Someone has inquired about learning computer programming in C#?  I'd be willing to teach some classes, but there would have to be some serious interest.  IMO, it would take about 2 years of part-time work (without being too aggressive in terms of schedule and time commitment) to absorb the concepts.  There are these "boot camps" out there, but IMO they're a scam, as the pace is too fast for someone to truly absorb what needs to be absorbed.  At the same time, 4 year colleges and universities are a total scam, where 3/4 of your coursework is in areas outside your "Major" field of studies, calculated to keep throngs of Leftist art history professors employed.  AND the professors of Computer Science have either never or only decades ago actually written software for a living.  Often they teach abstract concepts using antiquated and barely used computer languages.

I have had thoughts to start up a "school" that would offer Bacherlor Degrees ... although they'd be "unaccredited".  If you put on your resume that you have a Bachelor's from this institution, nowhere are you claiming that it's from an "accredited university".  I've never had a prospective employer check with my university about whether I had actually ever even gone there.  But if they do, I'd be prepared to send information explaining why this degree is superior to that of a 4-year university.  I've had to deal with new-hire "Computer Science" grads before, and they knew next to nothing, and left me wondering why they had paid $100,000 in college tuition.

I live in Ravenna, OH, and I would start up an institution, "Ravenna Institute of Technology".  I would do this based on a tuition-by-honor system plan.  No tuition at all unless and until you get a job in the field, and then you would pay back over time what you felt it was worth to you.  Of course, I would only do that for Traditional Catholics.

This wouldn't be for everybody.  Not everyone has the aptitude to do well in computer programming.  If you did well in math and like math, that might be a hint that you'd have the aptitude for it and interest in it.  This course would assume no prior knowledge of computer programming, however, though some kind of aptitude is essential.  I started doing this type of course just for my son, but at some point he decided he didn't really like it, and I agreed that it probably didn't suit his temperament.  He was also the type who would get frustrated if he didn't 100% understand something immediately.  Even after I had gained a lot of experience, some new concepts took much repetition before there was an "aha" moment and I completely understood it.  So perseverence is important.  I think that it would take about 2 years to get familiar enough with programming to become effective enough to be employed as a programmer.  One could go at a more aggressive pace, but I think that a slower pace that allows concepts to "sink in" is much more effective, and then of course you don't have to dedicate your entire life to it as well, if you have other duties in life.

I think that the course would consist of about an hour of lecture per week, which could be recorded and made available for streaming later and for subsequent review, and at the end of each lecture, there would be a significant amount of "homework".  Students in the class would then be free to e-mail me if they run into issue or have problems.  I've found that you don't REALLY learn something until you get in there and work with it hands on.  If you don't have a 10:1 ratio between hands-on work and lecture, then IMO you're not going to really learn the subject matter.  You just HAVE to struggle and make mistakes and run into bugs and get frustrated.  Then in addition to the initial lecture, we could have group code reviews session of the completed assignments.  So between the initial lecture (which could involve either a video or leaning some concept in some other way, including from videos by others), lots of hands' on work, and then review of and feedback on the work, I think you could become a very effective programmer and run circles around the 4-year-college Comp Sci degree graduates in less than 2 years.

Just send me a PM if you're interested.

I'd do this mostly to help out fellow Traditional Catholcs, to keep them from having to go to the cesspools that are modern universities in order to get a job that pays well and can support a family ... but also because I'd be rebelling at the utter and absolute scam that is the 4-year university.  So many young people are being brainwashed into thinking that a 4-year-university degree is necessary.  In some fields, you just can't escape it, as there are various certification boards involved, but in many fields it's a huge waste of money and time ... and subjects young people to potential corruption at these universities.

When I was in positions to hire people, I often opted for someone without the degree who seemed brighter and had more concrete actual skills than for the degreed Computer Science major.  In fact, I got to a point where I would not even look at a Comp Sci major who didn't have a least a couple years of experience, since I came to believe that the degree is utterly worthless.

I think that there is a drawback and risk to not charging any tuition.  I could put a lot of effort into this only for individuals to drop out due to lack of perseverance, getting distracted, etc.  So I'm not quite sure how I would approach it.  I put a lot of time in with my son, and it went for naught.

Practice makes perfect. I used to hunt and peck, now I no longer waste time hunting. Learning to play a musical keyboard helped me naturally start using more fingers while typing.

Honestly I don't really believe in AI. I've never seen any AI that did anything I could verify that was all that impressive. Are you able to recreate what the person claims to have done in this video?

I speak from ignorance, but. Do you think that a large part of programmer jobs may disappear in the next few years with the advancement of AI? GPT can now make entire software just by asking it. And it's only a few months old.

Just from my experience, probably not. They might attempt to use this to fill in some of the holes, but there is a severe shortage of skilled programmers already. There is a surplus of "qualified" individuals, especially from non-Western countries. That said, the spam potential of GPT does provide an excuse for TPTB to implement digital ID in the future.

I speak from ignorance, but. Do you think that a large part of programmer jobs may disappear in the next few years with the advancement of AI? GPT can now make entire software just by asking it. And it's only a few months old.

https://twitter.com/ammaar/status/1635754631228952576

Perhaps eventually ... no sooner than a decade, AI might cause a drastic drop in the number of programmers needed.  But it's still pretty far off.  GPT-produced software is still not particularly good; it can do relatively simple things, but nothing particularly complicated.  But even for GPT, it's the old saying of "garbage in, garbage out".  If the requirements are not specified adequately (much of the challenge with programming), there will be all kinds of issues.  If it gets to that point, a lot of programmers would convert to being solution architects or business analysts to actually feed the requirements properly into AI systems.

I know that the banks, IRS, fed, NASA, and many others still rely on sometimes 40- or 50- year old systems that need to be integrated with, and there are all kinds of architectural considerations required to determine the best integration patterns based on the required system "quality attributes".

Just from my experience, probably not. They might attempt to use this to fill in some of the holes, but there is a severe shortage of skilled programmers already. There is a surplus of "qualified" individuals, especially from non-Western countries. That said, the spam potential of GPT does provide an excuse for TPTB to implement digital ID in the future.

Indeed, if GPT could replace some of these "offshore" teams from India that are a horrific nightmare for me (as we speak, at my current company), I would be grateful, but I don't think it'll replace skilled programmer and architects anytime soon.  That's probably at least a decade off.

Honestly I don't really believe in AI. I've never seen any AI that did anything I could verify that was all that impressive. Are you able to recreate what the person claims to have done in this video?

Agreed.  There's no such thing as true "AI".  They're promoting the notion of AI for philosophical reasons, in their attempt to claim that the human mind and human consciousness can be reduced to material causes.  It feeds into the entire God-less evolution agenda.  I could see demons taking possession of such computers to give the appearance of being sentient, but actual "AI" is not possible.

They've been predicting programmer-free software design since the 1980's. Remember Visual Basic?
It's a fundamental truth: You can't have design without a designer.

As long as they want things designed, they're going to need human engineers to design it. Computers will never be able to take over, because they're dumb as rocks. Fast, but stupid. Without a human intellect to program them, they can't do anything useful.

But of course some modern idiots think that something as complex and wonderful as LIVING ANIMALS came about by random chance -- no designer required. 1 million monkeys typing at 1 million typewriters for 1 million years could eventually write the works of Shakespeare by accident. Yeah right!

Humans aren't good at mind-boggling numbers. It DOES make sense, yes. But what they don't grasp is this: before those monkeys came up with Shakespeare, it would take 10 to the 3000th power years, and the universe would die a heat death before then. All the stars in the universe would burn out first. So effectively it IS impossible.

Some creationist ran the numbers. They first pointed out that according to mathematicians and scientists, anything more than 10 to the 40th or so is considered "impossible". Then they gave us the "bad news" on how long it would take to create one strand of DNA... It was glorious. I don't have the video handy, but I think I own it somewhere.