I mostly share Josh's opinion, but I think a lot of these posts that talk about Senior vs. Junior experience when working with AIs is kind of rubbish. Sure, you get better results as a Senior working with AI tooling and struggle more as a Junior. Nothing has changed in that equation except the amplification.
What folks seem to avoid is that a Junior (in ANY subject) has the ability to LEARN so much faster with an AI research assistant, and that becoming an expert has accelerated for those with the personal stamina to dig deep (this as a requirement hasn't changed). I spend just as much time with my AI tooling asking questions as I do asking it to "build" or "fix" things. "How does this work?". "Can you suggest other tools?".
I think some people always think about AI as an input / output relationship, when a lot of the time, the fiddling in between, with or without AI was always the important part. Yes people will suck in the beginning, against they always did. I think the good folks though will suck for a MUCH shorter time than I did getting into things.
A lot of people will drop out and get discouraged. That happened before too. Learning things requires persistence. I think the only real case to be made is that AI's sense of immediate pleasure can neuter people away from running into friction. AI natives likely won't understand friction and question it.
> What folks seem to avoid is that a Junior (in ANY subject) has the ability to LEARN so much faster with an AI research assistant,
You don't learn by reading, you learn by doing.
In this case, simply reading the output of an LLM isn't going to substantially educate you.
You’re not as senior as you think if you think reading code isn’t worth it. Do you think novelists just write novels from nothing? They read books. Software developers need to read software, too. When was the last time you read the code for the best open source software in your industry? I routinely read the libraries I use.
> You’re not as senior as you think
Classy.
> if you think reading code isn’t worth it.
I didn't say that.
With anything you learn, sure, you need to read it, but you haven't actually learned it until you try to do it.
As millions of teenagers find out in high school, it is not possible to "learn" trigonometry or calculus by reading the problems; they actually have to drill problems to pass.
> Do you think novelists just write novels from nothing? They read books.
Excellent example! Even with novelists, and professional authors, they only get better by writing. Face it - millions of people read just as much as (even more) than best selling authors, and yet those millions are unable to produce anything of note.
> When was the last time you read the code for the best open source software in your industry?
All the time; how else would I know that simply reading is not sufficient to learn something?
I'm surprised that this point is even in contention; it is almost common knowledge that you can't learn from reading alone; it's the practice that results in learning, not the reading.
>I think the only real case to be made is that AI's sense of immediate pleasure can neuter people away from running into friction. AI natives likely won't understand friction and question it.
This is key, I think, and gets overshadowed by people being offended by seeing bad vibecode or claims of 10x speeds, etc.
The most important learning that happens is not when we ask and get the answer to our question right away. It's when we stretch ourselves to seek out the answer, fail a few times, think deeply, then perhaps after a nap, solve the problem. That kind of knowledge is priceless because it not only gets you an answer it gets you some errant paths you can use to avoid problems in future problem solving as well as getting you increased trust in your own thinking.
If the next generations skip this step, they'll always think answers are supposed to be easy to find and will find themselves more and more dependent on AI and less and less confident in their own brains.
> If the next generations skip this step, they'll always think answers are supposed to be easy to find and will find themselves more and more dependent on AI and less and less confident in their own brains
This seems like a very polite way of saying they will become less intelligent and less capable
> a Junior (in ANY subject) has the ability to LEARN so much faster with an AI research assistant
I’m not seeing this. And based on what we’re seeing at the university level, I’m not expecting to.
I think the key word is ability, and I fully agree with that. Using GenAI as a teaching aid can supercharge learning, especially as it makes it very easy to learn by doing. The problem is that people use GenAI to do and hence don't learn.
(The preliminary research so far supports this: using AI to do the hard assignments produces poor learning outcomes, but using AI as a tutor, or even just for help with the hard assignments, produces slightly better learning outcomes.)
I think what you're seeing is the effect of the incentives of the system. The system uses simplistic numbers like grades as proxies for actual learning, and these grades heavily influence students' job prospects, and so you're simply seeing Goodhart's Law in action. Given how easy current methods of skill assessment are to game with AI, my guess is the entire system has to be overhauled.
> using AI as a tutor, or even just for help with the hard assignments, produces slightly better learning outcomes
Source? The few people I’ve seen try to do this wind up with a terrible understanding of the material, with large knowledge gaps and one or two fundamental fuckups. In every case, an introductory textbook would have been better. (It would also have been harder.)
For coding specifically (there are many studies out there by now, but I know of these offhand):
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/10/4115 -- probably the earliest one of its kind, finds over-reliance degrades critical skills but supplementary use is mostly harmless.
https://arxiv.org/html/2601.20245v2 -- Anthropic's study, same as above except supplementary use (like clarifying concepts) can actually be beneficial.
https://scale.stanford.edu/ai/repository/ai-meets-classroom-... -- "Students who use LLMs as personal tutors by conversing about the topic and asking for explanations benefit from usage. However, learning is impaired for students who excessively rely on LLMs to solve practice exercises for them and thus do not invest sufficient own mental effort." Interestingly, they found simply disabling copy-paste on the chatbot interface resulted in better outcomes!
Beyond coding, I recently came across this new meta-study; largely positive findings (which it admits may be biased) but does highlight evidence of negative effects of over-reliance: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666920X2...
(Multiple studies find that the outcome depends on how AI is used. Surprisingly, incorrect guidance / unreliability / hallucinations appear to be a bigger problem than over-reliance! That could also explain poor performance in some cases.)
My intuition, supported by these studies, is that as long as students are willing to do the hard cognitive work -- for which there is no substitute, really -- having LLM assistance is a boon. Which makes sense, it's comparable to having a tutor explain difficult concepts. This is why in my mind the real problem is that the incentives to use AI as a crutch are just too strong.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.04721
Yes, I agree, the skills are orthogonal. Digital typesetting is vastly quicker than manually putting down metal type, and since you’re exposed to more type you have the opportunity to learn faster. But getting good at typography with digital tools will help you very little if you need to lay out type manually.
> getting good at typography with digital tools will help you very little if you need to lay out type manually
The analogy is unlimited typing in Gmail won’t make you a better writer or typesetter on its own.
I wonder how much of this is due to poor incentives at the university level?
I've seen this work well at a job when there's a feedback loop for juniors that incentivized them to learn with more scope and compensation
How did that business evaluate that the juniors were actually mastering concepts they had not known before?
> has the ability to LEARN so much faster with an AI research assistant, and that becoming an expert has accelerated for those with the personal stamina to dig deep (this as a requirement hasn't changed)
If anything it allows to be as lazy as possible. I have not seen anyone digging deeper with the AI tools.
I have been having a blast going back through topics I learned in college and haven't used in years. Being able to rubber duck specific questions and follow a path based on what I remember vs don't is much faster with LLM than it would be with textbook. However, I'm doing this because it is personally fun. I'm guessing if presented with a task I wasn't interested in the LLM would create exactly the opposite outcome. Thankfully I'm at a point in my career where I don't have a lot of stuff forced on me externally so this hasn't come up, but I can picture teenage me taking a much lazier path with a much different end result.
If you decide to dig deeper, it's an incredible tool. Getting a summary of the internals of something you only use as an API, then getting it to test you on it until you understand. It really allows you to learn a lot.
> a Junior (in ANY subject) has the ability to LEARN so much faster with an AI research assistant
This is a testable hypotheses with severe lack of citations. Intuition would argue the opposite. We learn by using our brains, if we offload the thinking to a machine and copy their output we don‘t learn. A child does not learn multiplication by using a calculator, and a language learner will not learn a new language by machine translating every sentence. In both cases all they’ve learnt is using a tool to do what they skipped learning.
This seems to me like one of those things where people go into it with widely different initial assumptions.
1. AI is for cheating and doing the work for you. Obviously it won't help you learn faster because you won't have to do any thinking at all.
2. AI is an always-available question answering machine. It's like having a teaching assistant who you can ask about anything at any time. This means you can greatly accelerate the process of learning new things.
I'm in team 2, but given how many people are in team 1 (and may not even acknowledge team 2 as even being a possibility) I suspect there may be some core values or different-types-of-people factors at play here.
This is also a testable hypothesis. I would like to see usage statistics before making assumptions here but my gut feeling is that an overwhelming AI usage (like > 90%) would fall into your category 1.
But even with category 2. I think that still does not absolve AI as a cheating machine. Doing research is a skill and if you ask AI to do the research for you that is a skill a junior developer simply never learns.
This is interesting and relevant: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095947522...
"The expertise reversal effect is present when instructional assistance leads to increased learning gains in novices, but decreased learning gains in experts."
There's a whole lot of depth to the question of how AI tools support or atrophy learning for different levels of expertise.
Actually, you're both right. Using AI as a supplementary learning aid -- i.e. students use AI as a personalized tutor but still do the assignments themselves -- produces better outcomes. But using AI as a crutch -- i.e. using it to do the assignments -- produces worse outcomes.
There is even preliminary research evidence for this, e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/10/4115 and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666920X2...
> students use AI as a personalized tutor but still do the assignments themselves.
So your first study actually concludes the opposite. It concluded that all AI users performed worse, but the effect was smaller for students which used AI as a tutor.
The second meta analysis I don‘t quite understand. I understand they conclude that using AI tutor shows significant improvement, but I don‘t understand the methodology. I may be misunderstanding but it seems to simply count papers which shows positive outcomes and reaches conclusion that way. I think that methodology is deeply flawed as it will amplify whichever biases are present in the studies it uses. I also think the lack of control groups is a major issues. If we are comparing AI tutor to nothing, off course the AI tutor is gonna perform better. We need to compare to traditional methods. And this is especially relevant in our discussion because junior developers usually have excellent access to senior developers (via peer review, pair programing, etc.), much better then student’s access to tutors for that matter.
So out of the meta-analysis I picked the paper with the strongest claim (trying to steel-man it) which is this one: https://online-journal.unja.ac.id/JIITUJ/article/view/34809/...
It claims the following in the abstract:
> The results indicated that students employing AI tutors shown significant improvements in problem-solving and personalized learning compared to the control group.
Now when I look at the control group it claims this (also in the abstract):
> Participants were allocated to a control group receiving conventional training and an experimental group utilizing AI technology,
But when I look into the methodology section I see this:
> The researchers classified the patients into two groups: MathGPT and Flexi 2.0
MathGPT and Flexi 2.0 are both AI tutors. Now I am confused, where is the control group and how was this “conventional training conducted”?
The methodology section actually tells a different story from the abstract:
> This research utilized a quantitative methodology via a quasi-experimental design.
By quasi-experimental design they mean that they tested the same students before and after AI intervention. And concluded that the AI tutor helped them improve. Now this is not what control group means, so the researchers are actually lying by omission in the abstract. This is a spectacularly bad experimental design and I wonder how it would pass peer review, so I look at the publisher Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Terapan Universitas Jambi. So not exactly a reputable journal.
I still stand by my no evidence for a testable hypotheses. I suspect that your first link is actually correct in that AI is bad for students and just less bad if it is used as a tutor.
As a precondition I think we have to assume that the person in question 1) wants to learn and 2) is smart enough to absorb new info and apply it and 3) reflects enough to adjust their approach when hitting bottlenecks or making mistakes 4) has a drive to create. Without these, self driven learning is not viable - and that has very little to do with AI.
For such a person, I believe AI can be very empowering for learning. Like Google, wikipedia and stack overflow, Arxiv before it - AI tools give access to a lot of information. It allows to quickly dig deep into any topic you can imagine. And yes, the quality is variable - so one needs to find ways to filter and synthesize from imperfect info. But that was also the case before. Furthermore AI tools can be used to find holes in arguments or a paper. And by coding one can use it to test out things in practice. These are also powerful (albeit imperfect) learning tools. But they will not apply themselves.
Who is talking about self driven learning? Every workplace teachers their juniors how to do their job, and how to become better at their jobs.
And as we are talking about junior developers it is safe to assume your conditions (1), (2), and (4) are all true, if any of them are false, then why did that person apply for and get a job as a junior developer? As for condition (3), all workplaces eventually hires a person who does not fulfill this, then they either fire that person, or they give them a talk and the developer grows out of it and changes their behavior to fulfill that condition.
Aside: you listed 4 conditions for learning. I am not sure these are actually conditions recognized as such by behavior science. In fact, I doubt they are and that these conditions are just your opinions (man).
There are other axes as well.
Companies with AI will move faster than those without.
AI itself could subsume what we collectively consider as Engineering Taste.
AI is faster at what it does. So even if a junior costs less on his own than AI. Paying extra for AI means gaining first mover advantage.
> AI itself could subsume what we collectively consider as Engineering Taste.
Only if AI feeds on more taste than garbage.
Harness Session data will be used for RL and that will inject taste into the models, perhaps??
> that becoming an expert has accelerated for those with the personal stamina to dig deep (this as a requirement hasn't changed)
This is a contradictory statement imo.
Digging deep still takes the same amount of time it used to. AI accelerates the surface level (badly, tbh), it doesn't accelerate digging deep. Becoming an expert still takes time and effort, there really aren't shortcuts.
To torture the Iron Man metaphor a bit. If you're not an expert without the AI, then you're not an expert with it.
Smart, motivated juniors have incredible tools to amplify their learning and capabilities.