We're about to learn a painful lesson about delayed gratification in software engineering.

New data from China, 26,811 students tracked January 2023 through June 2025. Students using AI for homework saw their scores jump 20 percent. Completion time dropped nearly half. They aced the assignments.

Then exam season came. Those same students scored 20 to 40 percent worse when they couldn't use the tool.

The homework phase is over. The exam phase is coming.

We're doing this in software right now. Vibe coding feels incredible. Features ship fast. Nobody's asking what happens in Month 18 when the original dev has left and nobody understands the codebase.

Commercial pilots fly with autopilot for most of every flight. They're required to maintain manual flying proficiency regardless. If the system fails mid-air and the pilot can't take over, people die.

Most teams using AI right now have forgotten how to fly manually. They've become passengers in their own systems. The autopilot flies, nobody checks instruments, and the first sign of trouble will be a breach notice or outage.

Three rules:

  1. Command the mission. Define architecture before prompting. Ambiguity kills in code and in flight. Delegate selectively. Offload mechanical work. Keep design and security reviews human. Verify everything. Audit before production.
  1. Never trust the automation without checking instruments.
  1. Quick wins feel good. Sustainable engineering feels boring. Boring keeps systems standing.

Organisations surviving the next two years won't ship the fastest. They'll be the ones who remember how to fly without the aids.


people insisting that you actually be skilled, independently of your tools, doesn't make them Luddites. Rather, being unable to do so makes you a phony.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 151 points 2 weeks ago (51 children)

This is kind of like the "you won't have a calculator with you all the time" argument by your 8th grade math teacher in 2003, except instead of making yourself dependent on a little solar powered device (that you could have with you all the time if you really wanted to, even before smartphones) you're becoming dependent on a subscription service offered by a trillion dollar company that can increase the price tenfold at will, or cut you from the platform entirely, stripping you of all your professional expertise at once.

  • source
  • hideshow 51 child comments
  • [–] 76 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    that can increase the price tenfold at will

    That will have to increase the price ten fold to stop bleeding billions of dollars every month.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    The American taxpayers will save them, whether they want to or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago

    You can't bail them out, they will still be losing money. It's not like banks.

    The play now seems to be that they will offload the bags on retirement funds and US 401k accounts. The ECB already issued a warning because of this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

    I dont think so. If(here is where my argument fails for most people cause i got really good education) your teacher thought you math properly tho point isnt the calculations but that you understand the logic. With ai the problem is the same with as a calculator that just spits out derivatives, graphs, etc by just typing in a formula. The reason you have to understand those is to be able to build upon it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 weeks ago

    100% agreed. My teacher said that he taught us tools, how they worked and how to use them, in order for us to apply them in new ways. Even with a calculator you have to understand the underlaying logic to actually do something. Don't know basic mathematics? Good luck using a calculator.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago

    I think its both. you have to understand it to be able to build upon it, but it's also no nearly as readily available as pocket calculators, and they require much more energy that too. It's not as portable as a calculator.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago* (8 children)

    This is kind of like the "you won't have a calculator with you all the time" argument by your 8th grade math teacher in 2003

    Which is grand, given we've had researchers agreeing effectively incorporating calculators into math education improves everyone's ability to do math without calculators - Since the 90s

    There's pretty good arguments to include calculators from a really young age, to improve the understanding of numbers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago* (7 children)

    There is no good argument for including calculators before the pupils haven't mastered basic calculations in their head, there are good arguments against it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    To me, doing math without a calculator is like trying to do carpentry without a tape measure. It’s possible, but way harder and far less accurate for no real benefit. Back in the day, people absolutely would use abaci, slide rules, and other calculation aids while learning math. Calculators are good actually, and always have been.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago

    If you need a calculator for the easiest quick guesstimates, you are handicapped. If you start from day one with offloading every calculation to a calculator, you will be like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    You're ending up with a larger group of pupils "mastering" basic calculations through counting, when you remove the calculator as a tool for learning. Using the strategy of "counting all", is one of the clearest signs a 1st grade pupil will be behind their peers in 4th grade.

    Broken calculator (just search for it), is one way to include calculators in a didactic way. But using calculators in general, improves a kids ability to estimate results - Which is an ability that helps anyone out tremendously, as it's giving you a clear idea if something went completely wrong in a calculation

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    A "broken calculator" isn't a calculator. It requires you to calculate in your head to be effective, which is exactly what I was talking about.

    First you need to solidify this ability, before it makes sense to introduce reliance on calculators.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    It's still a calculator, it just misses some features. It's one didactical way to include calculators.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago

    It is not a functional calculator and can't be used as such. Learning how to use a simple calculator doesn't require much training or special skills, that children of that age wouldn't have already aquired by other means anyway. The important skill broken calculators learn is to analyze the problem and predict solutions in your head.

    You could achieve something similar by giving pupils just a piece of paper and the numbers and signs they are allowed to use. The calculator part makes checking easier, yes. That's about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    This is kind of like the “you won’t have a calculator with you all the time” argument

    It's not even that! Students without a calculator don't see their test scores crater, the work just takes longer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago

    Also calculator is still prohibited in schools in many countries. Like mine. And I'm forever grateful for mental math skills I've gotten. Teaching math like that has it's own downsides, but mental math is a soft skill that helps in life.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    There's models that run on your phone.

    "You won't have a tiny pocket computer with you all the time" really is the exact same argument with different specs. And frankly I'm a lot more likely to do math without a computer than write code without a computer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (17 children)

    you’re becoming dependent on a subscription service offered by a trillion dollar company that can increase the price tenfold at will, or cut you from the platform entirely

    with local open weight models that is no longer an argument tbh

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

    Who can afford the hardware to run an open weight model? We aren’t all earning enough to afford high end NVIDIA cards (when they’re even available).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago*

    lucky for you to have your boss paid for it. but it's likely not yours, but your company owns it, and you have access as long as you work there. after that, you can say goodbye to your "professional expertise"

    this is completely different from the calculator that can run off its puny solar panel

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Okay, well you're on a forum filled with nerds. The average AI user is asking ChatGPT or Claude or whatever the fuck. I garun-fucking-tee you they do not have the knowledge of local models or the capability to set one up. Like genuinely most Americans are fucking stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 2 weeks ago

    The "open-weight models" argument just a fallacy IMHO, frontier models would require a pretty strong AI PC, not something that GTX1050 you put away as a backup could handle. The "just use smaller models" argument just gives leeway to just not using AI and using more classical methods of coding - use of dependencies, use of code generators, use of semantic search engines (can someone suggest me one?), etc. LLMs don't do anything particularly new, they're just mimic how humans talk.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    Not every software company is a game developer, and even at home, not every programmer plays games on their PC that require a powerful GPU. If everyone working on, for example, business software all of a sudden needs a gaming PC that will be constantly running an AI model, that will greatly increase costs, both in terms of procurement of equipment and electricity. An increase in demand for powerful GPUs in fields that traditionally had no need for them isn't exactly going to improve the hardware cost situation either.

    Whether you run the model locally or you leave it to a company, someone is going to have to pay the cost.

  • source
  • parent