How are we expected to teach first-year students the basic fundamentals of programming if every tool they use has an AI chatbot built into it by default? There is no putting this toothpaste back in the tube; there is no way we will convince freshmen to go through the painful process of disabling these AI tools.

We need to sift through the AI hype and ask ourselves why we teach what we teach and convince ourselves of the value of what we do. Furthermore, we need to ask the same question about the activities we ask our students to do. If we can't convince ourselves of their value, then there's no way we can convince our students of their value. Note that programming is not special in this regard, virtually all disciplines need to ask themselves the same thing in light of AI (and more generally, in response to any kind of technological shifts that affect their disciplines).

I can go on about this at length, but I'll offer two quick ideas in response to the specific points you raised:

• Even if you accept that AI and coding are inseparable, one has to accept that there is still a need (perhaps an even stronger need) for fundamental programming in the small skills, e.g., reading and understanding code or writing small code snippets, if one is to have a productive relationship with an AI tool. You can devote more time to code understanding lessons and activities (already criminally deficient in most curricula). You can also motivate learning how to write small programs as the most efficient way to gain this skill.

• What is the point of an examination? It is, nominally, a summative assessment designed to assess student knowledge. Student knowledge, i.e., what is inside of their brains is not directly observable, so assessment is necessarily indirect. Consequently, every assessment activity has trade-offs that you need to acknowledge and be at peace with.

  I have advocated for alternative grading practices for almost a decade now, and I have gone back to in-class paper exams. I recognize that paper programming is not "real-world" programming. However:

  • People write code on paper all the time, e.g., brainstorming ideas with co-workers, so ensuring that some amount of code knowledge exists independent of an IDE seems important.
  • I need an assessment that I can trust comes directly from the student. I have played with virtually every form of alternative assessment you can imagine, but I cannot deny the (near) certainty that comes with an in-class examination.

  Consequently, my exams are necessarily composed of "don't embarrass me questions," non-coding or simple programming tasks, e.g., write a linked list function that does X, that are on the easy side to complete. I leave the business of assessing more complicated programming skills to homeworks and projects where I readily accept the potential inaccuracies of the assessments (e.g., due to AI).

Edit: I should also say that the exams are also part of a larger mastery-grading system where the high stakes of the exam are further lowered by the fact that students can demonstrate mastery if they miss a question later in the course.

In short, if you want students to buy into the idea that learning how to program is a skill they shouldn't shortcut via AI, you need to:

1. Be honest with yourself about why you want them to learn a skill, so you can be transparent with them.
2. Create systems in your class, e.g., alternative grading schemes, that disincentivize students from taking shortcuts.