AI absolutely is having a major effect on computer science (and other education domains, of course). But I feel the bigger problem is what AI highlights: the vast majority of students are just in school because it's society's way of making them cogs in the economic growth machine. It's not too meaningful, and there are always jobs that they can get that don't require being independent, creative, and a thinking person. I mean, after getting a PhD, I got a job that used about 5% of what I learned in school. Most of the programming I did, I already learned in high school...
To be honest, I think the world is being so disrupted by AI because before AI, we paved the way for it by making society operate where people don't matter, curiosity doesn't matter, and being a thinking individual doesn't matter. (The exception are the 1% very independent intellectual types who DO think and solve problems, but they are the exception who have carved themselves a niche where they can satisfy their intellectual urges and they generally care sufficiently about their curiosity so that they have found a place for themselves outside the majority).
> I got a job that used about 5% of what I learned in school.
1. That's not a bad percentage at all actually. I would say that is as its should be; it would not make sense for jobs to involve a huge amount of knowledge from multiple fields, unless your job is in a trivia gameshow or editing an encyclopedia. Although perhaps some jobs are indirectly like that, e.g. science fiction author.
2. You may have used 5%, and the same may be true for most other people - but for each kind of work it's a different 5%
> Most of the programming I did, I already learned in high school...
Then, either you stayed in high school for decades, or you've done little programming, or your programming is poor, or you're in some negligible statistical margin of people who program very well without any prior experience. Personally, I do quite a bit of programming and I'm still learning / honing my skills after 20 years. (Not to mention how programming languages and paradigms change over time.)
> 1. That's not a bad percentage at all actually. I would say that is as its should be; it would not make sense for jobs to involve a huge amount of knowledge from multiple fields, unless your job is in a trivia gameshow or editing an encyclopedia. Although perhaps some jobs are indirectly like that, e.g. science fiction author
Boring though. But university researchers for example use a lot more than that. At least when I was in research for a time, I used probably 80% of what I learned, if not more. And now that I've gone independent, I use a lot more too because I enjoy it.
One of the main reasons why I quit was in fact intellectual boredom.
The truth is that most things we do that society values doesn't require/benefit from curiosity or being a thinking individual.
I don't think we did anything in particular to make things like this. It's more a natural result of unrelated things in the structure of our society.
Is it possible to develop or learn deeply without a curiosity?
Develop? Yes. Learn? No, I'd say. But you only learn to develop, not just for learning's sake.
> I think the world is being so disrupted by AI
Is it? I’m seeing a lot of potential for AI/LLMs to distrupt in the future but I don’t really see it happening yet though
5% almost seems to be a lot..