2 ms·

That's only if you do agentic coding. I use LLMs in the following ways: 1. Copy-pasting code into the web chat UI and asking for something (bugfix, add a feat

That's only if you do agentic coding. I use LLMs in the following ways: 1. Copy-pasting code into the web chat UI and asking for something (bugfix, add a feature, refactor, explain, review it etc), including entire source code files. A $20/mo Gemini subscription goes a long way (never been rate-limited). I only use the highest model. I often just copy-paste the entire source file between 3 backticks. 2. Cursor Tab. I do have hotkeys to enable and disable it; it's disabled most of the time otherwise it gets annoying. 3. Single-file changes directly from Cursor's AI sidebar. I only do this for simple, predictable stuff because even their auto-routing "Premium" setting is not as good as pasting stuff into Gemini 3.1 Pro. That means I have only two $20/mo subscriptions: Gemini and Cursor. I don't use Claude Code, it's really for people who don't know how to code. I don't use Plan Mode; I make and track the plan myself (if at all). I only tell the LLM granular tasks to execute. I don't use `claude.md` or `agents.md` or anything like that. If I don't like a particular output, I reset everything, modify my prompt and try again. I believe this is the only way to fully leverage LLMs without losing any product quality. If you're trading off quality for "speed" (in quotes because over the long term, a low quality codebase is a massive drag on productivity) then there's no point.

avador 5mo ago
I _think_ what you’ve said is “go shallow, not deep”. That is, don’t let the walk you make inside the latent space a long one. Twenty-five short and peppered steps, from de novo, is better than one long, protracted stew. Is that accurate?
- roncesvalles 5mo ago
  Well yeah. If you know what you're doing, why would you let the AI take control?
  - avador 5mo ago
    Well, if it works on step one, then why not step two? Where would different folks draw the line? My grandparents might continue on a while, whereas I would not. But if it also “works” on step two for me, should I take a third? What counts as “works” is the important bit, I think.

avador 5mo ago

I _think_ what you’ve said is “go shallow, not deep”. That is, don’t let the walk you make inside the latent space a long one. Twenty-five short and peppered steps, from de novo, is better than one long, protracted stew. Is that accurate?

roncesvalles 5mo ago
Well yeah. If you know what you're doing, why would you let the AI take control?
- avador 5mo ago
  Well, if it works on step one, then why not step two? Where would different folks draw the line? My grandparents might continue on a while, whereas I would not. But if it also “works” on step two for me, should I take a third? What counts as “works” is the important bit, I think.