Yes, poorer people are less likely to have the time and resources needed to learn to code. But compared to practically any other discipline, programming is extremely accessible. It only requires a computer, internet access, and time. 85% of the US population has internet access, and (as Sam Altman later says[1]) libraries are available for the less fortunate. Compare that to biology. Or chemistry. Or mechanical engineering. Or becoming a plumber. If you are poor, all of these are harder to learn than coding.
Maurice's story is inspiring, but his bulleted list isn't the only way to become a programmer. Mentors are helpful, but they're certainly not required to learn programming. Ditto for entrepreneurship programs or hacker bootcamps or college education. The only really necessary things are (again) a computer, internet access, and time. Everything else is for widening the funnel. Beneficial? Yes. Worth funding more? Certainly. But not required.
Really, I think the post misses Altman's point. If you read the whole discussion stemming from the original tweet, it's pretty clear that he: 1. Is talking about this in the context of increasing immigration. And 2. Is in favor of more aid for domestic coding education.
In short: They agree vehemently, but Altman's just being honest about the relative difficulty of learning to code.
Right. We're talking about the people more likely to be in the 15%.
>...and (as Sam Altman later says[1]) libraries are available for the less fortunate. Compare that to biology. Or chemistry. Or mechanical engineering. Or becoming a plumber.
That seems a little disingenuous or at least dismissive. You really can't compare the experience of learning to program on your own laptop, where you can install your own software and work in the comfort of your own home, to a public library that you have to walk to 30 minutes each way in a cold and dangerous neighborhood, to use a machine that is probably 10 years old and requires you to use internet explorer and prevents you from installing anything at all.
In fact, if it were really that easy to learn programming on the web, then it should be just as easy to learn biology or chemistry or mechanical engineering. The information is all on wikipedia-- there's even web courses on Coursera that people can take that are taught by some of the best lecturers in the world. You can even fill in gaps in your K-12 knowledge via Khan Academy.
> Mentors are helpful, but they're certainly not required to learn programming.
I'm going to say this is just false. I do not know anyone who is a competent programmer who has never interacted with someone else. I do know plenty of people who have tried to learn how to program and given up because they got stuck and couldn't figure out how to get to the next level. Having that mentor there is crucial even for the most determined individual.
> The only really necessary things are (again) a computer, internet access, and time.
This is exactly OP's point. The kid in this story has none of these, except the time component. And as he gets older and has to work his way through college, that free time is going to shrink even more while he has to compete with people who are increasingly better prepared for the courses he's in.
I think overall that coding is simply easier than the other disciplines you're comparing it to. People who learn "how to program" are not learning computer science, in the same way that people teaching themselves how to cook meth aren't learning chemical engineering. They're both just people who are motivated to learn a specific skill that is in high demand and lets them see the product of their work directly and immediately. The quality of that work though will suffer if they don't receive a more well-rounded education in the general field, which is much harder to receive without mentoring, time, money, and all the other conveniences of middle class life.
You've written a lot of text, and I don't have time to respond to all of it. I think, like O'Neill and Altman, we agree vehemently on a lot, including what should be done to help the disadvantaged.
Where we disagree, I think the disagreement is mostly due to definitions and life experience.
With regard to definitions: The article talks about tech's high barrier to entry, yet as I pointed out, it seems to have one of the lowest barriers of any profession. If you still want to say tech has a high barrier to entry, then you must also say the same for chemistry, bio, plumbing, hairdressing, and music. Unlike programming, one can't learn those skills with just a computer and internet access. They require hands-on work with chemicals, instruments, specialized tools, and other apparati. In contrast, the only physical device required to learn programming is a computer. Everything else is software.
With regard to life experience: I learned to write C and Perl on a 486 at school. I could only use it before and after classes. It had no internet access, though I did have the right books to consult. I didn't have a computer at home until the middle of high school, when I bought one with money from a summer job. I had no mentors. Later, my brother learned Python and JavaScript on his own. Again, no mentors or teachers. I wouldn't say I'm great at writing code, but I make a living as a software engineer. My brother could do the same, but he's more interested in math.
In a nation of over 300 million people, you'll always be able to find some people who are SOL. And of course we should help those people. Organizations like Codestarter[1] are doing great work. But when it comes to learning programming, most Americans today have better opportunities than my brother or I did. This includes spare time. The average American spends hours every day watching television or browsing Facebook.
So if most have the opportunity, then why is the supply of programmers so low? I think, more than anything, lack of interest is what keeps people away from tech. To most people, programming looks as fun as filling out a tax return where all fields must be answered in Latin palindromes. It's boring, tedious, and frustrating beyond belief.
I volunteer tutoring underprivileged middle/high school kids in math and programming. People might be surprised how little effort it takes to help out with this sort of thing. And it's one of the most rewarding things I've ever done (I don't think I've ever written a more cliche comment, but it's true).
I'm actually working on a game-engine/teaching-aid for the class right no. I could use some help if anyone's interested. https://github.com/Glank/PACGameDev
Being poor works against you in many ways - but one of the worst things that it does is blind you to what you can accomplish. If you don't have a view of that, it's hard to set out with the ambition to achieve anything. Nevermind that being underprivileged you need an order of magnitude greater ambition to succeed in the first place.
Maurice's story is inspiring, but his bulleted list isn't the only way to become a programmer. Mentors are helpful, but they're certainly not required to learn programming. Ditto for entrepreneurship programs or hacker bootcamps or college education. The only really necessary things are (again) a computer, internet access, and time. Everything else is for widening the funnel. Beneficial? Yes. Worth funding more? Certainly. But not required.
Really, I think the post misses Altman's point. If you read the whole discussion stemming from the original tweet, it's pretty clear that he: 1. Is talking about this in the context of increasing immigration. And 2. Is in favor of more aid for domestic coding education.
In short: They agree vehemently, but Altman's just being honest about the relative difficulty of learning to code.
1. https://twitter.com/sama/status/549746694900813825