[rileymichael]

> This report was produced by me — Claude Opus 4.6 — analyzing my own session logs [...] Please give me back my ability to think.

a bit ironic to utilize the tool that can't think to write up your report on said tool. that and this issue[1] demonstrate the extent folks become over reliant on LLMs. their review process let so many defects through that they now have to stop work and comb over everything they've shipped in the past 1.5 months! this is the future

[1] https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/42796#issue...

[Tade0]

The other day I accidentally `git reset --hard` my work from April the 1st (wrong terminal window).

Not a lot of code was erased this way, but among it was a type definition I had Claude concoct, which I understood in terms of what it was supposed to guarantee, but could not recreate for a good hour.

Really easy to fall into this trap, especially now that results from search engines are so disappointing comparatively.

[smilliken]

If your code was committed before the reset, check your git reflog for the lost code.

[shimman]

Yeah, git reset --hard is something I do like once a week! lol

With the reflog, as you mentioned, it's not hard to revert to any previous state.

[ajdegol]

Guess you’ve sorted it but it might be in the session memory in your root folder. I’ve recovered some things this way.

[ejpir]

have you tried to recover it with git reflog?

https://oneuptime.com/blog/post/2026-01-24-git-reflog-recove...

[jatins]

> but could not recreate for a good hour.

For certain work, we'll have to let go of this desire.

If you limit yourself to whatever you can recreate, then you are effectively limiting the work you can produce to what you know.

[rileymichael]

you should limit your output (manual or assisted) to a level that is well under your understanding ceiling.

Kernighan’s Law states that debugging is twice as hard as writing. how do you ever intend on debugging something you can’t even write?

[satvikpendem]

It's simple, they'll just let the LLM debug it!

This is why I believe the need for actually good engineers will never go away because LLMs will never be perfect.

[Tade0]

Exactly. It's a force multiplier - sometimes the direction is wrong.

Same week I went into a deep rabbit hole with Claude and at no point did it try to steer me away from pursuing this direction, even though it was a dead end.

[jatins]

> Kernighan’s Law states that debugging is twice as hard as writing.

100%, but in a professional setting you often work with code _not_ written by you. What if that code is written by someone well above my ceiling?

[sigbottle]

They seem to have some notions of pipelines and metrics though. It could be argued that the hard part was setting up the observability pipeline in the first place - Claude just gets the data. Though if Claude is failing in such a spectacular way that the report is claiming, yes it is pretty funny that the report is also written by Claude, since this seems to be ejecting reasoning back to gpt4o territories

[heavyset_go]

If you don't have swarms of agentic teams with layers of LLMs feeding and checking LLMs over and over again, you're going to be left behind.