I disagree. A chess engine has a very well defined goal and is working its patterns to reach that goal.
In software development, except in a minority of cases, the goal is being set by non-technical people, who have no clue how the resulting system should end up, only what it should look like to a user. I think a well-versed programmer can give the AI direct instructions on how to implement something, and just let the LLM write the code to implement/refactor the infrastructure behind the feature they're developing. For me the plan mode of Claude Code is (anecdote incoming) much faster(TM) and better(TM) if I give it concrete instructions - then it writes the plan, asks questions - and then implements it. Very little complaints after that (I usually don't let Claude do any sort of visual QA)
Comments
The analogy can be dragged one step further: once the engine is good enough, it’s functionally impractical for a human to play.
I disagree. A chess engine has a very well defined goal and is working its patterns to reach that goal.
In software development, except in a minority of cases, the goal is being set by non-technical people, who have no clue how the resulting system should end up, only what it should look like to a user. I think a well-versed programmer can give the AI direct instructions on how to implement something, and just let the LLM write the code to implement/refactor the infrastructure behind the feature they're developing. For me the plan mode of Claude Code is (anecdote incoming) much faster(TM) and better(TM) if I give it concrete instructions - then it writes the plan, asks questions - and then implements it. Very little complaints after that (I usually don't let Claude do any sort of visual QA)