I guess many find comfort in being able to task an ai with assignments that it cannot complete. Most sr developers I work with take this approach. It's not really a good way of assessing the usefulness of a tool though.

▲

xoac 4 days ago | parent [-]

He asked what he was doing wrong?

▲

_boffin_ 4 days ago | parent [-]

too big of tasks. break them down and then proceed from there. have it build out task lists in a TASKS.md. review those tasks. do you agree? no? work with it to refine. implement one by one. have it add the tests. refactor after awhile as {{model}} doesn't like to do utility functions a lot. right now, about +50k lines in to a project that's vibecoded. i sit back and direct and it plays.

Imagine the CS 100 class where they ask you to make a PB&J. saying for it to make it, there's a lot of steps, but determine known the steps. implement each step. progress.

▲

throwawayffffas 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Too big and requiring too much niche specific knowledge, you somehow have to inject that knowledge and allow it to iterate.

▲

SkyPuncher 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This is the way.

I run interviews at my company. We allow/encourage AI.

The number one failure method is people throwing all of the requirements in upfront. They get one good pass then fail.

	▲	_boffin_ 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I was part of a shop that did the Pivotal Way and we had Inceptions where the PM, engineers, and a tester or two would be sequestered in a conference room for the day to bang out task lists that went into mid-level fidelity. Technical considerations were debated and sometimes in a heated way, but we never got into implementation—just structure and flow to ensure it jives. …this reeeeaaaallllyyyy feels like that
	▲	CSSer 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'm inclined to agree with this approach because someone not using AI who fails would likely fail for the same reasons. If you can't logically distill a problem into parts you can't obtain a solution.