The demise of coding is greatly exaggerated

-

NVDIA CEO Jensen Huang recently made very contraversial remarks:

"Over the course of the last 10 years, 15 years, almost everybody who sits on a stage like this would tell you that it is vital that your children learn computer science, and everybody should learn how to program. And in fact, it’s almost exactly the opposite.

It is our job to create computing technology such that nobody has to program and that the programming language is human. Everybody in the world is now a programmer. This is the miracle of artificial intelligence."

I am not going to wise crack and say that this is power poisioning and this is what happens when your company valuation more than triples in a year and surpasses Amazon and Google. (Although I don't discount this effect completely.)

Jensen is very smart and also has some great wisdom, so I think we should give this the benefit of doubt and try to respond in a thoughtful manner. 

A response is warranted because this statement got a lot of publicity, and created confusion for a wide range of people as this comes with some authority behind it. My brother asked me about this, presumably because he wanted to see how he might want to direct the education of his children.

My response is not motivated by turf-defending or out of job security concerns with the rise of AI. I am a researcher, and my day to day job is not coding/programming. I don't feel threatened a bit about proliferation of AI tools.


Coding is dead, long live coding

With every new advancement in programming languages and technology, this concern came up anew. Some people declared coding is dead, and some people freaked out. What ended up happening over and over is that we just had a higher level specification/abstraction and the demand for coding/programming went up thanks to those new developments. Moreover, old programming languages and their niche still stayed mostly undisturbed. After more than six decades, Cobol is still widely used in applications deployed on mainframe computers, such as large-scale batch and transaction processing jobs.

This comic strip, from CommitStrip (2016), sums it up well. There will always be coding. The abstraction level may go up, we may start using domain specific languages (DSLs), but we will still need to be precise and comprehensive in our specifications to solve real world problems. The world is very complicated, there are corner cases everywhere.

Natural language is ambigious and not suitable for programming. LLMs still need to generate code to get things done. If not inspected carefully, this incurs tech debt at monumental speed of the computers. The natural language prompts are not repeatable/deterministic, they are subject to breaking any time. This makes "natural language programming" unsuitable for even small sized projects, let alone medium to large projects. 

Moreover, some things are inherently very hard, they are AI-complete (to adopt the term NP-complete to the occasion: hardest problems to which solutions can be verified quickly, but not necessarily able to be found in any reasonable time). I use TLA+ for modeling and designing distributed systems and algorithms, I don't see AI replacing that anytime soon. There is simply too much sublety and a great deal of intelligence and expertise is required to work at the design of distributed systems and algorithms.

As my final argument (borrowing from one of my previous posts), I like to mention that a career in computer science and software technology (practicing coding) gives you vital and generally applicable skills: hacking, debugging, abstract thinking, quick learning/adaptation, and organizational skills.

Being supported by AI tools is not a substitute for mastering these skills. You cannot borrow skills/wisdom, you need to earn and own them. As the Turkish proverb says: "You cannot drive a water mill with hand-carried buckets of water". Or as the Amazonian proverb says: "There is no compression algorithm for (hands on) experience".


What next?

Innovation begets innovation. The emergence of new problems and domains is a great equalizer. As we discover things, we find new terrains open up. And a new terrain is a good opportunity to make impact without needing immense resources. AI is taking off (with a long arduous journey ahead), so this is a great opportunity to take up on computer science and coding. AI is software, and one day it will start producing software, so this only means it is a ripe opportunity to learn and work on software.  

For the future, Jensen Huang suggested that "students should focus more on fields like biology, teaching, industry, or farming." This is bad advice again. Let people pursue their passion. (Unlike Calvin Newport, I am strongly on the passion camp.) If any of biology, teaching, industry, or farming is your passion (you will know if it is, it won't be ambiguous), pursue them. But it is very misguided to direct people away from computer science and software technology saying AI will take care of that and make it obsolete.

I think it is time to double down on computer science and software technology. I think we will start seeing computer science and software technology going further in to K12 school curriculum. We will start to see more Pi-shaped people, who have depth at two areas and who pursue generalist applications. After building some depth, being a generalist is a good strategy.

Finally, let me air some grievence about a pet peeve of mine. Imagine the breakthroughs we could achieve, if only we could channel 1% of the resources/effort/interest being directed to researching/developing machine learning to researching/developing human learning.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The way to "talk" with a computer seems to always have been a matter of controversy.
I think the argument of Dijkstra stands the test of time https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667.html
March 15, 2024 at 10:53 AM
Anonymous said…
AI can outperform humans in certain tasks. For example, AI is superhuman at chess. Can AI master the task of coding, and what does that mean for the rest of us?

At the moment, code generation is somewhat limited. Devin, the SOTA in AI software engineering, is capable of relatively simple tasks, and makes glaringly obvious mistakes. Human supervision is still required.

The much more plausible reality is senior+ engineers using AI will increase >=2x productivity, removing previous need for junior engineers. AI models won't replace juniors, but seniors with AI will.

AI's principal restraint is the bedrock of statistical inference, that our models for causation are primitive. Causal reasoning cannot emerge from statistical models generated through observations. A model for causal reasoning would require a breakthrough in statistics or cognitive models. Until then, models are weak in reasoning, and thus coding.

I am interested in how, seemingly, new software products aren't booming around the corner. GPT & co undoubtedly makes a large chunk of coding tasks easier, so you would expect an inspired rise in product entrepreneurship.
March 15, 2024 at 9:50 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hints for Distributed Systems Design

-
This is with apologies to Butler Lampson, who published the " Hints for computer system design " paper 40 years ago in SOSP'83. I don't claim to match that work of course. I just thought I could draft this post to organize my thinking about designing distributed systems and get feedback from others. I start with the same  disclaimer Lampson gave. These hints are not novel, not foolproof recipes, not laws of design, not precisely formulated, and not always appropriate. They are just hints.  They are context dependent, and some of them may be controversial. That being said, I have seen these hints successfully applied in distributed systems design throughout my 25 years in the field, starting from the theory of distributed systems (98-01), immersing into the practice of wireless sensor networks (01-11), and working on cloud computing systems both in the academia and industry ever since. These heuristic principles have been applied knowingly or unknowingly and has proven
Read more >>

Learning about distributed systems: where to start?

-
This is definitely not a "learn distributed systems in 21 days" post. I recommend a principled, from the foundations-up, studying of distributed systems, which will take a good three months in the first pass, and many more months to build competence after that. If you are practical and coding oriented you may not like my advice much. You may object saying, "Shouldn't I learn distributed systems with coding and hands on? Why can I not get started by deploying a Hadoop cluster, or studying the Raft code." I think that is the wrong way to go about learning distributed systems, because seeing similar code and programming language constructs will make you think this is familiar territory, and will give you a false sense of security. But, nothing can be further from the truth. Distributed systems need radically different software than centralized systems do.  --A. Tannenbaum This quotation is literally the first sentence in my distributed systems syllabus. Inst
Read more >>

Making database systems usable

-
Image
C. J. Date's Sigmod 1983 keynote, "Database Usability", was prescient. Usability is the most important thing to the customers. They care less about impressive benchmarks or clever algorithms, and more about whether they can operate and use a database efficiently to query, update, analyze, and persist their data with minimal headache. (BTW, does anyone have a link to the contents of this Sigmod'83 talk? There is no transcript around, except for this short abstract .) The paper we cover today is from Sigmod 2007. It takes on the database usability problem raised in that 1983 keynote head-on, and calls out that the king is still naked.  Let's give some context for the year 2007. Yes, XML format was still popular then. The use-case in the paper is XQuery. The paper does not contain any  reference to json. MongoDB would be released in 2009 with the document model; and that seems to be great timing for some of the usability pains mentioned in the paper! Web 2.0 was in
Read more >>

Looming Liability Machines (LLMs)

-
As part of our zoom reading group ( wow, 4.5 years old now ), we discussed a paper that uses LLMs for automatic root cause analysis (RCA) for cloud incidents. This was a pretty straightforward application of LLMs. The proposed system employs an LLM to match incoming incidents to incident handlers based on their alert types, predicts the incident's root cause category, and provides an explanatory narrative. The only customization is through prompt-engineering. Since this is a custom domain, I think a more principled and custom-designed  machine learning system would be more appropriate rather than adopting LLMs. Anyways, the use of LLMs for RCAs spooked me vicerally. I couldn't find the exact words during the paper discussion, but I can articulate this better now. Let me explain. RCA is serious business Root cause analysis (RCA) is the process of identifying the underlying causes of a problem/incident, rather than just addressing its symptoms. One RCA heuristic is asking 5 Why&#
Read more >>

Foundational distributed systems papers

-
I talked about the importance of reading foundational papers last week. To followup, here is my compilation of foundational papers in the distributed systems area. (I focused on the core distributed systems area, and did not cover networking, security, distributed ledgers, verification work etc. I even left out distributed transactions, I hope to cover them at a later date.)  I classified the papers by subject, and listed them in chronological order. I also listed expository papers and blog posts at the end of each section. Time and State in Distributed Systems Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System. Leslie Lamport, Commn. of the ACM,  1978. Distributed Snapshots: Determining Global States of a Distributed System. K. Mani Chandy Leslie Lamport, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 1985. Virtual Time and Global States of Distributed Systems.  Mattern, F. 1988. Practical uses of synchronized clocks in distributed systems. B. Liskov, 1991. Expository papers
Read more >>

Advice to the young

-
Image
I notice I haven't written any advice posts recently. Here is a collection of my advice posts pre 2020. I've been feeling all this elderly wisdom pent up in me, ready to pour at any moment. So here it goes. Get ready to quench your thirst from my fount of wisdom. No man, think for yourself, only get what works for you. It is called foundations, not theory Foundations of computer science (or rather any field of study) are the most important topics you can learn. These lay down the frame of thinking/perspective for that area of study. Yet, I am saddened to hear these called as "theory", and labeled as "unpractical". This couldn't be farther from the truth. Take a look at how I recommend studying distributed systems . Don't you dare call this "theory" and "unpractical". This lays the bedrock that you build your practice on. Don't skimp on the foundations. Don't build your home on quicksand. Keep your hands dirty, your mind cl
Read more >>

Linearizability: A Correctness Condition for Concurrent Objects

-
Image
This paper is from Herlihy and Wing appeared in ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 1990. This is the canonical reference for the linearizability definition. I had not read this paper in detail before, so I thought it would be good to go to the source to see if there are additional delightful surprises in the original text. Hence, this post. I will dive into a technical analysis of the paper first, and then discuss some of my takes toward the end. I had written an accessible explanation of linearizability earlier; you may want to read that first. I will assume an understanding of linearizability to keep this review at reasonable length. Introduction I love how the old papers just barge in with the model, without bothered by pleasantries such as motivation of the problem. These are the first two sentences of the introduction. "A concurrent system consists of a collection of sequential processes that communicate through shared typed objects . This model encompass
Read more >>

Scalable OLTP in the Cloud: What’s the BIG DEAL?

-
Image
This paper is from Pat Helland, the apostate philosopher of database systems, overall a superb person, and a good friend of mine. The paper appeared this week at CIDR'24. (Check out the program for other interesting papers). The motivating question behind this work is: " What are the asymptotic limits to scale for cloud OLTP (OnLine Transaction Processing) systems? " Pat says that the CIDR 2023 paper "Is Scalable OLTP in the Cloud a Solved Problem?" prompted this question.  The answer to the question? Pat says that the answer lies in the joint responsibility of database and the application. If you know of Pat's work, which I have summarized several in this blog , you would know that Pat has been advocating along these lines before. But this paper provides a very crisp, specific, concrete answer. Read on for my summary of the paper. Disclaimer: This is a wisdom and technical information/detail packed 13-page paper, so I will try my best to summarize the sa
Read more >>

Understanding the Performance Implications of Storage-Disaggregated Databases

-
Image
Storage-compute disaggregation in databases has emerged as a pivotal architecture in cloud environments, as evidenced by Amazon ( Aurora ), Microsoft ( Socrates ), Google (AlloyDB), Alibaba ( PolarDB ), and Huawei (Taurus). This approach decouples compute from storage, allowing for independent and elastic scaling of compute and storage resources. It provides fault-tolerance at the storage level. You can then share the storage for other services, such as adding read-only replicas for the databases. You can even use the storage level for easier sharding of your database. Finally, you can also use this for exporting a changelog asynchronously to feed into peripheral cloud services, such as analytics. Disaggregated architecture was the topic of Sigmod 23 panel . I think this quote summarizes the industry's thinking on the topic. "Disaggregated architecture is here, and is not going anywhere. In a disaggregated architecture, storage is fungible, and computing scales independently.
Read more >>

Designing Data Intensive Applications (DDIA) Book

-
Image
We started reading this book as part of Alex Petrov's book club . We just got started, so you can join us, by joining the discord channel above. We meet Wednesday's 11am Eastern Time.  Previously we had read transaction processing book by Grey and Reuters. This page links to my summaries of that book. Chp 1. Reliable, Scalable, and Maintainable Applications I love the diagrams opening each chapter. Beautiful! The first chapter consists of warm up stuff. It talks about the definitions of reliabilty, scalability, and maintainability. It is still engaging, because  it is written with an educator and technical blogger voice, rather than a dry academic voice. This book came out on 2017. Martin is working on the new version. So if you have comments for things to focus on for the new version, it would be helpful to collect them in a document and email it to Martin. For example, I am curious about how the below paragraph from the Preface will get revised with 8 more years of hindsight:
Read more >>