> how do you trust the code claude wrote?

If that's something you're worried about, review the code before running it.

> don't you get anxiety "what if there's an error in tui code and it would mess up my git repo"?

I think you might want to not run untrusted programs in an environment like that, alternatively find a way of start being able to trust the program. Either approaches work, and works best depending on what you're trying to do.

▲

kaoD an hour ago | parent [-]

> If that's something you're worried about, review the code before running it.

It takes more, not less, time to thoroughly review code you didn't write.

▲

embedding-shape an hour ago | parent [-]

Depends. If I was the one coming up with the implementation anyways, it's basically just the "coding" part that was replaced with "fingers hitting keyboard" and "agents writing to disk", so reviewing the code certainly is faster, you just have to "check" it, not understand it from scratch.

If we're talking receiving random patches where first you have to understand the context, background and so on, then yeah I agree, it'll take longer time probably than what it took for someone to hammer with their fingers. But again, I'm not sure that's how professionals use LLMs right now, vibe-coding is a small hyped world mostly non-programmers seem to engage in.

	▲	kaoD 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> you just have to "check" it, not understand it from scratch. How can you "check" that which you don't "understand"? > I'm not sure that's how professionals use LLMs right now I'm a professional and I can tell you how I use LLMs: I write code with their assistance, they don't write code for me. The few times I let Claude or Copilot loose, the results were heartbreaking and I spent more time reviewing (and then discarding) the code than what it took me to later write it from scratch.