Today, new my column is released, so I take a day off.

Dancing Buzzword - Behind the Buzzword (12) STEM education(1)

Programming Education Shatter "Fear of AI" and "Illusion of the PC"?

-----

I once wrote a column about the results of a simple simulation of population estimation in Japan, and I received a comment that said, "I don't believe in computer simulation results".

I had no idea what this guy was talking about, but a few days later, I noticed that

"Oh, she thinks that the results of a computer simulation are used as 'hit' or 'not hit'"

By the way, persons (researchers, etc.) who can computer simulations, never believe that the result of their simulation results are future. I will assure that.

It's obvious.

This is because the unknown uncertainties of the future and their values are not known at this time.

This is because there is no way to run a simulation without setting up a hypothesis, such as, "What will happen if the same daily conditions continue for the next 100 days?"

If you can enter a value 100 days into the future in a simulator, then you don't need to do the simulation in the first place.

-----

As I said in this column, this is not an exaggeration or trivialization, but in the truest sense of the word, what the computer is doing is

"just pressing the keys on the calculator"

The only difference is that it is super high volume and super fast.

So the phrase "I don't believe in computer simulation results" was as incomprehensible to me as "I don't believe that 3 + 5 = 8" on a calculator".

-----

However, we know that the results of computer simulations can be delivered to some extent for an unknown future (even if uncertain future events exist).

It's better than a future you can't see at all.That's what computers and programs are all about.

Words like "believe" and "don't believe" appear in the simulation results. That's how little most of us understand computers and programs.

Because who says 'I believe in calculators' or 'I don't believe in calculators'?

-----

In this sense, I have high hopes for compulsory "programming education".

The computer is not a "future prediction machine", but a single bug in the program can produce totally messed up values.

A computer is not a "magic box".

You can see this immediately by writing your own simulation program.

If you experience programming in the Scratch language, even a child should be able to understand it.

Not to mention.

"There's no way that something like this (a program) can be made to surpass human intelligence"

-----

So...

I will continue to say

"If you can make something like that, go ahead and make it"

and

"Show me what you've actually made, and then show me your smug face"