I am guessing: Maybe you are not used to or comfortable with delegating work?

You will certainly understand a program better where you write every line of code yourself, but that limits your output. It's a trade-off.

The part that makes it work quite well is that you can also use the LLM to better understand the code where required, simply by asking.

▲

brailsafe 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> I am guessing: Maybe you are not used to or comfortable with delegating work?

The difference between delegating to a human vs an LLM is that a human is liable for understanding it, regardless of how it got there. Delegating to an LLM means you're just more rapidly creating liabilities for yourself, which indeed is a worthwhile tradeoff depending on the complexity of what you're losing intimate knowledge of.

▲

jstummbillig an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The topic of liability is a difference but I think not an important one, if your objective is to get things done. In fact, humans being liable creates high incentives to obscure the truth, deceive, or move slowly to limit personal risk exposure, all of which are very real world hindrances.

In the end the person in charge is liable either way, in different ways.

▲

Flere-Imsaho an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

As a technical manager, I'm liable for every line of code we produce - regardless of who in the team actually wrote the code. This is why I review every pull request :)

	▲	dynamite-ready 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		This is interesting. At what level and team size? There's going to have to be a point where you just give in to the 'vibes' (whether it's from a human, or a machine), otherwise you become the bottleneck, no?