[LadyCailin]

At their current stage, this feels like the wrong way to use them. I use them fully supervised, (despite the fact that feels like I’m fighting the tools), which is kind of the best of both worlds. I review every line of code before I allow the edit, and if something is wrong, I tell it to fix it. It learns over time, especially as I set rules in memories, and so the process has sped up, to the point that this goes way faster than if I would have done that myself. Not all tasks are appropriate for LLMs at all, but when they are, this supervised mode is quite fast, and I don’t believe the output to be slop, but anyways I feel like I own every line of code still.

[cyberpunk]

The happy path for me is with erlang, due to the concurrency model the blast radius of an error is exceptionally small, so the programming style is to let things crash if they go wrong. So, really you are writing the happy path code only (most of the time). Combine this approach with some very robust tests (does this thing pass the tests / behave how we need it to?) then you’re close to the point of not really caring about the implementation at all.

Of course, i still do, but i could see not caring being possible down the road with such architectures..