One person is rigorously checking to see if Claude is actually following the spec and one person isn’t?

hunterpayne an hour ago | parent | next [-]

One is getting paid by a marketing department program and the other isn't. Remember how much has been spent making LLMs and they have now decided that coding is its money maker. I expect any negative comment on LLM coding to be replied to by at least 2 different puppets or bots.

	▲	riquito an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Then you should expect any positive comment to be replied negatively by a competition's puppet or bot too

▲

flyinglizard an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

... or one person has a very strong mental model of what he expects to do, but the LLM has other ideas. FWIW I'm very happy with CC and Opus, but I don't treat it as a subordinate but as a peer; I leave it enough room to express what it thinks is best and guide later as needed. This may not work for all cases.

	▲	sarchertech 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		If you don’t have a very strong mental model for what you are working on Claude can very easily guide in you into building the wrong thing. For example I’m working on a huge data migration right now. The data has to be migrated correctly. If there are any issues I want to fail fast and loud. Claude hates that philosophy. No matter how many different ways I add my reasons and instructions to stop it to the context, it will constantly push me towards removing crashes and replacing them with “graceful error handling”. If I didn’t have a strong idea about what I wanted, I would have let it talk me into building the wrong thing. Claude has no taste and its opinions are mostly those of the most prolific bloggers. Treating Claude like a peer is a terrible idea unless you are very inexperienced. And even then I don’t know if that’s a good idea.