I think building something really well with AI takes a lot of work. You can certainly ask it to do things and it will comply, and produce something pretty good. But you don't know what you don't know, especially when it speaks to you authoritatively. So checking its work from many different angles and making sure it's precise can be a challenge. Will be interesting to see how all of this iterates over time.

I agree 100%. At the same time, I feel like this piece, and our comments on it are snapshots in time because of the rate of advancement in the industry. These coding models are already significantly better than they were even nine months ago.

I can't help but read complaints about the capabilities of AI – and I'm certainly not accusing you of complaining about AI, just a general thought – and think "Yet" to myself every time.

> But you don't know what you don't know, especially when it speaks to you authoritatively. So checking its work from many different angles and making sure it's precise can be a challenge.

I've spent far more time pitting one AI context against another (reviewing each other's work) than I have using AI to build stuff these days.

The benefit is that since it mostly happens asynchronously, I'm free to do other stuff.

Yep. It's quite good at getting you to 80% of the solution. The other 20% depends on the problem!

If I don’t know what I don’t know, how am I going to build something any better than a coding agent? An approach on a couple of projects has been to prototype with the agent, learn, write a design and then start over. I then know the areas to look into more detail.