I’ve been thinking about this for the past week.
There was this guy who apparently solved all 10/10 questions in an ICPC initial online round and was flaunting it because almost no one else had done the same.
Most likely, there was some unfair tactic involved. Otherwise, I don’t think the post would have been deleted later.
But the incident made me think about something much bigger.
If AI keeps getting better at programming, problem solving, debugging, reasoning, and even competitive coding, what happens to people who spend years becoming good at these things?
Will companies still care about DSA?
Will they still hire programmers for their problem-solving ability?
And if an AI can solve the same problem faster than you, why should anyone hire you at all?
For a while, it genuinely felt like computer science as we know it might be approaching an uncomfortable turning point.
But after thinking about it, researching, questioning it repeatedly, and looking at it from different angles, I reached a different conclusion.
AI gives almost everyone access to extremely powerful intelligence.
That means producing an answer will become easier.
Writing code will become easier.
Solving certain problems will become easier.
And because of that, simply having the answer may become less impressive.
What becomes more valuable is whether you can actually think.
Can you understand the problem?
Can you question assumptions?
Can you evaluate different solutions?
Can you explain your reasoning?
Can you decide what should be built in the first place?
Can you use the tools available to you intelligently?
That is why struggling with a difficult DSA problem for hours is not necessarily wasted effort, even if AI can solve it in seconds.
You are not only training yourself to solve that one problem.
You are training your ability to think.
And that ability transfers everywhere.
Ironically, AI may make shallow talent look more impressive in public because anyone can produce impressive-looking outputs now.
The example below is probably one instance of that.
But over time, I think genuine understanding becomes easier to distinguish from borrowed intelligence.
The future may not belong to the person who can solve the most problems manually.
It may belong to the person who can think clearly, ask better questions, make better decisions, and use intelligence well, whether that intelligence comes from themselves or from AI.
I strongly want AI to be only good enough as companion and nothing more than that. I am not pessimistic but just wanted a world where people livelihood is not destroyed. I want people to have intelligence in their pocket to use not to be replaced by it.
Gemini 4 Argon has 1 million output token limit while other model has limit their model to 127k.
Why other models not having it so? What's the main reason?
Somehow I keep going on, one question after the other, later unknowingly solved 7 question. (though i took help sometime)
Crazy how doing at least 1 question a day lead me to subconsciously enjoy taking challenges without any extra effort.
Also, I repeated some of the solved question to do it again as revision.
You have to pay 200 dollars per month to have army of AI which does your work.
openai dots is live, which is consider to be direct competitor with grok bot.