F
They've added some new feature that will pull up a little virtual machine and it will let you run the code in there. It also seems to test that the code will at least compile first.
I worry that people seem to think that the LLM just... "evolved" these features when clearly a human person had to add them.
They are middle school kids totally new to programming so reading the whole thing is a challenge and they will encounter too many words they are still learning.
And really their errors are nearly always typos. Or not putting their function call in main body of the program. Or using a variable they have not defined.
So, for them reading deep isn't that important IMO.
The responses can be very verbose and technical.
"Now I'm curious about whether LLMs' code compiles and executes error-free on their first attempt."
At first it did not, but they have added a routine to run it through a compiler until it at least runs without syntax errors and probably produces output that seems like what you asked for for a limited example of input.
This is a bolted on extra check, not some improvement in the base LLM.
But some people are acting like it does represent advances in the LLM.
I'm kind of shocked that functions are hard. Are they hard for students who understand functions in the context of mathematics?
Tangentially related:
"AI can write code so why teach how to code?"
"Great point! It can write an essay too, so why teach how to read."
Like. We've had calculators for decades and still teach arithmetic. And functionally the average person needs to know probably more about mathematics and needs to read more than they did a century ago. The same will apply for code.
A series of videos with silly music in the style of "funny cats" completions of:
* people seeing something in the woods and panicking and running away
* people falling over with shock when they notice whatever is holding the camera
* people "trying to make themselves look bigger" and banging pots as some bear attack advice suggests
* people passed out sleeping in sleeping bags, big hairy hand enters the frame and arranges some items in and eerie manner
deep creature-like snickering
It's always been a thing though I do think it's been getting a little better.
Well perhaps they have nostalgia for those responsibility-free middle school days.
Why what?
I'm certain you know of Simon Stålenhag's artwork.
I suppose I wonder if *he* is familiar with your fantastic photography.
I don't know if I understand. Are you saying he's tired of hearing you complain about this person because to him you aren't fixing it?
I think I've lost the thread here.
They aren't getting mad at me. I'm just fretting over if they might be mad... and not telling me. This is a theme.
I'm always worried someone is mad about something and not telling me.
I do this with my older students and with those with more experience. This is the one course that I teach that EVERYONE must take. So there are kids there who have never programmed anything. Kids who were confused when I had them use a computer with a mouse since they'd never seen one in person before.
I'm glad we have such a course. But they just don't know enough to do this yet.
And I have an agenda: I want them to have fun.
My students are too hard working and sensitive to deserve such things.
But.
Well, I have met other people in my life.
"Error handling code is code."
It had not occurred to me that a student might not see it that way "some guy wrote code to try to tell you what went wrong" but I can see how this might not be how a student might see the errors.
It's like when I realized as a kid that all books are just ... written by people. A revelation. I think I thought, on some level, books were a natural product of the universe. When I realized they could have typos, bad ideas it was so exciting.
Like if someone offered me an assistant I'd say "that's OK." the class size is reasonable 12-18 students. I just need to help them understand errors better.
These are middle school kids. I don't think they need someone to rush over and help them. I want them to think about "my code won't run" in a different way.
Sometimes I have them write the code on paper with the computers closed. And this is fine, but I'd rather have them using the IDE or textedit and there is a limit to how much fun you can have with code on paper.
And it does tend to be the weaker students who are almost happy to find something to stop the onslaught of information "see it doesn't work! we can't go on!" and that obviously makes me very grouchy.
I need them to see this is like saying "Teacher my pencil broke! Stop the lesson!"
Sometimes when you are teaching you need to stop the lecture, change the plan because there is an error in the worksheet, or the problem is too hard.
What's really annoying me is that some students think that when their code doesn't run this is "a problem with the lesson" I should stop everything until we fix it.
But, my lesson is fine. The student just made a typo.
They are so focused on the code running they aren't listening to the lesson which would teach them WHY it's not running.
"I usually have clear me/them speaking parts in the course. While I speak, they listen, which I enforce up to the last whisper.
Also, the "me" parts only take 15-20 minutes each"
This is how I normally teach (although with middle school students I keep "me" bits to under 8 min each) this is why it's so annoying when they call out during these sections. Something they wouldn't ever do normally.
Something about coding and seeing the error makes them not see it as "time to listen"