>My kids won’t need to code because soon computers will just code for them.
This sentence is grammatically correct, but I am having difficulty extracting any semantic meaning. Coding is the act of writing down one's thoughts in a way that a computer can understand. To take the human aspect out of it renders the entire concept senseless.
I assume he means something like "computers will reach a point where they can take non-code descriptions written by a human and implement code based off of them." However, I agree that this is not a plausible thought
1. I doubt that this is coming that soon
2. If it does arrive, it may well be with AI so sophisticated that the human has no role even for the "creative" parts of the process. A system that can handle non-formal requirements and implement code sounds close to general purpose AI--the kind that just replaces humanity.
> AI so sophisticated that the human has no role even for the "creative" parts
That is a crucial point that is often missed by people outside of the industry. There is nothing magical about activities that don't require the assistance of a computer today. The very principle of computability applies equally to any activity, not just mathematics.
In a way, art is the product of a very complex Turing machine that relies on physics and biology to compute it.
It is, to me, extremely likely that within 20 years, we will have generated novels compete on the market with best-sellers.
The creative process will increasingly rely on mastering and combining more and more exotic techniques, and that may require a deep understanding of the new tools at hand.
That isn't 'art' as an expression of emotion (if that's how you want to define it). Those are interesting images generated from combining other interesting images.
> It is, to me, extremely likely that within 20 years, we will have generated novels compete on the market with best-sellers.
There's another way of reading it, which is that code generation will become sufficiently advanced that a huge number of the high-paying software engineering jobs that exist today become things that people can do with very little training.
It's not so much that you can take informal descriptions and turn them into software, but more that the software can be built by anyone with a few months of training, thus driving down salaries to a point where mere coding is no longer a white collar job.
That doesn't seem impossible, but the reason for its unliklihood is far more subtle.
This is always an argument in tech. But as has been stated by folks before the easier coding gets, the more ambitious and complex the tasks we attempt to accomplish with it. So the difficulty at the top end never gets any easier just because the bottom end does.
Your thoughts are great, I could not have written them as clearly.
Coding, even if not meant for job-work, should be taught as an essential skill in the modern world. Preparing kids at young age for this skill will empower them a lot.
> Coding, even if not meant for job-work, should be taught as an essential skill in the modern world.
Really, just being able to deconstruct a large process into meaningful steps would be beneficial for many people. Coding only makes this explicit, but I worry that poor coding environments/languages/etc would hamper the core aspect. I haven't seen any of these new coding classes though, so I may be completely wrong about how it's taught.
Since when does being good at math or programming preclude social skills? That comment in the article gave me a terribly anti-intellectual vibe.
Basically everything will be drag-and-drop interfaces in the future, no mention of who is going to maintain those interfaces or extend them, apparently that will be drag and drop too. I think the rice of fancy visual interfaces have so far made programming more important, and I don't see that trend decreasing in the next generation.
BBC (author works there) recently made documentary/reality show "Girls can code". Its about young girls, building an app and trying to pitch investors. Its was the most sexist TV piece I had ever seen. Coding was turned into 'creative' thing such as fashion, dress selection, make-up, marketing...
Out of 2 hours about 5 minutes were spend on actual coding (boot camp). One girl liked it and showed some potential. But that was passed as something "proper lady" should not do.
He doesn't; The Gadget Show is tripe at best, hosted by four idiots and a borderline idiot (Jon Bentley). I wish I could point at a better alternative but Click is nearly as bad.
Hey, what's the problem with Click? It's for a general audience, and is gently (and healthily) irreverent towards tech. The presenters are all well qualified for their roles, and they get to report on some really cool and cutting-edge stuff.
I think Click is ok really, although as you say, it's aimed at a general audience. I do find it annoying when massive things go on in the world of technology and are unreported, but they have a five minute segment on helper robot prototypes or Second Life.
I guess I'd just like a more 'serious' tech programme on TV.
I was going to make some sensible argument about the value of the lessons being exposure to code, and removing the black box of mystery that most gadgets are to kids. But then I read the article... what on earth is this guy going on about?
I wholeheartedly agree with adding the (A)rts into STE(A)M. He's hit the nail on the head there -- I believe we all should encourage creative thinking to go along hand-in-hand with critical thinking. That said, he's way off base with the coding courses being a "waste of time" -- we're not close enough to having that good of an AI yet, nor do I think we will be in his children's lifetime. Maybe his grandchildren's lifetime, but even that could be a bit of a stretch.
The future as the iPad generation: a machine made for consuming that conceals from you everything about how things work and how to hack them. Even while using 'high-level bricks', understanding how things work internally give you much more freedom to innovate and be independent from some manufacturers.
Its too bad a valid point regarding creativity and art and its value to software products is hidden under a layer of crap about machines coding for you....
coding lessons have only one reason to exist: turn programmers into blue collar workers of the 21 st century. there is no other reason to learn code at school. Period.
This sentence is grammatically correct, but I am having difficulty extracting any semantic meaning. Coding is the act of writing down one's thoughts in a way that a computer can understand. To take the human aspect out of it renders the entire concept senseless.