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.
But I don't really want to play a part in a simulation, trying to cajole my scene partners into saying the lines I need them to say. I want to use a tool the same way I would use any other tool. If this is AI it should just do the thing. Anything else is an imperfection of the technology.
But at the same time, 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. We still haven't nailed the right amount of follow up and correction and interrupt-ability of these coding agents.
And we may never figure it out. It may simply be impossible. But it doesn't mean this weird anthropomorphization of AI is something I want to do. If I wanted to be a manager, I would be a manager.