Post #3715751

2026-07-02 21:00 UTC

But how would that be different from learning via a book AI averages all the text on the internet. So you cannot rise above this bar if you learn from an llm. It’s only possible by reading text books written by human experts. I can give my field as an example. It’s been objectively measured that AI generates terrible code compared to humans on average. So if you learn coding from an llm it’ll be disastrous compared to learning from text books or courses. Benefits of llms for learning are not demonstrated in the lab. Studies have only shown the opposite—that ai makes you stupid and delusional.

Replies (1)

@Sabrinamycarpet@sh.itjust.works 2026-07-02 22:57

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.

Open ##3715750