I'm using fable and opus about 25%75/% respectively. I have a 3 step process - discuss a topic and create a review, convert the review to a task file and update the design docs, then finally implement the task file in code. Normally around 300-1000 loc implemented for a change, more for a new UI page or whatever.
And honestly it's incredibly good.
- 50% of the time it'll generate code that I accept wholesale.
- 25%: it maybe makes a choice I don't like, or the implementation isn't the approach I liked, so I tweak it.
-10%: it needlessly creates semi-duplicate function logic, so it's a lot more code and execution paths become hard to conceptualise
-10%: it mirrors business logic it shouldn't, and subtly changes it. Which needs a huge amount of intervention to fix.
- 5% it goes completely off the rails. Eg decided that business/application logic should be in the database.
Prompt and check this honestly works very well (still waiting on tests with more than a handful of paying customers however!) but a FULLY automated agent pipeline? I'm not convinced. That last 15% of cases will make a degenerate codebase real fast.
Also without a CC subscription, paying per token, it would be horrifically expensive for my approach.
This seems like a useful write up of the concepts involved here, but I just hate reading Claude’s writing style so much.
This is content marketing, at least give it a review pass before you hit publish… if your marketing is unpolished AI slop, I have to assume your product is too.
People are slowly loosing the brain muscles for writing (also thinking hard). Just like someone who is in shape and lets themselves go, it gets harder and hard to wake up and go for the run the longer you wait.
At this point people genuinely do not have the willpower to write, and instantly give into the lazy shortcuts llms provide. Just like how GPS apps degraded smart people's ability to navigate around their own towns (I've seen this happen to many over the years), LLMs will totally degrade people's ability to write (and think for themselves).
We're slowly auctioning off our sovereignty in exchange for quick shortcuts to every tech company. Not good.
Just wait, soon you will hear rumors of how tech CEOs don't let their children use AI in school (while they demand everyone else's children do), similar to how Zuck et al didn't let his kids use social media.
god i hate this style of sentence. claude uses it far too much. my teammates have been writing PRDs that are filled to the brim with this sentence structure. absolutely maddening.
And honestly it's incredibly good. - 50% of the time it'll generate code that I accept wholesale.
- 25%: it maybe makes a choice I don't like, or the implementation isn't the approach I liked, so I tweak it.
-10%: it needlessly creates semi-duplicate function logic, so it's a lot more code and execution paths become hard to conceptualise
-10%: it mirrors business logic it shouldn't, and subtly changes it. Which needs a huge amount of intervention to fix.
- 5% it goes completely off the rails. Eg decided that business/application logic should be in the database.
Prompt and check this honestly works very well (still waiting on tests with more than a handful of paying customers however!) but a FULLY automated agent pipeline? I'm not convinced. That last 15% of cases will make a degenerate codebase real fast.
Also without a CC subscription, paying per token, it would be horrifically expensive for my approach.
reply