> language is a vague communication medium. We have a precise language for describing forms of computation, but that's code so we're back at square one. That's

> language is a vague communication medium. We have a precise language for describing forms of computation, but that's code so we're back at square one. That's why you tell it how to write the code, and then review the code to ensure it is what you wanted. > We still haven't nailed the right amount of follow up and correction I feel like I've got it under control. It's not really a problem at all to me. I just work closely with the AI. I do small tasks, I don't just have it generate thousands of lines at once. I tell it what to do and how, or give it some vague guidance and ask it to make a plan. Then review the plan, ask for some changes if necessary and execute. Then I go over all the changes, test them to ensure they work properly, have it fix any issues I find and so on. I think the main problem with AI coding is people try to do too much. You can't keep a tight leash on it while also having it do a week's worth of work in an hour. I do one task at a time and I am heavily involved in it, deciding exactly how it's done. I micromanage the crap out of that thing. I write commits myself and I always review my own PR before submitting it to colleagues. Works great. I get things done much faster than I used to, with better quality than before.