Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

17
  • 2
    The other day I was thinking that driving a horse-drawn wagon might have been a more difficult task than an automatic transmission car. Carving might be harder than 3D printing. Recent programming methods might be easier than what I learned on. Or, maybe not, we would need some research to determine these answers. I know that the way I learned to program is forgotten and never involved in learning now. AI is a similar thing, and might help us skim past a lot of details yet have to cognize more abstract things. A long way of saying, Hmm...
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Apr 2 at 14:01
  • 2
    @ScottRowe re. learning to program, it can be very difficult to learn something if your teacher is too helpful. Over the last 25 years I have seen undergraduate students problem solving skills weaken as the amount of tutorial material (and SE) solves most of the kinds of problems that are good for teaching. It is like going to the gym and watching someone else pump iron - you may learn things, but it wont make your muscles any bigger. c.f. cseducators.stackexchange.com/questions/7339/…
    – Dikran Marsupial
    Commented Apr 2 at 14:51
  • 2
    @DikranMarsupial That's not a failure of technology. It's a failure of human accountability.
    – J D
    Commented Apr 2 at 16:49
  • 2
    My perception is that this is a branch point, a watershed where most people go off in a new direction. In the past 100+ years, many many things have stopped being learned, and it doesn't affect most people at all because technology has papered over it. The problems with this are the cases where depth knowledge is required, when an unexpected problem arises, or there is a widespread failure, war conditions or something. Someone still needs to know, but far fewer people. Not much horse riding these days, or woodworking. But most people couldn't even diagnose a problem with their car.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Apr 3 at 0:22
  • 2
    @JD low-code or no-code is a radically different kind of programming. Like if you ever worked with people you might develop the idea of "if they wouldn't think so damn much but just do what I tell them everything would be fine". While if you ever worked with a machine that does exactly as you tell them you'll find out pretty quickly that there is a discrepancy between what you say and what you mean and it's not the machine that adapts to you (it can't), but you are the one who needs to adapt to the machine, to rephrase your commands in their language so that they can understand them.
    – haxor789
    Commented Apr 3 at 9:37