[NewsaHackO]

> Developers worth working with, grow out of this in a new project. Claude doesn't.

There is no way this is true. People make fewer bugs with time and guidance, but no human makes zero bugs. Also, bugs are not planned; it's always easy to in hindsight say "A human would have literally copied the original lookup map," but every bug has some sort of mistake that is made that is off the status quo. That's why it's a bug.

[habinero]

No, it's broadly true. Also, that's why we have code review and tests, so that it has to pass a couple of filters.

LLMs don't make mistakes like humans make mistakes.

If you're a SWE at my company, I can assume you have a baseline of skill and you tested the code yourself, so I'm trying to look for any edge cases or gaps or whatever that you might have missed. Do you have good enough tests to make both of us feel confident the code does what it appears to do?

With LLMs, I have to treat its code like it's a hostile adversary trying to sneak in subtle backdoors. I can't trust anything to be done honestly.

[eeperson]

Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer. They don't grow completely out of making bugs (although they do tend to make fewer over time), they grow out of making solutions that look right but don't actually solve the problem. This is because they understand the problem space better over time.