3 ms·
> You can’t just tell an agent, Build me the code for a successful start-up. The agents work best when they’re being asked to perform one step at a time That's
by flux3125 7mo ago
> You can’t just tell an agent, Build me the code for a successful start-up. The agents work best when they’re being asked to perform one step at a time
That's also true for humans. If you sit down with an LLM and take the time to understand the problem you're trying to solve, it can perfectly guide you through it step by step. Even a non-technical person could build surprisingly solid software if, instead of immediately asking for new shiny features, they first ask questions, explore trade-offs, and get the model's opinion on design decisions..
LLMs are powerful tools in the hands of people who know they don't know everything. But in the hands of people who think they always know the best way, they can be much less useful (I'd say even dangerous)
- GorbachevyChase 7mo agoI appreciate this sober take. If you hired a remote developer and the only thing you said to that person was “build a program that does this. Make no mistakes” would you expect that to be successful? Are you certain you would get what you wanted?
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- AstroBen 7mo agoAny competent developer there is going to push back and get the needed information out of you. LLMs don't know when you're under-specifying the problem.
- GorbachevyChase 7mo agoThat’s interesting because that is one feature of Claude code that I like. Given an overly broad problem statement. It does go into a planning loop where it seeks clarifying questions. I think this probably has something more to do with the harness than the model, but you see what I mean. From a user perspective that distinction doesn’t really matter.