It's interesting to consider some people might only ever learn to code this way, and they'll have great understandings of their abstraction layers, and people who can write code from scratch will be like assembly language programmers to them.
pull down to refresh
402 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker 20 Mar
I had a similar conversation with a friend, who works as an Amazon engineer. He was bemoaning this issue, and saying that the old school engineers were better because they knew everything all the way down to assembly and the microchips.
I pushed back gently and reminded him that this is actually how human progress works. Because although those engineers may have known assembly and microchips, they probably knew nothing about the process by which the chips were manufactured, and probably don't know much about the transistors or underlying physics.
So in that sense I'm not really concerned about this aspect of AI. It's natural progress that higher and higher level functions are built on more and more abstracted layers.
reply
101 sats \ 2 replies \ @elvismercury 20 Mar
Great point. Remains to be seen how much of the surrounding layers are needed and how much they get you. "Full stack" has been an illusion for a long time, if not forever.
reply
104 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 20 Mar
I guess the (common) understanding of what "full stack" means will just change
reply
55 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 21 Mar
Also a good point - presumably it's been in motion since the origin of computers. Wonder what their minds were like in 1965 or so.
reply