[staplers]

  You need to be checking every thing it does.

This is what seems to be lost on so many. As someone with relatively little code experience, I find myself learning more than ever by checking the results and what went right/wrong.

This is also why I don't see it getting better anytime soon. So many people ask me "how do you get your claude to have such good output?" and the answer is always "I paid attention and spotted problems and asked claude to fix them." And it's literally that simple but I can see their eyes already glazing over.

Just as google made finding information easier, it didn't fix the human element of deciphering quality information from poor information.

[krilcebre]

How do you know what good output should look like with little code experience?

[brabel]

Looking at code looking for errors is a hard thing to do well for a large amount of code. A better approach is to ensure tests cover all the important cases and many edge cases. Looking at the code may still be a good idea but mostly to check the design. I think that once you get Claude to test the code it writes well, trying to find errors in the code is a waste of time. I’ve made the mistake of thinking Claude was wrong many times despite the tests passing just to be humbled by breaking the tests with my “improvements”!

[chrz]

beware of illusion of learning by looking at ready solutions