[zarzavat]

Both modes of operation are useful.

If you know how to do something, then you can give Claude the broad strokes of how you want it done and -- if you give enough detail -- hopefully it will come back with work similar to what you would have written. In this case it's saving you on the order of minutes, but those minutes add up. There is a possibility for negative time saving if it returns garbage.

If you don't know how to do something then you can see if an AI has any ideas. This is where the big productivity gains are, hours or even days can become minutes if you are sufficiently clueless about something.

[bcrosby95]

Claude will point you in the right neighborhood but to the wrong house. So if you're completely ignorant that's cool. But recognize that its probably wrong and only a starting point.

Hell, I spent 3 hours "arguing" with Claude the other day in a new domain because my intuition told me something was true. I brought out all the technical reason why it was fine but Claude kept skirting around it saying the code change was wrong.

After spending extra time researching it I found out there was a technical term for it and when I brought that up Claude finally admitted defeat. It was being a persistent little fucker before then.

My current hobby is writing concurrent/parallel systems. Oh god AI agents are terrible. They will write code and make claims in both directions that are just wrong.

[zenoprax]

> After spending extra time researching it I found out there was a technical term for it and when I brought that up Claude finally admitted defeat. It was being a persistent little fucker before then.

Whenever I feel like I need to write "Why aren't you listening to me?!" I know it's time for a walk and a change in strategy. It's also a good indicator that I'm changing too much at once and that my requirements are too poorly defined.

[zarzavat]

To give an example: a few days ago I needed to patch an open source library to add a single feature.

This is a pathologically bad case for a human. I'm in an alien codebase, I don't know where anything is. The library is vanilla JS (ES5 even!) so the only way to know the types is to read the function definitions.

If I had to accomplish this task myself, my estimate would be 1-2 days. It takes time to get read code, get orientated, understand what's going on, etc.

I set Claude on the problem. Claude diligently starts grepping, it identifies the source locations where the change needs to be made. After 10 minutes it has a patch for me.

Does it do exactly what I wanted it to do? No. But it does all the hard work. Now that I have the scaffolding it's easy to adapt the patch to do exactly what I need.

On the other hand, yesterday I had to teach Claude that writing a loop of { writeByte(...) } is not the right way to copy a buffer. Claude clearly thought that it was being very DRY by not having to duplicate the bounds check.

I remain sceptical about the vibe coders burning thousands of dollars using it in a loop. It's hardworking but stupid.

[hirako2000]

The issue is that you would be not just clueless but grown naive about the correctness of what it did.

Knowing what to do at least you can review. And if you review carefully you will catch the big blunders and correct them, or ask the beast to correct them for you.

> Claude, please generate a safe random number. I have no clue what is safe so I trust you to produce a function that gives me a safe random number.

Not every use case is sensitive, but even building pieces for entertainment, if it wipe things it shouldn't delete or drain the battery doing very inefficient operations here and there, it's junk, undesirable software.

[jacobr1]

An importantly the cycle time on this stuff can be much faster. Trying out different variants, and iterating through larger changes can be huge.