Sector: education

Article by Steve Lohr: “John Giorgi uses artificial intelligence to make artificial intelligence.

The 29-year-old computer scientist creates software for a health care start-up that records and summarizes patient visits for doctors, freeing them from hours spent typing up clinical notes.

To do so, Mr. Giorgi has his own timesaving helper: an A.I. coding assistant. He taps a few keys and the software tool suggests the rest of the line of code. It can also recommend changes, fetch data, identify bugs and run basic tests. Even though the A.I. makes some mistakes, it saves him up to an hour many days.

“I can’t imagine working without it now,” Mr. Giorgi said.

That sentiment is increasingly common among software developers, who are at the forefront of adopting A.I. agents, assistant programs tailored to help employees do their jobs in fields including customer service and manufacturing. The rapid improvement of the technology has been accompanied by dire warnings that A.I. could soon automate away millions of jobs — and software developers have been singled out as prime targets.

But the outlook for software developers is more likely evolution than extinction, according to experienced software engineers, industry analysts and academics. For decades, better tools have automated some coding tasks, but the demand for software and the people who make it has only increased.

A.I., they say, will accelerate that trend and level up the art and craft of software design.

“The skills software developers need will change significantly, but A.I. will not eliminate the need for them,” said Arnal Dayaratna, an analyst at IDC, a technology research firm. “Not anytime soon anyway.”

The outlook for software engineers offers a window into the impact that generative A.I. — the kind behind chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT — is likely to have on knowledge workers across the economy, from doctors and lawyers to marketing managers and financial analysts. Predictions about the technology’s consequences vary widely, from wiping out whole swaths of the work force to hyper-charging productivity as an elixir for economic growth…(More)”.

Article by Karen Mansfield, Sakshi Ghai, Thomas Hakman, Nick Ballou, Matti Vuorre, and Andrew K Przybylski: “…we critically evaluate the limitations and underlying challenges of existing research into the negative mental health consequences of internet-mediated technologies on young people. We argue that identifying and proactively addressing consistent shortcomings is the most effective method for building an accurate evidence base for the forthcoming influx of research on the effects of artificial intelligence (AI) on children and adolescents. Basic research, advice for caregivers, and evidence for policy makers should tackle the challenges that led to the misunderstanding of social media harms. The Personal View has four sections: first, we conducted a critical appraisal of recent reviews regarding effects of technology on children and adolescents’ mental health, aimed at identifying limitations in the evidence base; second, we discuss what we think are the most pressing methodological challenges underlying those limitations; third, we propose effective ways to address these limitations, building on robust methodology, with reference to emerging applications in the study of AI and children and adolescents’ wellbeing; and lastly, we articulate steps for conceptualising and rigorously studying the ever-shifting sociotechnological landscape of digital childhood and adolescence. We outline how the most effective approach to understanding how young people shape, and are shaped by, emerging technologies, is by identifying and directly addressing specific challenges. We present an approach grounded in interpreting findings through a coherent and collaborative evidence-based framework in a measured, incremental, and informative way…(More)”