4 ms·

I think knowing what you want (and being able to articulate it with adequate specificity, and detecting when processes drift away from it) is a real skill/field

by alwa 2mo ago

I think knowing what you want (and being able to articulate it with adequate specificity, and detecting when processes drift away from it) is a real skill/field of expertise. I just don't think it's specific to interfacing with "AI."

glimshe 2mo ago
I agree. These skills apply to interacting with any coworker, or any person for that matter.
xp84 2mo ago
Indeed. It sounds more like management (Minus the 'people skills' since you don't technically need Claude to like you... yet).
- somenameforme 2mo ago
  I'm curious if there has been any study on the output quality of LLMs after actively antagonizing them. It's easy to forget that at the most basic level these are just auto-complete machines, and humans tend to not respond so well after antagonized. It stands to reason that the same should follow for an auto-complete system trained on human interaction.
  - groestl 2mo ago
    Intuitively I'd say lashing out on an LLM overconstraints it and so worsens the output, therefore the skill to stay calm and neutral is useful for guiding a machine as well. Would be useful to have data on that.
  - wglb 2mo ago
    In fact there has: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04950 https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04950: Mind Your Tone: Investigating How Prompt Politeness Affects LLM Accuracy (short paper)
AvocadoPanic 2mo ago
Having domain expertise isn't specific to using AI. Not being able to tell when it's hallucinating has led to some very adverse outcomes.
- Barbing 2mo ago
  Including for about 1809 lawyers https://damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations https://damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations
  - anon48293 2mo ago
    Interesting
- saghm 2mo ago
  I've found that one of the most useful things I can do when using LLMs is paying attention to the tool calls so that I can tell when it's giving an explanation that's obviously not based on any evidence. If it explains why a bug happens without reading the relevant files, it's obviously just a guess. If I ask about what things exist that fit certain criteria, and it doesn't search online, at best it's relying on outdated knowledge from training and at worst it's literally inventing things that don't actually exist. In a lot of scenarios for software engineering, the cost is just wasted time without anything useful as a result, and that's already bad enough. I can't even imagine working as a lawyer and not even taking the time to validate so I don't end up reprimanded by a judge in front of my clients, but there have been so many news stories like this that obviously this is not anywhere close to a universal view...
Chabsff 2mo ago
I almost entirely agree with this. However, after coding quite a few large projects with LLM assistance, I can say with certainty that there is some form of "art" at play with regards to structuring requests for LLMs. However, this "art" is not so much about how to present a given request to the LLM, but rather guestimating what the scope of the next chunk of work should be to balance getting as much out of the model as possible while avoiding the machine going off the rails. Obviously, this is a moving target and different models perform differently for various chunk/scope of work. I look at my successful sessions with LLMs and I'm not sure I'd be able to articulate a clear set of rules to apply here. You just... gradually build a intuition for how much you can throw at the LLM at once. That being said, I'm pretty convinced at this point that this is a property of the coding assistants as they exist today, and what "working well with LLM assistance" means will keep on changing.
- Exoristos 2mo ago
  Hypothesis: Good Jenga players will make good coding-assistant prompters.
  - cousinbryce 2mo ago
    This happened to me last night. Did a lazy prompt and the tower started to lean dangerously
JeremyNT 2mo ago
IME "creating a good spec" (and good acceptance criteria) has always been one of the most valuable skills in... well, everything. The machine is really good at working the spec on its own now, which is amazing, science fiction shit. But you've still got a garbage in, garbage out problem at the end of the day, which is pretty much the only hope we who work in software have of remaining somehow employed.
cm2187 2mo ago
It is basically the same skillset than asking a good stackoverflow question. Provide enough context and state your problem clearly

by alwa 2mo ago

glimshe 2mo ago

I agree. These skills apply to interacting with any coworker, or any person for that matter.

xp84 2mo ago

Indeed. It sounds more like management (Minus the 'people skills' since you don't technically need Claude to like you... yet).

somenameforme 2mo ago
I'm curious if there has been any study on the output quality of LLMs after actively antagonizing them. It's easy to forget that at the most basic level these are just auto-complete machines, and humans tend to not respond so well after antagonized. It stands to reason that the same should follow for an auto-complete system trained on human interaction.
- groestl 2mo ago
  Intuitively I'd say lashing out on an LLM overconstraints it and so worsens the output, therefore the skill to stay calm and neutral is useful for guiding a machine as well. Would be useful to have data on that.
- wglb 2mo ago
  In fact there has: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04950 https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04950: Mind Your Tone: Investigating How Prompt Politeness Affects LLM Accuracy (short paper)

AvocadoPanic 2mo ago

Having domain expertise isn't specific to using AI. Not being able to tell when it's hallucinating has led to some very adverse outcomes.

Barbing 2mo ago
Including for about 1809 lawyers https://damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations https://damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations
- anon48293 2mo ago
  Interesting
saghm 2mo ago
I've found that one of the most useful things I can do when using LLMs is paying attention to the tool calls so that I can tell when it's giving an explanation that's obviously not based on any evidence. If it explains why a bug happens without reading the relevant files, it's obviously just a guess. If I ask about what things exist that fit certain criteria, and it doesn't search online, at best it's relying on outdated knowledge from training and at worst it's literally inventing things that don't actually exist. In a lot of scenarios for software engineering, the cost is just wasted time without anything useful as a result, and that's already bad enough. I can't even imagine working as a lawyer and not even taking the time to validate so I don't end up reprimanded by a judge in front of my clients, but there have been so many news stories like this that obviously this is not anywhere close to a universal view...

Chabsff 2mo ago

I almost entirely agree with this. However, after coding quite a few large projects with LLM assistance, I can say with certainty that there is some form of "art" at play with regards to structuring requests for LLMs. However, this "art" is not so much about how to present a given request to the LLM, but rather guestimating what the scope of the next chunk of work should be to balance getting as much out of the model as possible while avoiding the machine going off the rails. Obviously, this is a moving target and different models perform differently for various chunk/scope of work. I look at my successful sessions with LLMs and I'm not sure I'd be able to articulate a clear set of rules to apply here. You just... gradually build a intuition for how much you can throw at the LLM at once. That being said, I'm pretty convinced at this point that this is a property of the coding assistants as they exist today, and what "working well with LLM assistance" means will keep on changing.

Exoristos 2mo ago
Hypothesis: Good Jenga players will make good coding-assistant prompters.
- cousinbryce 2mo ago
  This happened to me last night. Did a lazy prompt and the tower started to lean dangerously

JeremyNT 2mo ago

IME "creating a good spec" (and good acceptance criteria) has always been one of the most valuable skills in... well, everything. The machine is really good at working the spec on its own now, which is amazing, science fiction shit. But you've still got a garbage in, garbage out problem at the end of the day, which is pretty much the only hope we who work in software have of remaining somehow employed.

cm2187 2mo ago

It is basically the same skillset than asking a good stackoverflow question. Provide enough context and state your problem clearly