Do we have that middle ground? It seems like something many people are desperately looking for, but are not finding right now. I think we’re all open to your solomonic wisdom, if only you’d share it with us instead of making snarky remarks.
> The idea that someone could just replace it in a matter of days is wild.
They didn’t design a language that millions of human engineers enjoy (?, lol) using. They took an existing codebase and ported it. Yes, the porting part is easier now but only because another project and spec exist.
While this is true - and I see the same sentiment as i am about to make ad nauseam - it is kind of amazing how far the goal posts have moved in such a short space of time.
Where’s the ambition? This reads like a long ad for Claude, from an EM with AI psychosis.
> I want a deeper version of this task, not a bigger one. Before rewriting it: (1) say what a top professional in this field would do here that I’m not asking for; (2) name the rawest material they would start from instead of what has already been digested for me; (3) name the specific methods and tools they would use; (4) say what, other than you or me, would show the result is right. Then rewrite my prompt to ask for exactly that.
Sorry, but this is along the same vein as “make no mistakes”. Don’t give Anthropic even more of your money to burn tokens on stuff like this.
> This isn’t a particularly unique insight, every single heist movie spends the first 30 minutes assembling a diverse cast of characters and talents. As AI products make it easier and easier to run multi-agent systems (with multiple threads, orchestrators, or simply subagents), I’ve seen really interesting results by imploring Claude to bring in additional fields.
Again, this is an ad to get you to burn more tokens.
> Meetings (the good kind, anyway) ideally end with some decisions. Ask Claude: “Work out which three decisions are most urgent in the face of everything you’ve learned, and start working on potential directions with for/against arguments.”
Jesus, man, weren’t you just in the meeting? Just send your Claude next time, please don’t bother attending. This isn’t even ambition, it’s laziness.
—-
Use AI all you want: let it unblock you and move on to the next thing.
Anthropic employees just need to practice being normal human beings. Outside of their cult, the stuff they say is just weird.
“Work out which three decisions are most urgent” sounds like it is inviting horribly embarrassing mistakes. What will you do if, in three months, it transpires that Claude overlooked an obviously urgent decision, and you didn't notice because you didn't actually analyze or even look at the data?
If bad software still generates revenue, that's the value. I'm speaking as someone who has used awful software that some ignorant boss bought for our organisation.
Oh if we only had a middle ground between hitting the slop button versus hitting every key manually.
> Yes, sure, maintainability, yada yada. For most code out there, that never mattered anyway.
I’m so glad we have an expert who knows what’s best for “most code out there” gracing this thread with his presence.