Marcin Krzyzanowskinever stop being funny. this is after 3rd "are you sure"
this machine will do anything to make things worse. and then refuse to understand it.
fair enough it was trained like that. Internet is full of garbage.
forget prompting engineering. "rejecting" and "questioning" engineering is more imporant in LLM coding
Brandon Horst@krzyzanowskim I think that you’re trying to use these systems at too high a level. I never try to “correct” Claude code. If it gets it wrong, I change my prompt, switch to plan mode, and try again.
@brandonhorst that is the worst way to use it, honestly. It can barely execute the plan correctly. The more time spent on a big plan, the weaker the result is overall. It need to be micromanaged on every step, givint ig clear instructions on each step, without relying it will keep the plot by its own (it wont)
Rob Napier@krzyzanowskim @brandonhorst I've gone down the "carefully plan everything" track several times. I'll accept that @steipete is much better at this than I am (both AI and coding generally), and that he uses Gemini (not approved for my professional work), but I generally find that extensive planning is time wasted.
Better for me has been: I do most of the coding and Claude helps with boilerplate, individual methods, code reviews, improvement suggestions, and some light refactoring,
Aleksandar Vacić@cocoaphony @krzyzanowskim @brandonhorst @steipete Same for me.
I can’t let myself let it run loose, at least I’m not there yet with prompting. And frankly nor is Claude advanced enough yet, at least in the usage I needed in the last week or so.
Thus I closely monitor what it does, stop it as soon as I see it’s veering off what I want and generally use it as very fast personal coder assistant.
Peter Steinberger@aleck @cocoaphony @krzyzanowskim @brandonhorst i also usually ask for options and iterate till I find sth. But to cooy existing stuff or larger refactors, claude go brrrr
@steipete @cocoaphony @krzyzanowskim @brandonhorst
My favorite use case for Claude so far is analyzing existing code base. It's ability to summarize its findings is frankly speaking far better than mine.
Here's just this morning, where I'm trying to understand Socket.io's "we are not WebSocket implementation" claim.
It gave me this in less than 5 minutes.
softmaus@aleck technically, it was 48.3s more than 5 minutes :P
@aleck @steipete @cocoaphony @brandonhorst yes, and ironically, Cursor is even better at this, mostly due to IDE integration and ease of navigating to the exact places easily
@aleck @cocoaphony @krzyzanowskim @brandonhorst Google AI studio with a github tree fetcher is better for that
@aleck @cocoaphony @krzyzanowskim @brandonhorst https://repo2txt.simplebasedomain.com + https://aistudio.google.com/prompts/new_chat is better than anything else. And 2000% faster than via CC. And free.