I don't even know any more. I wanted a weather bapp that shows the whole forecast on one page with no scrolling, so I was ambitious and asked anti-gravity to build one for me. Half an hour later, done. Then I asked codex to review it and half the stuff didn't even work, made up wind gust data, misaligned hourly data, polluted caches. So I asked codex to fix the issues. Did it? I don't even know, it said it did.

▲

kaashif an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The way to use AI is to make sure it has clear, verifiable success criteria, test suites, etc. Make sure any output has citations, reduce the need for trust to zero, etc.

I see people one shot stuff and it makes no sense, is completely fake half the time, just like you point out.

It should be the case that Codex and Claude Code should incorporate this kind of thing automatically at some point.

	▲	gwerbin 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Claude Code more or less does have the tools to do this: plan mode, todo lists, user question prompts, et al. What it does not have is a "guided" mode where the agent (or harness) interviews you and helps you structure a work plan for the agent, including eliciting those success criteria and any design constraints the user might have in mind (eg it will be used on a boat over slow satellite connection). I can't speak for OpenAI but I get the impression that Anthropic think of these things as opt-in power user features, perhaps on the premise that their LLMs alone are "smart enough".

▲

blfr an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Try Fable and make it write a ton of tests. I generally don't trust benchmarks, as they don't match my experience, but this one[1] very much does.

[1] https://www.primeintellect.ai/research/nanogpt-speedrun

▲

mynegation an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Great minds… that’s what I vibe coded with Claude couple of weeks ago.