot of &amp;quot;well, we had a good run&amp;quot; comments on ChatGPT threads from engineers lately. I get where this sentiment is coming from, but I also think that the article paints a good picture of how we must &amp;quot;pivot&amp;quot; as a species to avoid faceplanting completely. Zero Trust Homework sounds like a strategy we will be forced to implement:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    the system will frequently give the wrong answers (and not just on accident — wrong answers will be often pushed out on purpose); the real skill in the homework assignment will be in verifying the answers the system churns out — learning how to be a verifier and an editor, instead of a regurgitator.
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
If done well, I believe this can prepare the next generation well for a future we cannot even imagine. The next 10 years will be interesting to say the least.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>bogwog</author><text>Writing code is the equivalent of swinging a hammer. A more experienced engineer might swing it better than a junior, but swinging hammers isn&amp;#x27;t what makes an engineer valuable.&lt;p&gt;These AI models don&amp;#x27;t actually understand anything about what they&amp;#x27;re generating, not to mention the world they&amp;#x27;re supposed to building solutions for. They&amp;#x27;re just using statistics to predict the next likely output based on some input. Maybe there is a way to incorporate these things into the development process today, but I think we&amp;#x27;re still far away from seeing an AI replacing a human engineer.</text></comment>
<story><title>AI Homework</title><url>https://stratechery.com/2022/ai-homework/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>rednerrus</author><text>Couldn&amp;#x27;t this help a 10x engineer become a 100x engineer? The secret is still going to be in understanding what to ask for and ensuring that what gets spit out works. It&amp;#x27;s just going to be so much faster. Is there anyplace in the world for a .5x developer or even a 1x developer in a chatgpt world?</text></item><item><author>thundergolfer</author><text>Over the weekend Twitter was 30% ChatGPT screenshots and 20% engineers frothing about how ChatGPT would replace programming, article writing, even Google Search.&lt;p&gt;Such engineers must be juniors, or have persisted in their life with a totally wrong idea of how engineering is done and engineering is built. I can&amp;#x27;t imagine thinking that one could build software systems or essay arguments by trusting an AI system you don&amp;#x27;t understand to provide answers you don&amp;#x27;t understand.&lt;p&gt;Like you say, we very well could faceplant society with this misconception that regurgitation plausible code and prose is what education and understanding looks like.</text></item><item><author>fellerts</author><text>There has been a lot of &amp;quot;well, we had a good run&amp;quot; comments on ChatGPT threads from engineers lately. I get where this sentiment is coming from, but I also think that the article paints a good picture of how we must &amp;quot;pivot&amp;quot; as a species to avoid faceplanting completely. Zero Trust Homework sounds like a strategy we will be forced to implement:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;    the system will frequently give the wrong answers (and not just on accident — wrong answers will be often pushed out on purpose); the real skill in the homework assignment will be in verifying the answers the system churns out — learning how to be a verifier and an editor, instead of a regurgitator.
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
If done well, I believe this can prepare the next generation well for a future we cannot even imagine. The next 10 years will be interesting to say the least.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>localhost</author><text>Last night I had ChatGPT write a streamlit app for me and I felt it was like talking to an enthusiastic junior dev who takes feedback really well and works incredibly fast. This is an incredibly high leverage technology and we&amp;#x27;re just figuring out how to use it.</text></comment>