3 ms·

So far my experience has been management shoving ai haphazardly down the throats of any semi technical person across the board, resulting in a fragmented hodgep

So far my experience has been management shoving ai haphazardly down the throats of any semi technical person across the board, resulting in a fragmented hodgepodge of vibe coded frameworks and “ai apps” that pile on more requirements for more human attention to make those apps at least look superficially functional to management, than actual reductions in man hours saved by those vibe coded crApps. I believe wholeheartedly that things like Claude code bring immense value but to management types they aren’t visible enough to prove their “ai first” narratives resulting in a bunch of crap they have us build that look and seem smart but in fact are just slop we have to deal with the consequences of. Good for job security I guess, but I’m getting pretty tired of it all.

rootusrootus 2mo ago
So far I'm finding that in a good subset of my regular work Claude can be pretty useful and will speed me up. But I also drive it with a heavy hand. Strong expectations, I know what I want, what success looks like, and I steer it to give me that. Conversely, the product guys I work with are adept at producing proof-of-concept tools that look really good. Fake data, runs entirely in a browser, but conveys their goals way more specifically than Balsamiq ever good. And I think this is a great use case for Claude. But what ain't happening here is product guys producing code that would go directly into production. And even if it could, they're not in a position to provide tech support or debugging when it breaks, so they don't want to be in that position anyway. Nobody can really predict the future very well, it seems, but my personal best guess is that we end up moving the boundaries of what we work on and how, but the need for humans isn't going to go down. As magic as LLMs look sometimes, I constantly run into reminders of how much it relies on how I phrase a prompt when it delivers any kind of answer. That influence really drives how satisfying the results are.

rootusrootus 2mo ago

So far I'm finding that in a good subset of my regular work Claude can be pretty useful and will speed me up. But I also drive it with a heavy hand. Strong expectations, I know what I want, what success looks like, and I steer it to give me that. Conversely, the product guys I work with are adept at producing proof-of-concept tools that look really good. Fake data, runs entirely in a browser, but conveys their goals way more specifically than Balsamiq ever good. And I think this is a great use case for Claude. But what ain't happening here is product guys producing code that would go directly into production. And even if it could, they're not in a position to provide tech support or debugging when it breaks, so they don't want to be in that position anyway. Nobody can really predict the future very well, it seems, but my personal best guess is that we end up moving the boundaries of what we work on and how, but the need for humans isn't going to go down. As magic as LLMs look sometimes, I constantly run into reminders of how much it relies on how I phrase a prompt when it delivers any kind of answer. That influence really drives how satisfying the results are.