Unfortunately I can't do that. My projects are too big now.
In fact, this is how I deal with projects: I build the base manually and then I can iterate with AI faster once the fundamentals are solid.
Sometimes the AI tends to forget those fundamentals or tries to change those and add unnecessary stuff on top. If I stay invested in what the AI is doing, I can usually spot it and nudge the AI back to sanity.
With rust a handwritten base sets the standards, and I feel like I have lower usage rolling the first few hundred lines of code and then gradually expanding rather than going in blind.
Also reverse engineering an existing product and using the information to map out behavior and structure is incredibly valuable
Why do we need humans in the loop, what exactly can’t be replaced by an AI in your workflow?
It sounds like having another AI telling the first AI not to “drift” away from the fundamentals would do the trick? Does this activity require some kind of super human abilities that can’t be done by an AI?
What exactly is it that gives satisfaction? Bossing around a junior developer or reviewing code generated by said junior. What's the point of being a “programmer” when one is really just some middle manager defining issues and pushing them out to a factory floor of digital monkeys.
If the satisfaction lies in role playing middle management then I can understand all the hype. Certainly it has nothing to do with programming any longer.
AI still does not do pattern matching the same way my brain works. I still see things that can be improved where the AI just go with what is most common.
If I nudge it, it realizes it. If I don't, I get basic software.
Just as I speak, it is reworking a UI compositor design, after I told it to use the reactive framework I have built for damage restoration, because in the end, this is a reactive problem. The implications, it drew on its own. But I had to nudge it.
Comments
Unfortunately I can't do that. My projects are too big now. In fact, this is how I deal with projects: I build the base manually and then I can iterate with AI faster once the fundamentals are solid. Sometimes the AI tends to forget those fundamentals or tries to change those and add unnecessary stuff on top. If I stay invested in what the AI is doing, I can usually spot it and nudge the AI back to sanity.
That is how I think it should be done.
I've had tremendous success with this approach as well.
With rust a handwritten base sets the standards, and I feel like I have lower usage rolling the first few hundred lines of code and then gradually expanding rather than going in blind.
Also reverse engineering an existing product and using the information to map out behavior and structure is incredibly valuable
Why do we need humans in the loop, what exactly can’t be replaced by an AI in your workflow?
It sounds like having another AI telling the first AI not to “drift” away from the fundamentals would do the trick? Does this activity require some kind of super human abilities that can’t be done by an AI?
What exactly is it that gives satisfaction? Bossing around a junior developer or reviewing code generated by said junior. What's the point of being a “programmer” when one is really just some middle manager defining issues and pushing them out to a factory floor of digital monkeys.
If the satisfaction lies in role playing middle management then I can understand all the hype. Certainly it has nothing to do with programming any longer.
AI still does not do pattern matching the same way my brain works. I still see things that can be improved where the AI just go with what is most common. If I nudge it, it realizes it. If I don't, I get basic software.
Just as I speak, it is reworking a UI compositor design, after I told it to use the reactive framework I have built for damage restoration, because in the end, this is a reactive problem. The implications, it drew on its own. But I had to nudge it.