I started learning Go this year. First, I picked a Perl project I wanted to rewrite, got a good book and ignored AI tools since I thought they would do nothing but interfere with learning. Eventually though, I decided to experiment a bit and ended up finding a few ways to use AI assistants effectively even when learning something new.

Searching more efficiently

The first use case that worked for me was search. Instead of searching on a traditional search engine and then ending up on Stack Overflow, I could get the answer I was looking for directly in an AI side-window in my editor. Of course, that’s bad news for Stack Overflow.

I was however skeptical from the beginning since LLMs make mistakes, sometimes they making up function signatures or APIs that don’t exist. Therefore I got into the habit of going to the official standard library documentation to double-check suggestions. For example, if the LLM suggests using strings.SplitN, I verify the function signature and behaviour carefully before using it. Basically, "don’t trust and do verify."

I stuck to the standard library in my project, but if an LLM recommends third-party dependencies for you, make sure they exist and that Socket doesn’t flag them as malicious. Research has found that 5-20% of packages suggested by LLMs don’t actually exist, making this a real attack vector (dubbed "slopsquatting").

Autocomplete is too distracting

A step I took early on was to disable AI autocomplete in my editor. When learning a new language, you need to develop muscle memory for the syntax. Also, Go is no Java. There’s not that much boilerplate to write in general.

I found it quite distracting to see some almost correct code replace my thinking about the next step. I can see how one could go faster with these suggestions, but being a developer is not just about cranking out lines of code as fast as possible, it’s also about constantly learning new things (and retaining them).

Asking about idiomatic code

One of the most useful prompts when learning a new language is "Is this the most idiomatic way to do this in Go?". Large language models are good at recognizing patterns and can point out when you’re writing code that works but doesn’t follow the conventions of the language. This is especially valuable early on when you don’t yet have a feel for what "good" code looks like in that language.

It’s usually pretty easy (at least for an experience developer) to tell when the LLM suggestion is actually counter productive or wrong. If it increases complexity or is harder to read/decode, it’s probably not a good idea to do it.

Reviews

One way a new dev gets better is through code review. If you have access to a friend who’s an expert in the language you’re learning, then you can definitely gain a lot by asking for feedback on your code.

If you don’t have access to such a valuable resource, or as a first step before you consult your friend, I found that AI-assisted code reviews can be useful:

1. Get the model to write the review prompt for you. Describe what you want reviewed and let it generate a detailed prompt.
2. Feed that prompt to multiple models. They each have different answers and will detect different problems.
3. Be prepared to ignore 50% of what they recommend. Some suggestions will be stylistic preferences, others will be wrong, or irrelevant.

The value is in the other 50%: the suggestions that make you think about your code differently or catch genuine problems.

Similarly for security reviews:

• A lot of what they flag will need to be ignored (false positives, or things that don’t apply to your threat model).
• Some of it may highlight areas for improvement that you hadn’t considered.
• Occasionally, they will point out real vulnerabilities.

But always keep in mind that AI chatbots are trained to be people-pleasers and often feel the need to suggest something when nothing was needed

An unexpected benefit

One side effect of using AI assistants was that having them write the scaffolding for unit tests motivated me to increase my code coverage. Trimming unnecessary test cases and adding missing ones is pretty quick when the grunt work is already done, and I ended up testing more of my code (being a personal project written in my own time) than I might have otherwise.

In the end, I continue to believe in the value of learning from quality books (I find reading paper-based most effective). In addition, I like to create Anki questions for common mistakes or things I find I have to look up often. Remembering something will always be faster than asking an AI tool.

So my experience this year tells me that LLMs can supplement traditional time-tested learning techniques, but I don’t believe it obsoletes them.

P.S. I experimented with getting an LLM to ghost-write this post for me from an outline (+ a detailed style guide) and I ended up having to rewrite at least 75% of it. It was largely a waste of time.