I now started to us AI to help review my juniors PRs, because I couldn't keep up with the amount of code they ship. It started poorly, but now I have my method: I first read the code and flag the lines I'm not sure about, then ask any frontier model (I like Claude here for analysis, even if I don't use it for the rest) to explain the PR and to put effort on the parts I flagged (basically explain in detail the code, not only the PR), and to search through the libraries. Sometimes it notices something I would have missed (like missing an 'order_by' or off by one errors, because the underlying lib wasn't coded like the original AI pretended it was).
I also changed the way I do review because it has been more than a year and the juniors/new hire are still lost, wether on domain knowledge for the older new hire, or just capabilities for the juniors, and discussing with other departments, it's the same for like 95% of them. Now, rather than correcting the PR or adding a request for change, I add a whole unit/functional test to the PR and let that as an exercise to pass the test. They can use AI but I tell them to try to find what part of the code doesn't work before generating the fix, hopefully they'll take ownership of the code if I keep doing that.
Bit of a humbling/jarring moment when I realized that people are doing real paid work using LLMs that they could not otherwise do. I mean, it's quite obvious I suppose. But up until now I just assumed it was only a (massive) catalyst for things people would already be able to do with enough time. But nope -- it seems people are right now employed in roles that they would not be able to fulfil the tasks within if AI wasn't there telling them what to write/say/produce. Nobody is really going to come out and say that ... it's not something the less-AI-literate superiors would take kindly to.
I think it depends on what area of the world you work. We recenty had one of our plant managers build a web portal to keep track of some of our operational tech, with features you wouldn't find in standard products. I've been turning it into a container app that can actually deploy safely into our cloud infrastrcture. It's quite frankly better quality than what most external software companies have provided us with in the past.
Don't get me wrong. It's not great. It would never pass any of our policies for things that actually operate stuff on the power grid, but as an administrative tool that can live in total isolation from the vital networks. It's perfectly fine. It's also not like we would have hired the best software companies to build it otherwise. We'd hire some low-level cheap consultant house who would then likely get cheap student labour to build it. With that in mind though, the AI is much better than what the realistic alternative would be.
Money wise it's also cheaper. It's been roughly €1000 + the time it's taken us both. If I had known they were doing it, I would have rolled out the developer cowork app/skills/whateveryoucallconfigurationsthesedays to them. This would have avoided their AI building it to be depoyed on a VM rather than in our managed k8s in our Azure. It would also have written the code a little different, used UV and maybe django rather than flask. But hey. For what it is, it's like a 90% cost saving compared to buying what would've been a less maintainable and lower quality system.
I think perhaps the greater issue will be finding people who want to extract the gold from the heap of shit and getting it to run in production. I don't personally mind, but it's not like any of my colleagues would've wanted the task.
With the models we got at out disposal, you can easily deploy a kickass internal tool, it's fine even for mvp's unless you're not handling sensitive user data, shooting yourself in the foot is easier than ever, and talking about code smell for most application (especially frontend) does it even matter?
By coincidence, we've been building software for five years that other plant managers are now considering using to keep track of some operational metrics. And I don't think we should put LLMs into our development cycle, simply because the data our software is built for can have critical meaning in some situations.
The insecurity in a vibe-coded web portal isn't that someone hacks it with XSS, it's that after the next vibe-coded release, some X quietly becomes −Y somewhere no one expects.
From this perspective, having no software at all might be better, or as in your case, safer.
That's one of the few consumer-facing areas where there are still standards in place, namely PCI-DSS. As far as I know the audits require the name of a human who is responsible for payment security. Card companies can one-hit kill your startup if you're breaking those rules (maybe purely blockchain startups are exempt).
Yes, you can offload this to stripe, but then your app should never see the card number and certainly not the CVV. You end up storing these, even by accident, both stripe and the card companies will hate you.
DeepSeek has been the most used model on open router by far, only temporarily overtaken by ox alpha when it was free, so it's the most representative experience
It is funny that only real research on productivity gains from AI shows at best very minimal gains, but AI bros will always tell you "no no no, you have used wrong model, try a different one, there are more of them, you have to try, trust me" and call that a "research".
In general, the frontier models are not capable of reliably authoring non-trivial code without careful oversight yet. They are great at producing code that can pass tests, but not neccessarily a code review. This means if you care about code quality you still need a human in a loop understanding what has been done, and that becomes the bottleneck. And less disciplined folks will indeed become increasingly dependent.
However, over time the complexity of problems where you can get away with less/no oversight is increasing. And the models are already great at solving certain classes of problems where one doesn't really care that much about code quality, that wouldn't have even been attempted in a pre-LLM world. Over the weekend I was using Claude to add features to the compiled (no source available) firmware of one of my audio devices, adding workflow features by patching assembly and custom DSP code.
In coding, as with other areas, what's emerging is jagged intelligence.
Nope. That would require the people paying for the code (those requesting the projects) to see something wrong with the code. As a coder, you would look in an see a mess. As a user they'll probably see something relatively nice, with some maybe strange behavior and non ideal, but what software sin't non ideal? It does most of what we wanted, and you finished it how fast!?
“I wanted to see if I can get in on this 10x magic. I decided to put my money where my mouth was and I bought $10 worth of DeepSeek credits to use with a project I was working on.“
I'm sure DeepSeek isn't the point here. You can change the name to whatever you prefer and the article still holds.
Actually, I think the author put DeepSeek on purpose to avoid the obvious ChatGPT/Claude comparison — because whatever he chose, there would be a question of why model A and not B, while the point of the article isn't about models comparison at all.
It is the point. Also open source model enthusiast tell you otherwise, there is a coding quality gap between these models. If I use DeepSeek, I do so knowing that I have to limit to simpler tasks on smaller, well specified prompts. What the author did, letting the model do the planning, is not something DeepSeek will excel at. I'm using GPT (Terra, Sol, Luna), Claude (Opus 5, Fable), Qwen 3.8 and GLM 5.3 Flash daily and have to vary which model I use where because there's a huge intelligence step function difference here. That's why this article is so useless:
Imagine someone trying to make the case that riding bicycles is a terrible experience and their whole argument is that they took a random cheapo bike with flat tires and rode it for 3min and that wasn't fun. Sure, but if you buy a 25k carbon bike you will have a different experience. I'd not trust that person. If someone told me they have 10 bikes they ride daily and can explain the differences, in detail, between their bikes, and what they excel at. I'd trust that person's opinion.
Right. Better throw money at 5 different ones and then people come and tell you that you just need MORE agents and throw MORE money at it or you're not doing it right.
I got here and... I agreed with everything up to this point.
The author makes a good point. If you don't know what you're doing, AI accelerates that. No question.
But they put a whopping... ten bucks into using DeepSeek and weren't impressed with the initial results.
I know they try to cover this with "you just aren't prompting correctly!" but if, in 2026, you aren't able to have an LLM generate decent quality code... IDK what to tell you. Good luck I guess?
IMO given the position DeepSeek actually occupies in terms of its comparison to models only recently behind the frontier, if the counterargument is still "oh you need to use the frontier model and spend a bit more", or "you need to use multiple agents and loops and X and Y and Z", then it's not a very strong argument.
That's a gambler's fallacy: you're not going to start winning until you bet more.
It is consistent with their argument about the absence of the AI-powered unicorns that given how good DeepSeek is and where it sits in performance terms relative to older frontier models people were raving about at launch and still favour over the latest, $10 into DeepSeek should have blown them away.
There is still so much "oh it'll be so much better in the next model release" or "skill issue" or "you just need to put this in your <whatever> file", so much "you just have to accept there will be more bugs", there is still so much cosmic ordering and cargo culting going on, and yet the complaints about the models being badly behaved, argumentative, inconsistently and writing badly also still continue. AI writing has worsened, hasn't it?
I think most of us should be tired of the "in six to twelve months" of it all, but OpenAI and Anthropic still roll it out. It's long past time that progress is not just round the next corner.
I don't disagree with the title of this weblog post, but its premise is wrong: the existence of AI has an impact on the total number of tech companies, but not on the number of companies that make it real big (the AirBnBs, Stripes and Dropboxes the author is looking for).
There are some good points, and I ask the question of where is the ground breaking stuff myself, but severely weakened by
* stretching the timeline: the actual real programming ability appeared in LLMs in the last 6-8 months, not 3-4 years,
* using the weakest possible tool: and I bought $10 worth of DeepSeek credits that is a far cry from Claude with Fable.
Also, I know nothing about marathons but for most uses putting the app, database, and background processes on the same server is very much the right starting point. With the next steps being employing Cloudflare or similar solutions long before managing a fleet of servers.
Even as someone using AI on the regular I'm starting to hate the "You didn't actually use this exact most expensive model so your point is invalid" argument.
This is fair to say if someones last experience with AI was copy-pasting code into GPT3 chat windows years ago, but Deepseek is a more than capabale model and enough for someone to get an informed opinion about the technology.
If people have actual counter argument, use those. And if some of those counter argument are "What you say isn't possible, the neweste model can do and here are examples of that", that is fine.
But a blanket "Nuh-uh, it wasn't Model X" is not only a poor argument but also automatically invalidates any criticism when a new, better model comes out - and that can't be the basis of a good argument.
In this case, the argument is valid though. Only recently have some of the models become powerful enough (for some) to actually be useful in day to day programming, without too much hand-holding. For most, this change occurred with the introduction of Claude Opus, and OpenAI and Google have caught up. Unfortunately, none of the "open" models is at this level yet.
The field is moving fast, and asking for scientific arguments is not realistic. It takes an extreme amount of effort to show what exactly is different.
We were in a similar position with static vs dynamic typing for decades. There is still no scientific proof that one is better than the other, but it is quite obvious to professionals which flavor works better in a given situation.
So, even though the argument might be sloppy, I subscribe to it. Using DeepSeek to dismiss better models is the bad argument here.
Edit: added "(for some)" as a disclaimer that you still need to be a fairly decent programmer to actually benefit.
I remember being told in early 2025 that only now has "real programming ability" appeared in LLMs.
And since then there's been 3 more "now real programming ability has been made available and previous stuff was just toy examples" cycles (summer 2025, winter 2025 and spring 2026)
Looking forward to the next "everything before this was trivial and bad, here's the good stuff" moment
I have a coffee cup with the writing "Do stupid thing faster with cafe". That's how I feel about myself when I use AI carelessly... The speed with which I can make a mess is astronomical!
'Or else admit this is a dopamine game that makes you feel like The Universe's Most Special Programmer™ when it's really just gamified mass-scale intellectual dependency.'
I tried really hard to get senior management to understand this where I work. Yes, AI is an accelerator, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to accelerate you in the "right" direction.
If one truly believes it's not in a bubble, then borrow and leverage an unlimited amount and bet the house & your family on creating a business with infinite growth and value. Don't know how to do your own prompts? Borrow and then hire others to do it for you. If those who you hire don't know, they can hire others too.*
[* This is not financial advice. Please don't actually do this.]
You could make the converse argument, too: why don't you borrow and leverage and bet and short these AI companies, if you so vehemently think it's a bubble?
The bottom line is that markets are complicated, useful technologies are often accompanied by bubbles, investors are not always rational, and people generally try to make the best decision with the information they have available. The answer is likely somewhere in the middle, but that's a lot more boring and a lot less inflammatory.
> You could make the converse argument, too: why don't you borrow and leverage and bet and short these AI companies, if you so vehemently think it's a bubble?
Because going long and going short are very different. For successfully shorting something you need to have a pretty precise estimate of when the crash will happen. Being a comparatively short time off can cost you everything.
You mean for companies that make -$2.50 for every $1 of revenue, and bury their groups $2Tn debt in a footnote?
It is not a question of if the bubble will go, but when... but you are right that Bears or Bulls always get it wrong predicting the future (if they are a legal investor.)
Personally, Shrek movie release correlation with market corrections is funny, and a new film is due June 2027. Please hedge your bets with a diversified portfolio. =3
At least once a week I have to drop what I'm doing and race in to stop the non dev manager from merging a fully vibe coded patch which will blow up production. Claude Code has made this guy a negative 10x developer.
At worst, needs another manager to approve. Now they can both saddle up on the velocity/time to market wave... together. The racket begins in earnest.
How does a manager do this, they ask? I answer: the same way they do everything. Lunch. If it doesn't work, at least they tried! Deck chairs, Titanic, etc.
> and ruining the quality of internet search engines.
Tbf, I'm not sure we can really lay this one at the feet of GenAI. The SEO bros had pretty thoroughly ruined search before LLMs took off - the process just accelerated a little at that point.
Why does it have to lead to a 10x increase in revolutionary companies?
Next to maintaining and expanding my own network of websites I 10xd writing boring CRUD applications for companies that were otherwise unable to afford it, making all their employees more productive. There's true economic value in that.
This is fine, but software also needs maintenance, especially security updates. If we have an explosion of new software without the corresponding increase in maintenance work - very likely from clients that pay peanuts for software - the world will be taken over by botnets and malware.
AI is like a tool used by mega-corporations to change the world according to what they want. We see this with the increase in RAM prices. I don't want to pay the overprice here - AI companies owe us money. People seem still mostly in the AI hype phase, but a lot more criticism has amplified in the last months. It is only a matter of time until the hype phase is over.
His AI experience is $10 of DeepSeek - but I think he is right anyway in the main points.
You can most definitely ship crap much faster than you used to. It's obvious to anyone when you're shipping crap. And it seems everywhere I look people are shipping crap. Both software and writing.
The hardest part of shipping quality software is not and has never been "writing the code". The hard parts are product taste, architecture and ensuring your product actually solves the problems it should in an efficient and secure manner.
If you don't have an intuition of those, you will likely still be shipping crap. Just faster.
Yep, using AI to remove your thinking process and judgement, and just let it generate stuff as fast as possible, will definitely make you ship crap faster! If you did the same thing with a junior developer you would get the same result.
Where AI shines for me is accelerating the learning and exploration process. I can get up to speed with new tech fast. It is good at spotting issues in designs and code. It can knock out quick tests or benchmarks to support me. The quality of what I can produce with AI support is much higher than I could without it.
So it really just depends on what you use it for. If the goal is "replace humans and ship fast" that's one thing. If the goal is "explore the problem space in greater depth", it's another.
> The chatbot recommended some of the dumbest shit you could possibly do
The "I tried it and it sucked" is borderline conspiratorial at this point. There are enough talented, thoughtful developers saying there's something real here, and it is worth believing them and investing some time to understand it, even if you come out the other side and decide you don't want to use LLMs.
Use a very good model. Set up a good harness. Spend some time on your system prompts and skills. Develop your intuitions about how the model works, what it's good at, how to scope the work, and how to steer it. Recognize when it's alleviating menial work and recognize when it's making choices you really need to understand yourself. Be patient and accept that the failures are going to be very painful for a while.
Don't write it off until you've genuinely seen the upsides.
You describe my experience with Claude (except my gut feeling is that system prompts and especially skills are useless, and I've even done limited testing that agrees with that).
However, your discourse is not the usual borderline religious discourse that's used by LLM advocates. You're not extreme enough either pro or against LLMs :)
Ha, well that's good because I would hate to be labeled an "LLM advocate". I've been on the negative side of the conversation many times, and I think the downsides are very real and often ignored. But calling them useless is just not reality.
As far as system prompts and skills, my approach has been to start with nothing and add very specific instructions as I notice issues or feel like I need them. Mostly around trying to keep it terse, kill the obnoxious rhetoric ("It's not X. It's Y"), and give specific guidance on how to write code. Skills are things like "use edge-tts to generate spoken audio for this answer and send it to me" kind of thing.
> except my gut feeling is that system prompts and especially skills are useless
I tend to agree. Not with the extreme version of this statement: there are some genuinely useful instructions I give in my Claude.md and prompts. Comment style, how much to push back, which subagents to orchestrate for tests, reviews, etc.
But I've tried the single-sentence versions of those and versions with multiple files of long prompts for the orchestrator and its subagents, and I can't tell the difference in output quality. If anything, the shorter version is better
> Don't write it off until you've genuinely seen the upsides.
This is ridiculous. Basically you're saying "if you try it and find it sucks, you're wrong, keep at it until you change your mind". That isn't a tool at that point, it's a religion.
I also changed the way I do review because it has been more than a year and the juniors/new hire are still lost, wether on domain knowledge for the older new hire, or just capabilities for the juniors, and discussing with other departments, it's the same for like 95% of them. Now, rather than correcting the PR or adding a request for change, I add a whole unit/functional test to the PR and let that as an exercise to pass the test. They can use AI but I tell them to try to find what part of the code doesn't work before generating the fix, hopefully they'll take ownership of the code if I keep doing that.
Don't get me wrong. It's not great. It would never pass any of our policies for things that actually operate stuff on the power grid, but as an administrative tool that can live in total isolation from the vital networks. It's perfectly fine. It's also not like we would have hired the best software companies to build it otherwise. We'd hire some low-level cheap consultant house who would then likely get cheap student labour to build it. With that in mind though, the AI is much better than what the realistic alternative would be.
Money wise it's also cheaper. It's been roughly €1000 + the time it's taken us both. If I had known they were doing it, I would have rolled out the developer cowork app/skills/whateveryoucallconfigurationsthesedays to them. This would have avoided their AI building it to be depoyed on a VM rather than in our managed k8s in our Azure. It would also have written the code a little different, used UV and maybe django rather than flask. But hey. For what it is, it's like a 90% cost saving compared to buying what would've been a less maintainable and lower quality system.
I think perhaps the greater issue will be finding people who want to extract the gold from the heap of shit and getting it to run in production. I don't personally mind, but it's not like any of my colleagues would've wanted the task.
The insecurity in a vibe-coded web portal isn't that someone hacks it with XSS, it's that after the next vibe-coded release, some X quietly becomes −Y somewhere no one expects.
From this perspective, having no software at all might be better, or as in your case, safer.
That's one of the few consumer-facing areas where there are still standards in place, namely PCI-DSS. As far as I know the audits require the name of a human who is responsible for payment security. Card companies can one-hit kill your startup if you're breaking those rules (maybe purely blockchain startups are exempt).
Yes, you can offload this to stripe, but then your app should never see the card number and certainly not the CVV. You end up storing these, even by accident, both stripe and the card companies will hate you.
Why not use actual frontier models, and you know do some real research, before writing a blog post?
It is funny that only real research on productivity gains from AI shows at best very minimal gains, but AI bros will always tell you "no no no, you have used wrong model, try a different one, there are more of them, you have to try, trust me" and call that a "research".
However, over time the complexity of problems where you can get away with less/no oversight is increasing. And the models are already great at solving certain classes of problems where one doesn't really care that much about code quality, that wouldn't have even been attempted in a pre-LLM world. Over the weekend I was using Claude to add features to the compiled (no source available) firmware of one of my audio devices, adding workflow features by patching assembly and custom DSP code.
In coding, as with other areas, what's emerging is jagged intelligence.
Now with AI I can 10x my output and 10x my bad code!
Wow. I guess that’s the punchline!
Actually, I think the author put DeepSeek on purpose to avoid the obvious ChatGPT/Claude comparison — because whatever he chose, there would be a question of why model A and not B, while the point of the article isn't about models comparison at all.
Imagine someone trying to make the case that riding bicycles is a terrible experience and their whole argument is that they took a random cheapo bike with flat tires and rode it for 3min and that wasn't fun. Sure, but if you buy a 25k carbon bike you will have a different experience. I'd not trust that person. If someone told me they have 10 bikes they ride daily and can explain the differences, in detail, between their bikes, and what they excel at. I'd trust that person's opinion.
I'm also convinced the effect would not be there If I had a 10$ budget.
The author makes a good point. If you don't know what you're doing, AI accelerates that. No question.
But they put a whopping... ten bucks into using DeepSeek and weren't impressed with the initial results.
I know they try to cover this with "you just aren't prompting correctly!" but if, in 2026, you aren't able to have an LLM generate decent quality code... IDK what to tell you. Good luck I guess?
That's a gambler's fallacy: you're not going to start winning until you bet more.
It is consistent with their argument about the absence of the AI-powered unicorns that given how good DeepSeek is and where it sits in performance terms relative to older frontier models people were raving about at launch and still favour over the latest, $10 into DeepSeek should have blown them away.
There is still so much "oh it'll be so much better in the next model release" or "skill issue" or "you just need to put this in your <whatever> file", so much "you just have to accept there will be more bugs", there is still so much cosmic ordering and cargo culting going on, and yet the complaints about the models being badly behaved, argumentative, inconsistently and writing badly also still continue. AI writing has worsened, hasn't it?
I think most of us should be tired of the "in six to twelve months" of it all, but OpenAI and Anthropic still roll it out. It's long past time that progress is not just round the next corner.
* stretching the timeline: the actual real programming ability appeared in LLMs in the last 6-8 months, not 3-4 years,
* using the weakest possible tool: and I bought $10 worth of DeepSeek credits that is a far cry from Claude with Fable.
Also, I know nothing about marathons but for most uses putting the app, database, and background processes on the same server is very much the right starting point. With the next steps being employing Cloudflare or similar solutions long before managing a fleet of servers.
This is fair to say if someones last experience with AI was copy-pasting code into GPT3 chat windows years ago, but Deepseek is a more than capabale model and enough for someone to get an informed opinion about the technology.
If people have actual counter argument, use those. And if some of those counter argument are "What you say isn't possible, the neweste model can do and here are examples of that", that is fine.
But a blanket "Nuh-uh, it wasn't Model X" is not only a poor argument but also automatically invalidates any criticism when a new, better model comes out - and that can't be the basis of a good argument.
The field is moving fast, and asking for scientific arguments is not realistic. It takes an extreme amount of effort to show what exactly is different.
We were in a similar position with static vs dynamic typing for decades. There is still no scientific proof that one is better than the other, but it is quite obvious to professionals which flavor works better in a given situation.
So, even though the argument might be sloppy, I subscribe to it. Using DeepSeek to dismiss better models is the bad argument here.
Edit: added "(for some)" as a disclaimer that you still need to be a fairly decent programmer to actually benefit.
And since then there's been 3 more "now real programming ability has been made available and previous stuff was just toy examples" cycles (summer 2025, winter 2025 and spring 2026)
Looking forward to the next "everything before this was trivial and bad, here's the good stuff" moment
Or B that the ideas are there but are not get released as the code is ai slop?
Disesdi Shoshana Cox
[* This is not financial advice. Please don't actually do this.]
The bottom line is that markets are complicated, useful technologies are often accompanied by bubbles, investors are not always rational, and people generally try to make the best decision with the information they have available. The answer is likely somewhere in the middle, but that's a lot more boring and a lot less inflammatory.
Because going long and going short are very different. For successfully shorting something you need to have a pretty precise estimate of when the crash will happen. Being a comparatively short time off can cost you everything.
Most look forward to picking up the assets at a heavy discount. =3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE75WvOtcu8
It is not a question of if the bubble will go, but when... but you are right that Bears or Bulls always get it wrong predicting the future (if they are a legal investor.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTiYaWFP59Q
Personally, Shrek movie release correlation with market corrections is funny, and a new film is due June 2027. Please hedge your bets with a diversified portfolio. =3
Seriously, that was the lowest level of skill I saw in 30 years of development.
Now we have people who can't even do that proudly showing off PRs to widely used products.
"B-b-but I do the systems design and hard thinking".
Sure, buddy.
How does a manager do this, they ask? I answer: the same way they do everything. Lunch. If it doesn't work, at least they tried! Deck chairs, Titanic, etc.
Tbf, I'm not sure we can really lay this one at the feet of GenAI. The SEO bros had pretty thoroughly ruined search before LLMs took off - the process just accelerated a little at that point.
Next to maintaining and expanding my own network of websites I 10xd writing boring CRUD applications for companies that were otherwise unable to afford it, making all their employees more productive. There's true economic value in that.
It's going to be a worldwide software experiment.
You can most definitely ship crap much faster than you used to. It's obvious to anyone when you're shipping crap. And it seems everywhere I look people are shipping crap. Both software and writing.
The hardest part of shipping quality software is not and has never been "writing the code". The hard parts are product taste, architecture and ensuring your product actually solves the problems it should in an efficient and secure manner.
If you don't have an intuition of those, you will likely still be shipping crap. Just faster.
Where AI shines for me is accelerating the learning and exploration process. I can get up to speed with new tech fast. It is good at spotting issues in designs and code. It can knock out quick tests or benchmarks to support me. The quality of what I can produce with AI support is much higher than I could without it.
So it really just depends on what you use it for. If the goal is "replace humans and ship fast" that's one thing. If the goal is "explore the problem space in greater depth", it's another.
you want more SaaS?
The "I tried it and it sucked" is borderline conspiratorial at this point. There are enough talented, thoughtful developers saying there's something real here, and it is worth believing them and investing some time to understand it, even if you come out the other side and decide you don't want to use LLMs.
Use a very good model. Set up a good harness. Spend some time on your system prompts and skills. Develop your intuitions about how the model works, what it's good at, how to scope the work, and how to steer it. Recognize when it's alleviating menial work and recognize when it's making choices you really need to understand yourself. Be patient and accept that the failures are going to be very painful for a while.
Don't write it off until you've genuinely seen the upsides.
However, your discourse is not the usual borderline religious discourse that's used by LLM advocates. You're not extreme enough either pro or against LLMs :)
As far as system prompts and skills, my approach has been to start with nothing and add very specific instructions as I notice issues or feel like I need them. Mostly around trying to keep it terse, kill the obnoxious rhetoric ("It's not X. It's Y"), and give specific guidance on how to write code. Skills are things like "use edge-tts to generate spoken audio for this answer and send it to me" kind of thing.
I tend to agree. Not with the extreme version of this statement: there are some genuinely useful instructions I give in my Claude.md and prompts. Comment style, how much to push back, which subagents to orchestrate for tests, reviews, etc.
But I've tried the single-sentence versions of those and versions with multiple files of long prompts for the orchestrator and its subagents, and I can't tell the difference in output quality. If anything, the shorter version is better
Are those "skills" or just instructions?
My definition for "skills" is the "you are the greatest software architect ever born" type bullshit.
This is ridiculous. Basically you're saying "if you try it and find it sucks, you're wrong, keep at it until you change your mind". That isn't a tool at that point, it's a religion.