Ok, so do you have a counterexample?
Ok, so do you have a counterexample?
If you simply think that children should never be exposed to screens, then I can sympathise with that point of view, but I think it's better to introduce them in a thoughtful and limited way.
Your last sentence is unnecessarily overblown and inflammatory, and adds nothing useful to the discussion.
But really, you don't even need this counterexample because it's trivial. It's like a C fanatic saying "No useful software can be made using Python", and then asking for a counterexample. Take all useful small applications created. Here's one, Maccy [1]. There's zero reason every line of its code has to have been written by hand rather than prompted. Maybe some of it in fact was. It's a nifty little app, does its job well.
> It's like a C fanatic saying "No useful software can be made using Python", and then asking for a counterexample
At which point you could provide them many, many counterexamples?
I like AI coding assistants as much as the next red-blooded SWE and find them incredibly useful and a genuine productivity booster, but I think the claims of 10/100/1000x productivity boosts are unsupported by evidence AFAICT. And I certainly know I'm not 10x as productive nor do any of my teammates who have embraced AI seem to be 10x more productive.
If that would be true then all these AIs are useless. Who needs them to built something that already exists?
Ah my favorite, entirely made up quote.
Apocraphyly attributed to the U.S. Patent Office Commissioner in 1899.
The AI wouldn't have been able to do it by itself, but I wouldn't have been arsed to do it alone either.