I have a pet theory. 1. This skill requires a strong theory of mind[1]. 2. Theory of mind is more difficult in those with autism 3. The same autism that makes people really good at coding, and gives them the time to post on online forms like hn, makes it hard to understand how to work with LLMs and how others work with llms.
To provide good context to the llm you need to have a good understanding of (1) what it will and will not know, (2) what you know and take for granted(ie a theory of your own mind) (3) what your expectations are. None of this you need to do when you are coding on your own, but are critical on getting a good response from the LLM.
See also the black and white thinking that is common in the responses on articles like this.[2]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind [2]https://www.simplypsychology.org/black-and-white-thinking-in...
It sounds like an unprovable metaphysical statement than something that is supported by scientific evidence.
How exactly do you come up with a pet theory out of nowhere, randomly diagnose people on the internet with autism based on how they use LLMs and then start linking to a most likely AI generated blog post (there was simply too much repetition) that ascribes a lot of negative attributes to them with a username that is meant to be unrecognisable.
The post is basically a Kafka trap or engagement bait.
And Cursor just introduced a separate plan mode themselves, so it gets even better.
They do have biases, like if you tell them to do something with data, they'll pretty likely grab Python as the tool.
And different models have different biases and styles, you can try to guide them to your specific style with prompts, but it doesn't always work - depending on how esoteric your personal style is.
I’m still very much learning how to give it good instructions to accomplish tasks. Different tasks require different types and methods of instruction. It’s extremely interesting to me. I’m far from an expert.
Every day you need to bring them up to speed (prompt, accessible documentation) and give them the task of the day. If it looks like they can't finish the task (context runs out), you need to tell them to write down where they left (store context to a memory, markdown file is fine) and kick them out the door.
Then GOTO 10, get the next one in.
People say this a lot, and I'm not even saying you're wrong. But that isn't useful to me. In the time it takes me to do all that, I can just solve the problem myself. If I have to hold its hand through finding a solution, then it is a time suck, not a time saver.
But then there’s also tasks where using the tool is a HUGE speed up.
And it will it will integrate websockets in your UI, backend and create the models, service logic, etc in under 20 seconds. Can you really do that?
If my workflow is;
1. Write documentation so that the problem and even the solution to the problem is well explained. 2. Instruct coding agents to work as the document described. 3. Check its if its implementation is correct, and improve its implementation if necessary.
I feel the experience is not as good as me implementing the solution myself, and it may even take more time.
It is ok to decide not to use such a tool. But you will be left behind.
You can't just give it a single sentence and expect it to do something complex correctly. It takes real effort and human time, just like if you were trying to get a smart and capable intern who has no real world experience to do something technical correctly. Just the AI agents work significantly faster than a human intern.