> After like the 20th time explaining the same (simple) problem to the AI that it is unable to fix, you just might change your mind [1]. At that point you just

> After like the 20th time explaining the same (simple) problem to the AI that it is unable to fix, you just might change your mind [1]. At that point you just have to jump in and get dirty. You're assuming that I haven't. Yes, sometimes you have to do it yourself, and the people who are claiming that you can replace experienced engineers with these are wrong (at least for now, and for non-trivial problems). > Do this a few times and you start to realize it is kinda of worse than just being in the driver's seat in terms of the coding right from the start. For one thing, when you jump in, you are working with code that is probably architectured quite differently from the way you normally do, and you have no developed the deep mental model that is needed to work with the code effectively. Disagree. There's not a single piece of code I've written using these that I haven't carefully curated myself. Usually the result (after rounds of prompting) is smaller, significantly better, and closer to my original intended design than what I got out of the machine on first prompt. I still find them to be a significant net enhancement to my productivity. For me, it's very much like working with a tireless junior engineer who is available at all hours, willing to work through piles of thankless drudgery without complaint, and also codes about 100x faster than I do. But again, I know what I'm doing. For an inexperienced coder, I'm more inclined to agree with your comment. The first drafts that these things emit is often pretty bad.