[gjadi]

You can't talk about delegation without talking about what and who you're delegating. Delegating a demo or an exploration to a junior is fine if you can help them with feedbacks and make them grow and the business is not on the line. Delegating a critical development to a senior engineer you've vetted on previous delivery is fine too. Delegating a critical development to a junior is a recipe for disaster.

Now, I'm still trying to figure out what I can fully delegate to an agent and what I can't. Right now, LLM feel like a senior on technical stuff and a junior on decision/taste. One thing is sure, I can't delegate a critical development to it, not without review. For that review, I need programming skills. Maybe in the future that won't be the case, but I am not seeing that right now. (Using Claude code)

[peteforde]

I'd say we're on the same page with all of that.

One thing I've noticed in my own behaviour is that the more tired I am, later in the day, the less rigorous I am about auditing what Opus suggests for me. This specific detail is a blind spot for many, I suspect.

The problem is always going to be the 2% of the time it does something horribly wrong on an architectural scale. You don't know when the poison pill might come.

Conclusion: if you wouldn't drive after drinking, smoking weed or staying awake too long, perhaps you shouldn't commit code generated by an LLM that is really amazing 98% of the time.

[gjadi]

Yup, the unpredicable nature of their unreliability is what makes it very tiresome to work with LLMs sometimes. With people, you kinda learn their strength and weakness. With LLMs I haven't yet.