Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

The centaur programmer -- How Kasparov's Advanced Chess spans over to the software development of the future

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2304.11172 v1 pith:K7TAJS4D submitted 2023-04-21 cs.HC cs.CY

classification cs.HCcs.CY
keywords centaurhumansmodelprogrammingchessfutureprogrammershould
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce the idea of Centaur Programmer, based on the premise that a collaborative approach between humans and AI will be more effective than AI alone, as demonstrated in centaur chess tournaments where mixed teams of humans and AI beat sole computers. The paper introduces several collaboration models for programming alongside an AI, including the guidance model, the sketch model, and the inverted control model, and suggests that universities should prepare future programmers for a more efficient and productive programming environment augmented with AI. We hope to contribute to the important discussion about the diverse ways whereby humans and AI can work together in programming in the next decade, how universities should handle these changes and some legal implications surrounding this topic.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. "Give me the code" -- Log Analysis of First-Year CS Students' Interactions With GPT

    cs.CY 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    First-year CS students, given no prompt training, mostly obtained usable code from ChatGPT and often incorporated it, though only about half chose between two alternatives in a way the authors count as critical judgment.

Pith tools