I've been on a similar path, and I used to put time in high level design, as it was basically required in some cases. But not a lot of time, because smaller agents research, perform small tests, whatever to inform the high level design. Working incrementally seems to help, maybe prompting a bit more often, but the same can be accomplished with well defined checkpoints.
Then generalize + standardize that process, get an agent to replace you as high level designer so you can manage a team of high level designers, etc etc
Alternatively, things that are not insightful can feel insightful to some people, because they triggered some different, tangentially related thoughts than what was being communicated — i.e., the reader substituted their own insight for the author's.
Or because the author has enough authority that they are granted a presumption of insightfulness by default, even (or perhaps especially) when the concrete insight that's allegedly being communicated remains unclear.
For myself, it was useful to write down the general approach I took when solving problems. But it is useful because it was learning about myself, not because it is the same approach as the author here, and not because that is some magical best approach.
I experienced maybe a minute of being "whelmed" or +1 out of 10 over baseline because I liked reading someone else that uses this approach. For someone who thinks nothing like me, I would imagine it feeling very similar to "draw the rest of the owl."
I don't think everyone needs to think the same way. And if we did want everyone to think a certain way, well, the author's style would not convince many.
As someone fiddling with computers trying to solve "every problem," the only actual solution for me is making tools to assist with being aware of the state of your body. Overly simple example, but give someone a heartrate monitor for the first time and they won't be able to guess their current bpm all that accurately. If they pay a little attention to it for a month, you'll get much more closer guesses for instantaneous rate. If it becomes easier to be aware of your current state, you get a more accurate model, and can start to predict basic cycles etc. Eventually, without the tools.
It's so obvious to some and may never be considered by others.
If someone asks about AI I tell them step 1 is ask it how to do something you know all about. Step 2 is consider everything else you ask will be that inaccurate.
As a dev with three decades experience writing code, I use it for stuff I know all about all the time. And these days, the majority of the time it is more correct than I would've been without a few iterations of trial and error.
GP is saying that when you use it in a domain where you're familiar, you'll naturally spot bad or lazy approaches and heavily steer the LLM, so you should keep that in mind when using it in domains you aren't an expert in (and thus can't as easily spot those things). I'm not sure why the tone of your reply is so uncharitable.
