[samlinnfer]

There is an unconstrained number of ways it can write code and still not be how I want it. Sometimes it's easier to write the correction against the code that is already generated since now you at least have a reference to something there than describing code that doesn't yet exist. I don't think it's solvable in general until they have the neuralink skill that senses my approval as it materializes each token and autocorrects to the golden path based on whether I'm making a happy or frowny face.

[bitwize]

Stop thinking like a programmer and start thinking like a business person. Invest time and energy in thinking about WHAT you want; let the LLM worry about the HOW.

[Toutouxc]

The thing is that the HOW of today becomes the context of someone else's tomorrow session, that person may not be as knowledgeable about that particular part of the codebase (and the domain), their LLM will base its own solution on today's unchecked output and will, inevitably, stray a little bit further from the optimum. So far I haven't seen any mechanism and workflow that would consistently push in the opposite direction.

[qsera]

>let the LLM worry about the HOW.

You mean, let the LLM hallucinate about the HOW...