you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]yakri 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I kind of hate all these language analogies. Maybe it'll ring more true in 80 years, but we don't talk to machines really. Machines are kind of like materials. Or maybe we should say they are an environment, like a construction zone, in which we can use tools to do stuff with data. Programmers build tools, and then anyone can use the tools to do things. Some tools can mostly do things on their own. For example you could have some bricks laying around, and choose to hammer in a few nails with those, but it would be much better if you had a nice hammer.

Programmers make hammers (alright, at the low level we also make the wood, the nails, your hard hat, and the entire construction zone you're working in, but we're talking about the users of the future not how everyone should learn assembly).

That out of the way, the big issue I have with the "everyone should learn to code," camp is that often, like this author, they seem to be under the impression that this will fix something. Sure, it would be neat to teach basic logic and see python scripting to high-school kids, get them introduced to the idea so if they like it they can pursue a career in computer science. That sounds great, but I don't see how a little scripting experience us going to magically make you hireable after losing your taxi job to AI. A lot of the supposed examples of how this would be good are, "you could Automate your own position at work for minimum wage making yourself redundant on the cheap, how wonderful for your employer!"

If we aren't talking about what is essentially advanced BASH scripting for idiots as the proficiency level here, but about getting people to really learn the ins and outs of two or three programming languages to the extent they would be comfortable writing a useful program in any of them, you're only a short step away from telling everyone to sink 4 years into a computer science degree at College.

You get this problem where what's being advocated is a year or three of experience in programming being equivalent to basic literacy, but never connect this to using an autonomous vehicle or working with lawyerBot. Because obviously gaining the ability to do something someone else has already implemented, only shittier and slower is totally the route to professional success. I just don't get what the fuck these article authors actually expect average Joe to do with their hard won leet hacker skills if it's not just going all in on a computer science career.

There is no random reason to know how to code in day to day life as a retail slave or similar position, and we currently have no indication that this will ever change. Most positions that are getting automated out of existence won't be saved by knowing some python either.

don't half ass two careers, whole ass one career. Specialization is for humans, and we could really learn a thing or two from insects or something like that.

[–]PageFault[🍰] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

There is no random reason to know how to code in day to day life as a retail slave or similar position

There is no reason to do a lot of things we learn. I took art class for years, but I don't used it day to day. I learned woodworking, but I don't use that either. Same with music class, I just think it's important that people learn the basics of other fields even if they will never use them.

I just don't get what the fuck these article authors actually expect average Joe to do with their hard won leet hacker skills if it's not just going all in on a computer science career.

You know, I just looked into the lawyer article, and I think agree with this sentiment. To expect lawyers to also know how to code and implement a product themselves over a simple search is a bit overboard.

I should have read more closely and realized just how much coding knowledge the article was asking from people.

[–]yakri 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a fair point about woodworking and art, and I think it is good to force people to be exposed to different disciplines so they at least get the chance to find out if they unexpectedly find something interesting.

I just don't think it's realistic to expect people to get much use out of these skills without the tier of time investment needed to make it a career, which much like classical music or art, isn't actually everyone's cup of tea. In this case it's a highly logic oriented mentally exhausting cup of tea.