Haven't done much more with the boids yet (though I imagine if I continue, I will learn a thing or two!) but I have an example from another domain.
Shell scripting was something that I failed to get any real traction with for decades, and since letting AI help me write dozens of shell scripts, I find that I have gained a basic level of proficiency. (i.e. I found that I had become relatively fluent in writing them even without assistance, which surprised me!)
It ties in with the Input Hypothesis of language acquisition. More volume in = more opportunities for brain to find the patterns, and learn them naturally.
That doesn't work for the approach where you don't look at the code at all, though. Which seems to depend on your goals for the project.
For the boids thing, the math isn't something I enjoy doing manually anyway (I've done that for the last 15 years and it always felt like pulling teeth), so the main learning I'd get there would be at the applied level... How to tweak the Perlin noise to get the result I want, rather than how or why it works in the first place.
Obviously that matters, but how much does it matter? Does it matter if you don't learn anything about computer architecture because you only code in JS all day? Very situational.
There's a subset of people whose identity is grounded in the fact that they put in the hard work to learn things that most people are unable or unwilling to do. It's a badge of honor, and they resent anyone taking "shortcuts" to achieve their level of output. Kind of reminds me of lawyers who get bent out of shape when they lose a case to a pro se party. All those years of law school and studying for the bar exam, only to be bested by someone who got by with copying sample briefs and skimming Westlaw headnotes at a public library. :)
Haven't done much more with the boids yet (though I imagine if I continue, I will learn a thing or two!) but I have an example from another domain.
Shell scripting was something that I failed to get any real traction with for decades, and since letting AI help me write dozens of shell scripts, I find that I have gained a basic level of proficiency. (i.e. I found that I had become relatively fluent in writing them even without assistance, which surprised me!)
It ties in with the Input Hypothesis of language acquisition. More volume in = more opportunities for brain to find the patterns, and learn them naturally.
That doesn't work for the approach where you don't look at the code at all, though. Which seems to depend on your goals for the project.
For the boids thing, the math isn't something I enjoy doing manually anyway (I've done that for the last 15 years and it always felt like pulling teeth), so the main learning I'd get there would be at the applied level... How to tweak the Perlin noise to get the result I want, rather than how or why it works in the first place.
Obviously that matters, but how much does it matter? Does it matter if you don't learn anything about computer architecture because you only code in JS all day? Very situational.
There's a subset of people whose identity is grounded in the fact that they put in the hard work to learn things that most people are unable or unwilling to do. It's a badge of honor, and they resent anyone taking "shortcuts" to achieve their level of output. Kind of reminds me of lawyers who get bent out of shape when they lose a case to a pro se party. All those years of law school and studying for the bar exam, only to be bested by someone who got by with copying sample briefs and skimming Westlaw headnotes at a public library. :)
It's not that our identity is grounded in being competent, it's that we're tired of cleaning up messes left by people taking shortcuts.
2 replies →