Same; the most infuriating parts - Claude caused the issue and Claude misdiagnosed the issue, making me spend more time than if I was debugging it myself.

▲

lambdaone 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This happens all the time to me. The model emits thousands of lines of high-quality code, making vast progress very quickly, but on the way does a few very, very stupid things a human being would never have been silly enough to do.

Then it takes hours or days - sometimes weeks - to find and fix the AI-induced problems. If you very, very tightly constrain the AI by using structured processes and unit tests you can work wonders with it, but you do start to wonder to what extent this is better than if you had simply coded it yourself.

▲

hoppp 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I basically generate and then remove 80% manually. Way overbuilt and doesn't follow my thinking that well.

▲

bigstrat2003 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's been my experience. LLMs cost me time, they don't save it.

▲

sph 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Then why tf are you using it? I mean, seriously. Truly sounds like addiction.

	▲	batshit_beaver 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think the issue is that obtaining empirical proof of AI or manual coding being more efficient is very difficult, since true costs and outcomes aren’t known for months and often years. AI _is_ faster at producing short term results though, so naturally, given the state of the industry, everyone is piling both money and time into AI driven workflows and manual work is met with suspicion, if not outright discouragement. Engineers might hate AI, but they need their paychecks.

▲

whattheheckheck 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You may be wise beyond your years and are sitting on a goldmine of consulting opportunity if you can actually get tasks done faster without ai given the exact same inputs

▲

weezing 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Glad to hear that. Gives some hope for the future.

	▲	5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]