Comment by ChrisMarshallNY
20 hours ago
> The problem is: you can’t justify this throughput to someone who doesn’t understand real software engineering. They see the output and think “well the AI did it.” No. The AI executed it. I designed it. I knew what to ask for, how to decompose the problem, what patterns to use, when the model was going off track, and how to correct it. That’s not prompting. That’s engineering.
That’s the “money quote,” for me. Often, I’m the one that causes the problem, because of errors in prompting. Sometimes, the AI catches it, sometimes, it goes into the ditch, and I need to call for a tow.
The big deal, is that I can considerably “up my game,” and get a lot done, alone. The velocity is kind of jaw-dropping.
I’m not [yet] at the level of the author, and tend to follow a more “synchronous” path, but I’m seeing similar results (and enjoying myself).
There are two types of engineers who use AI:
- Ones who see it generated something bad, and blame the AI.
- Ones who see it generated something bad, and revert it and try to prompt better, with more clarity and guidance.
- Ones who see it generated something bad, and realise it'd be faster to just hand fix the issues than babysit an LLM
That's a PEBKAC issue.
1 reply →
Three types:
- Ones that use it as a “pair partner,” as opposed to an employee.
Thanks for the implicit insult. That was helpful.