Post #3715750

2026-07-02 22:57 UTC

I think we should be setting expectations here. AI is perfectly capable at this moment to teach a newbie CS 101. Beginners do not write great efficient code because thats not the point at that stage. It should also be able to teach 201 in a general sense. Let’s say for the sake of argument its really bad at teach 300 level concepts. Ok? You would have gotten 2 years worth of CS then from something that would teach you on a personal level. Provide or suggest resources, and even work with you to debug your code. Don’t feel we need to demonize or downplay this. There’s other reasons to hate in AI. Go ahead and ask Gemini (not exactly top tier LLM) to teach you python from scratch. Ask it to explain functions and for loops. Tell me if it’s a bad as you think. Feel free to post it failing here in the reply. It’s been objectively measured that AI generates terrible code compared to humans on average But it’s still good enough code at most levels that developers are using agents to either assist or write it for them. If you used the latest versions of Claude or Codex or even cursor you know this.

Replies (1)

@silly_goose@lemmy.today 2026-07-03 04:38

Hmm. If you are confident that learning from ai will work out for you better than learning from humans or human created materials, go ahead. But as I said it doesn’t work in the real world. AI has been shown to make people stupid and mad. All professors know this. Students are using llms to cheat in exams and skip learning. Gen Z has the lowest attention span and reading comprehension skills mostly due to ai summaries. Few can even sit down and read a book anymore. Using ai for coding and “agents” have eroded the skills of developers. Many have said so and I have seen it among my colleagues too. I have a feeling we won’t make any progress here. I’ll stick to learning from humans and the learning materials they have left us.

Open ##3715749