> You said you have to babysit each line of code, I mean this is simply untrue, if it works there's no need to babysit
No. It either doesn't work, or works incorrectly, or the code is incomplete despite requirements etc.
> Your example is perhaps valid, but there are other examples where it does work as I mentioned.
It's funny how I'm supposed to assume your examples are the truth, and nothing but the truth, but my examples are "untrue, you're a perfectionist, and perhaps you're right"
> the more detail and more technical you speak the better
As I literally wrote in the comment you're so dismissive of: "As for "using LLMs wrong", using them "right" is literally babysitting their output and spending a lot of time trying to reverse-engineer their behavior with increasingly inane prompts."
> assume it's a very precise expert.
If it was an expert, as you claim it to be, it would not need extremely detailed prompting. As it is, it's a willing but clumsy junior.
To the point that it would rewrite the code I fixed with invalid code when asked to fix an unrelated mistake.
> Good prompting and verifying output
How is it you repeat everything I say, and somehow assume I'm wrong and my examples are invalid?
I did not say your examples are untrue, no need to be so defensive. Believe what you wish but my example is true and works.
A willing but clumsy junior benefits tremendously from a well scoped task.
No. It either doesn't work, or works incorrectly, or the code is incomplete despite requirements etc.
> Your example is perhaps valid, but there are other examples where it does work as I mentioned.
It's funny how I'm supposed to assume your examples are the truth, and nothing but the truth, but my examples are "untrue, you're a perfectionist, and perhaps you're right"
> the more detail and more technical you speak the better
As I literally wrote in the comment you're so dismissive of: "As for "using LLMs wrong", using them "right" is literally babysitting their output and spending a lot of time trying to reverse-engineer their behavior with increasingly inane prompts."
> assume it's a very precise expert.
If it was an expert, as you claim it to be, it would not need extremely detailed prompting. As it is, it's a willing but clumsy junior.
To the point that it would rewrite the code I fixed with invalid code when asked to fix an unrelated mistake.
> Good prompting and verifying output
How is it you repeat everything I say, and somehow assume I'm wrong and my examples are invalid?