Real world tasks don't fit in a chat window, and using AI is barely an improvement over not using it. Just from one of my latest LLM coding adventures: it gets versions wrong, imports wrong, messes up versioning when learning documentations, resulting in many wasted hours. It's ok to fill in boilerplate, not ok to help you do things you couldn't do without AI.
If anything, it's like cooking with kids, not like going to McDonalds. I'd give extra points if they can solve the task with LLM in time. The hardest parts in programming is finding subtle bugs and reviewing code written by others - two tasks that LLMs can't help us with.
If they can easily solve the tasks with LLMs then it is a legitimate question to ask if you should be teaching that skill. Only common ones can be solved that way though. Why don't you give them a bugged code to fix, that way LLM inspiration is not going to work, if you check first to make sure LLMs can't fix the bug?
I don't think I agree with your last paragraph. ChatGPT is getting better and better, I have reason to think it won't continue to keep incrementally improving. As such, I think allowing students to use it to answer coding questions is going to make it so they don't actually understand anything.
I said in sibling thread that I'd be fine enough with having a class like "Software Engineering Using AI" or something, but when the class is specifically about learning Object Oriented programming and Java and Python, I do not think having heavy use of ChatGPT is a good idea.
Also, not all the questions were pure coding, I had some more conceptual questions on there, and ChatGPT is really good at answering those.
If you throw the same question at it 15 different ways, it can eventually give you ideas for optimizations that you probably wouldn't have thought of otherwise. It knows parts of APIs that I've never used. ByteBuffer#getLong, ByteBuffer#duplicate, StringBuilder#deleteCharAt, RandomGenerator#nextLong(long)
If anything, it's like cooking with kids, not like going to McDonalds. I'd give extra points if they can solve the task with LLM in time. The hardest parts in programming is finding subtle bugs and reviewing code written by others - two tasks that LLMs can't help us with.
If they can easily solve the tasks with LLMs then it is a legitimate question to ask if you should be teaching that skill. Only common ones can be solved that way though. Why don't you give them a bugged code to fix, that way LLM inspiration is not going to work, if you check first to make sure LLMs can't fix the bug?