An Open Letter from a Computer Science Professor: What Kind of World Am I Sending My Students Into?

Brent A. Yorgey, a computer science professor at Hendrix College in Arkansas, recently published an open letter to his students, questioning the kind of tech industry he is sending them into and offering six pieces of advice on career and ethics. (Context: Nvidia launched the open-source AI Agent platform "NemoClaw." Is it truly open or a new strategy to avoid being tied to Nvidia chips?) (Background: Talking to Gonka AI: With the Big Five monopolizing 80% of computing power, how can AI belong to everyone?) A computer science professor who has spent decades training students for the software industry finally asked himself publicly: "What exactly am I sending them into?" This was the first sentence Hendrix College professor Brent A. Yorgey wrote to his students on April 27. Sometimes, especially this year, I fall into despairing thoughts: What exactly am I preparing you for? The software industry has completely spiraled out of control, not to mention the political environment. I am training you to be computer scientists, yet sending you into a world where it is difficult to find even the most basic computing jobs. The background of this open letter is not abstract. Entry-level software job openings are shrinking, AI-generated code volume exceeds human output, intellectual property is not respected, and the tech industry's focus has shifted from engineering quality to deployment speed—all these aspects reveal a sense of despair. Of course, Yorgey did not write this letter to discourage his students, but to emphasize that he entered the field of computer science because of those beautiful ideals, the joy of creation, and the opportunity to build tools that help people and foster human relationships. He still believes in these ideals today, so he decided to write these words down, hoping that his students could find something worth reflecting on. First: Do not believe the rhetoric about "technological inevitability" or "fait accompli." He believes such narratives are self-serving lies; developers can and should make deliberate choices rather than just following the wave. Second: Think clearly about your moral bottom line before entering the workforce. Do not accept the logic of "compromising temporarily and waiting for a better opportunity," as this path often has no exit. The third and fourth points are about work methods: He calls on students to protect their ability to think deeply and to create time and space for themselves that is free from interruption, even if it means rejecting tools or work styles labeled as "indispensable." Regarding programming itself, his requirements are: refactor repeatedly until the code is clear and elegant; write good documentation so other humans can understand it; and have the courage to go slower, especially when everyone is telling you to speed up or cut corners. The fifth and sixth points are closer to a declaration of values: Put people, relationships, and justice before profits, code, and productivity; the driving force of all actions should be love, not fear. Yorgey's other declaration is more direct. He stated that he does not use, and will not use, any form of Large Language Models (LLM). His reason is not a technical objection, but a structural ethical critique: "These systems are built on the massive exploitation of human labor and the wasteful consumption of scarce resources." He borrowed a term to describe his stance: "Generative AI vegetarian"—a concept from an article by Canadian tech policy researcher Sean Boots, meaning a conscious choice not to participate, not because it cannot be done, but because he does not believe it is beneficial to humanity. He said he agrees almost 100% with Boots' argument. He also mentioned that on worse days, he feels more like Anthony Moser, who directly calls himself an "AI hater." It is worth noting that Yorgey does not deny the technical fascination of LLMs. He explicitly stated, "From a purely technical perspective, LLMs are fascinating." What he rejects is not the technology itself, but the commercial and social structures in which it is currently embedded: the source of training data, the environmental cost of computing power consumption, and his belief that LLMs "do not actually perform well" in many of the touted use cases. Of course, in terms of scale, Yorgey is in the minority. Hendrix College is a small liberal arts college in Arkansas, and his open letter will not change OpenAI's training budget, nor will it delay any tech company's roadmap by a single day. But the questions he raises have structural weight. The contradiction he points out is that there is a fundamental gap between the goals of computer science education and the logic currently operating in the tech industry. Education cultivates engineers who can think deeply, focus on craftsmanship, and take responsibility for the social impact of technology; whereas what the market currently rewards most is engineers who can deploy quickly, deliver at scale, and accept blurred moral boundaries. None of Yorgey's six suggestions will drive up