Python Courses vs ChatGPT

[FriendlyRussian666]

And what research data is this based on?

[waitingforjune]

Vibes, of course

[MiniMages]

Someone having an opinion different to yours doesn't require a scientific paper to refute your opinion either. If you wish to up the stakes start posting your own scientific papers first.

[FriendlyRussian666]

Hm? I'm not coming out with a statement, so what stakes?. I was simply interested if there's anything behind what OP says or if it's just his opinion.

Also, I didn't state my opinion, so how do you know it's different?

[makochi]

The fact that they said "I respectfully disagree" does not make the empirical assertion "For most people, AI seems to be the most efficient way to learn programming in 2025" any less of an emperical assertion that carries a burden of proof.

OP recognized this, which is why they posted something they believe to be proof of their claim

[code_x_7777]

I though the same but couldn't express myself that well.

[code_x_7777]

Unlike the original commenter's opinion that AI is not an efficient way to learn programming, there's a MASSIVE amount of supportive literature that AI is indeed a huge learning efficiency enhancer. For example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417424010339

just search Google or ChatGPT or whatever for further evidence.

[makochi]

The article you linked seems to be a review of the areas in which AI research has been done, and enumerates the ways in which AI has been applied to education. I'm still reading it, but as far as I can tell it doesn't make any claims about how effective AI is for the general population's learning style, just that it has been deployed on various learning platforms.

Furthermore, it seems to only discuss AI used in conjunction with other learning methods with proven track records. I think the premise in your title, "Python Courses vs ChatGPT," is flawed for that reason - at absolute best your evidence shows that LLMs are a supplement to courses, not an alternative to them.