|
Post by Shannon on May 28, 2024 20:40:47 GMT -5
How about the Division III World Series? Go Birmingham-Southern! Yeah. Weird, isn't it? It would be a storybook ending.
|
|
|
Post by millring on May 30, 2024 6:05:29 GMT -5
I read this counter-argument this morning. Sort of a John Henry goes to college to rage against the machine:
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on May 30, 2024 11:29:49 GMT -5
The issue of the usefulness of the humanities aside, it's not necessarily the "math people" who are central to programming. A long time ago, I had a student, an English major whose student-worker gig was in the university's IT shop. He insisted that somebody like me would do well in computer stuff. When I pointed out that math was my weakest subject, he said that language skills were more important. FWIW, he finished as an English major but had a career working in oil-patch IT. (He's retired now--he's only about five years younger than me.) And my third career turned out to be in journalism--word-centric, but with most of the words being about computer technology. (It helped that I eventually, post-doc, took what amounted to a minor's-worth of computer science and programming. No math required at that level.)
The threat to programmers posed by AI is that routine coding can indeed be produced by what amounts to an expert system with access to the vast libraries of routines that human coders already use when developing complex systems. What AI is going to find challenging is application design and debugging. At this point an AI does not understand anything--it only assembles elements according to statistical principles. The underlying data structures are vast and the analytical processes for finding patterns are pretty sophisticated--but there are no ghosts in those machines, only the overmuscled descendants of actuarial tables.
|
|